Patient Satisfaction: Within Arm’s Reach, or Bending Over Backward?

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:58
Display Headline
Patient Satisfaction: Within Arm’s Reach, or Bending Over Backward?
 

In our December 2016 issue, we reported the results of our first annual survey on nonmonetary compensation (ie, the “perks”) and overall employment satisfaction (Clinician Reviews. 2016;26[12]:23-26). But the feedback I found most interesting came from the narrative responses—particularly those referencing patient satisfaction and the stress it creates for NPs and PAs.

Safety, quality, and affordability have been touted as today’s health care priorities. But it is unclear whether the majority of health care consumers agree with them. Patients may express understanding or accord initially, but when the discussion turns to what is appropriate as opposed to what is desired, conflict may arise.

Judging by the verbatim responses to our survey, NPs and PAs are concerned that quality measures don’t reflect the demands of our practice or focus on what matters to our patients.

One participant analogized, “Medicine is now like McDonalds or Burger King—patients want it their way, regardless of whether it’s in their best interest. I was fee-for-service for more than 10 years. As reimbursements have decreased significantly over time, I’m now employed by a hospital. I have become a waitress, considering my patients’ wishes—not for the benefit of their health, but to meet their more trivial ‘needs.’ These requirements can be as absurd as a specific brand of sweetener! If patients’ preferred sugar substitutes aren’t offered at my hospital, their ‘satisfaction’ may drop and I won’t get reimbursed as much. It’s a miserable experience.”

Perhaps the disparate views of what matters—Is it the softness of the pillows, or is it measurable improvement in the patient’s condition?—is the origin of the stress expressed by clinicians. This dissonance, in my opinion, exists among all involved—providers, patients, and payers. Today, patients see themselves as buyers of health services, and health care corporations have begun to function as a service industry. It may also explain why the concept of patient satisfaction has seemingly morphed into customer service, frustrating many of our colleagues.

Because it can affect clinical outcomes, patient retention, and medical malpractice claims, patient satisfaction is commonly used as a proxy for the success of doctors and hospitals.1 We know there is a correlation between higher patient satisfaction rates and improved outcomes—and conversely, research has demonstrated that unmet expectations significantly decrease satisfaction.2

However, there has been no explicit definition of patient satisfaction, nor systematic consideration of its determinants and consequences.3 As a result, measurement of “satisfaction” and its use as an indicator of quality of care remains controversial among health care providers. It can be a difficult concept to embrace.

Even setting aside the question of “amenities” and focusing on actual clinical care, satisfaction has different meanings for different people. For some, it is a positive, immediate improvement in the patient’s condition (recall my comments on pain management in my previous editorial).4 While that might be an unrealistic expectation, it is a factor in whether the patient and/or family express satisfaction with the care provided.

These high (if not unreasonable) expectations are fueled by the availability of information via the Internet. Patient attitudes and perceptions prior to receiving care also play a role. Instead of correlating with high-quality, appropriate, affordable care, a patient’s satisfaction might instead be based on the fulfillment of his or her predetermined ideas as to what treatment is needed!

The impetus for this change in perspective was the development of the patient-centered care model, which has patient satisfaction at its core.5 The model is intended to make patients partners in their health care; instead of depending solely on provider tools or standards, patients and providers discuss the options and preferences and develop a plan of care together. We all know that the relationship between patients and their providers greatly affects both treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. But implementing a patient-centered care model means understanding and accepting from the start that patients will be asked to rate or judge their health care. It is therefore essential that there is agreement as to the standards that constitute “quality care” and congruence between these beliefs and the satisfaction ratings. You need to know what your patient expects to determine your likelihood of delivering it.

The patient-provider relationship has been a focus of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Hospital Survey, which, since 2006, has measured patients’ perceptions of their hospital experiences.6 The CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey, initiated in 2011, is a standardized tool to measure patients’ perceptions of care in an office setting.7 Data from both surveys are used to improve performance and productivity in these settings. But while the information about quality of care has enabled consumers to make more informed decisions, the data are in many ways limited and subjective.

What cannot be measured by either survey alone is the health of patients, employees, and the community. This limitation is reflected in the feedback to our survey, which suggests a preponderance of NP and PA dissatisfaction with the current methods of evaluating the health care system. How much strain is incurred when evaluative measures fail to demonstrate that high-quality, safe, affordable care is being provided? That is difficult to ascertain, but it does give one pause. We know that providers who experience professional satisfaction have higher overall patient satisfaction scores.8 If we’re frustrated, are we able to provide the highest quality care? If not, our scores will suffer. If our scores drop … around we go again.

Currently, most data collection methods focus on physicians, making NPs and PAs “invisible” providers. That certainly won’t help our satisfaction! Only when the data gleaned from these measurement tools include all ambulatory settings, and all providers are recognized as valued contributors to patient health and satisfaction, will we have the information we need to improve satisfaction levels. That will benefit not only our patients, but also ourselves.

Please share your thoughts on patient satisfaction and “customer service” by emailing [email protected].

References

1. Prakash B. Patient satisfaction. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2010; 3(3):151-155.
2. Jackson JL,Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(4):609-620.
3. Linder-Pelz SU. Toward a theory of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 1982;16(5):577-582.
4. Onieal ME. The paradox of pain management. Clinician Reviews. 2016;26(11):12,16.
5. Rickert J. Measuring patient satisfaction: a bridge between patient and physician perceptions of care. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/05/09/measuring-patient-satisfaction-a-bridge-between-patient-and-physician-perceptions-of-care. Accessed December 1, 2016.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems CAHPS® Hospital Survey. www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed December 1, 2016.
7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey. www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/cg/index.html. Accessed December 1, 2016.
8. Haas JS, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, et al. Is the professional satisfaction of general internists associated with patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(2):122-128.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 27(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
13-14
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Article PDF
Article PDF
 

In our December 2016 issue, we reported the results of our first annual survey on nonmonetary compensation (ie, the “perks”) and overall employment satisfaction (Clinician Reviews. 2016;26[12]:23-26). But the feedback I found most interesting came from the narrative responses—particularly those referencing patient satisfaction and the stress it creates for NPs and PAs.

Safety, quality, and affordability have been touted as today’s health care priorities. But it is unclear whether the majority of health care consumers agree with them. Patients may express understanding or accord initially, but when the discussion turns to what is appropriate as opposed to what is desired, conflict may arise.

Judging by the verbatim responses to our survey, NPs and PAs are concerned that quality measures don’t reflect the demands of our practice or focus on what matters to our patients.

One participant analogized, “Medicine is now like McDonalds or Burger King—patients want it their way, regardless of whether it’s in their best interest. I was fee-for-service for more than 10 years. As reimbursements have decreased significantly over time, I’m now employed by a hospital. I have become a waitress, considering my patients’ wishes—not for the benefit of their health, but to meet their more trivial ‘needs.’ These requirements can be as absurd as a specific brand of sweetener! If patients’ preferred sugar substitutes aren’t offered at my hospital, their ‘satisfaction’ may drop and I won’t get reimbursed as much. It’s a miserable experience.”

Perhaps the disparate views of what matters—Is it the softness of the pillows, or is it measurable improvement in the patient’s condition?—is the origin of the stress expressed by clinicians. This dissonance, in my opinion, exists among all involved—providers, patients, and payers. Today, patients see themselves as buyers of health services, and health care corporations have begun to function as a service industry. It may also explain why the concept of patient satisfaction has seemingly morphed into customer service, frustrating many of our colleagues.

Because it can affect clinical outcomes, patient retention, and medical malpractice claims, patient satisfaction is commonly used as a proxy for the success of doctors and hospitals.1 We know there is a correlation between higher patient satisfaction rates and improved outcomes—and conversely, research has demonstrated that unmet expectations significantly decrease satisfaction.2

However, there has been no explicit definition of patient satisfaction, nor systematic consideration of its determinants and consequences.3 As a result, measurement of “satisfaction” and its use as an indicator of quality of care remains controversial among health care providers. It can be a difficult concept to embrace.

Even setting aside the question of “amenities” and focusing on actual clinical care, satisfaction has different meanings for different people. For some, it is a positive, immediate improvement in the patient’s condition (recall my comments on pain management in my previous editorial).4 While that might be an unrealistic expectation, it is a factor in whether the patient and/or family express satisfaction with the care provided.

These high (if not unreasonable) expectations are fueled by the availability of information via the Internet. Patient attitudes and perceptions prior to receiving care also play a role. Instead of correlating with high-quality, appropriate, affordable care, a patient’s satisfaction might instead be based on the fulfillment of his or her predetermined ideas as to what treatment is needed!

The impetus for this change in perspective was the development of the patient-centered care model, which has patient satisfaction at its core.5 The model is intended to make patients partners in their health care; instead of depending solely on provider tools or standards, patients and providers discuss the options and preferences and develop a plan of care together. We all know that the relationship between patients and their providers greatly affects both treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. But implementing a patient-centered care model means understanding and accepting from the start that patients will be asked to rate or judge their health care. It is therefore essential that there is agreement as to the standards that constitute “quality care” and congruence between these beliefs and the satisfaction ratings. You need to know what your patient expects to determine your likelihood of delivering it.

The patient-provider relationship has been a focus of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Hospital Survey, which, since 2006, has measured patients’ perceptions of their hospital experiences.6 The CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey, initiated in 2011, is a standardized tool to measure patients’ perceptions of care in an office setting.7 Data from both surveys are used to improve performance and productivity in these settings. But while the information about quality of care has enabled consumers to make more informed decisions, the data are in many ways limited and subjective.

What cannot be measured by either survey alone is the health of patients, employees, and the community. This limitation is reflected in the feedback to our survey, which suggests a preponderance of NP and PA dissatisfaction with the current methods of evaluating the health care system. How much strain is incurred when evaluative measures fail to demonstrate that high-quality, safe, affordable care is being provided? That is difficult to ascertain, but it does give one pause. We know that providers who experience professional satisfaction have higher overall patient satisfaction scores.8 If we’re frustrated, are we able to provide the highest quality care? If not, our scores will suffer. If our scores drop … around we go again.

Currently, most data collection methods focus on physicians, making NPs and PAs “invisible” providers. That certainly won’t help our satisfaction! Only when the data gleaned from these measurement tools include all ambulatory settings, and all providers are recognized as valued contributors to patient health and satisfaction, will we have the information we need to improve satisfaction levels. That will benefit not only our patients, but also ourselves.

Please share your thoughts on patient satisfaction and “customer service” by emailing [email protected].

 

In our December 2016 issue, we reported the results of our first annual survey on nonmonetary compensation (ie, the “perks”) and overall employment satisfaction (Clinician Reviews. 2016;26[12]:23-26). But the feedback I found most interesting came from the narrative responses—particularly those referencing patient satisfaction and the stress it creates for NPs and PAs.

Safety, quality, and affordability have been touted as today’s health care priorities. But it is unclear whether the majority of health care consumers agree with them. Patients may express understanding or accord initially, but when the discussion turns to what is appropriate as opposed to what is desired, conflict may arise.

Judging by the verbatim responses to our survey, NPs and PAs are concerned that quality measures don’t reflect the demands of our practice or focus on what matters to our patients.

One participant analogized, “Medicine is now like McDonalds or Burger King—patients want it their way, regardless of whether it’s in their best interest. I was fee-for-service for more than 10 years. As reimbursements have decreased significantly over time, I’m now employed by a hospital. I have become a waitress, considering my patients’ wishes—not for the benefit of their health, but to meet their more trivial ‘needs.’ These requirements can be as absurd as a specific brand of sweetener! If patients’ preferred sugar substitutes aren’t offered at my hospital, their ‘satisfaction’ may drop and I won’t get reimbursed as much. It’s a miserable experience.”

Perhaps the disparate views of what matters—Is it the softness of the pillows, or is it measurable improvement in the patient’s condition?—is the origin of the stress expressed by clinicians. This dissonance, in my opinion, exists among all involved—providers, patients, and payers. Today, patients see themselves as buyers of health services, and health care corporations have begun to function as a service industry. It may also explain why the concept of patient satisfaction has seemingly morphed into customer service, frustrating many of our colleagues.

Because it can affect clinical outcomes, patient retention, and medical malpractice claims, patient satisfaction is commonly used as a proxy for the success of doctors and hospitals.1 We know there is a correlation between higher patient satisfaction rates and improved outcomes—and conversely, research has demonstrated that unmet expectations significantly decrease satisfaction.2

However, there has been no explicit definition of patient satisfaction, nor systematic consideration of its determinants and consequences.3 As a result, measurement of “satisfaction” and its use as an indicator of quality of care remains controversial among health care providers. It can be a difficult concept to embrace.

Even setting aside the question of “amenities” and focusing on actual clinical care, satisfaction has different meanings for different people. For some, it is a positive, immediate improvement in the patient’s condition (recall my comments on pain management in my previous editorial).4 While that might be an unrealistic expectation, it is a factor in whether the patient and/or family express satisfaction with the care provided.

These high (if not unreasonable) expectations are fueled by the availability of information via the Internet. Patient attitudes and perceptions prior to receiving care also play a role. Instead of correlating with high-quality, appropriate, affordable care, a patient’s satisfaction might instead be based on the fulfillment of his or her predetermined ideas as to what treatment is needed!

The impetus for this change in perspective was the development of the patient-centered care model, which has patient satisfaction at its core.5 The model is intended to make patients partners in their health care; instead of depending solely on provider tools or standards, patients and providers discuss the options and preferences and develop a plan of care together. We all know that the relationship between patients and their providers greatly affects both treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. But implementing a patient-centered care model means understanding and accepting from the start that patients will be asked to rate or judge their health care. It is therefore essential that there is agreement as to the standards that constitute “quality care” and congruence between these beliefs and the satisfaction ratings. You need to know what your patient expects to determine your likelihood of delivering it.

The patient-provider relationship has been a focus of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Hospital Survey, which, since 2006, has measured patients’ perceptions of their hospital experiences.6 The CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey, initiated in 2011, is a standardized tool to measure patients’ perceptions of care in an office setting.7 Data from both surveys are used to improve performance and productivity in these settings. But while the information about quality of care has enabled consumers to make more informed decisions, the data are in many ways limited and subjective.

What cannot be measured by either survey alone is the health of patients, employees, and the community. This limitation is reflected in the feedback to our survey, which suggests a preponderance of NP and PA dissatisfaction with the current methods of evaluating the health care system. How much strain is incurred when evaluative measures fail to demonstrate that high-quality, safe, affordable care is being provided? That is difficult to ascertain, but it does give one pause. We know that providers who experience professional satisfaction have higher overall patient satisfaction scores.8 If we’re frustrated, are we able to provide the highest quality care? If not, our scores will suffer. If our scores drop … around we go again.

Currently, most data collection methods focus on physicians, making NPs and PAs “invisible” providers. That certainly won’t help our satisfaction! Only when the data gleaned from these measurement tools include all ambulatory settings, and all providers are recognized as valued contributors to patient health and satisfaction, will we have the information we need to improve satisfaction levels. That will benefit not only our patients, but also ourselves.

Please share your thoughts on patient satisfaction and “customer service” by emailing [email protected].

References

1. Prakash B. Patient satisfaction. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2010; 3(3):151-155.
2. Jackson JL,Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(4):609-620.
3. Linder-Pelz SU. Toward a theory of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 1982;16(5):577-582.
4. Onieal ME. The paradox of pain management. Clinician Reviews. 2016;26(11):12,16.
5. Rickert J. Measuring patient satisfaction: a bridge between patient and physician perceptions of care. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/05/09/measuring-patient-satisfaction-a-bridge-between-patient-and-physician-perceptions-of-care. Accessed December 1, 2016.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems CAHPS® Hospital Survey. www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed December 1, 2016.
7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey. www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/cg/index.html. Accessed December 1, 2016.
8. Haas JS, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, et al. Is the professional satisfaction of general internists associated with patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(2):122-128.

References

1. Prakash B. Patient satisfaction. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2010; 3(3):151-155.
2. Jackson JL,Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(4):609-620.
3. Linder-Pelz SU. Toward a theory of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 1982;16(5):577-582.
4. Onieal ME. The paradox of pain management. Clinician Reviews. 2016;26(11):12,16.
5. Rickert J. Measuring patient satisfaction: a bridge between patient and physician perceptions of care. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/05/09/measuring-patient-satisfaction-a-bridge-between-patient-and-physician-perceptions-of-care. Accessed December 1, 2016.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems CAHPS® Hospital Survey. www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed December 1, 2016.
7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey. www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/cg/index.html. Accessed December 1, 2016.
8. Haas JS, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, et al. Is the professional satisfaction of general internists associated with patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(2):122-128.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 27(1)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 27(1)
Page Number
13-14
Page Number
13-14
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Patient Satisfaction: Within Arm’s Reach, or Bending Over Backward?
Display Headline
Patient Satisfaction: Within Arm’s Reach, or Bending Over Backward?
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Article PDF Media

It’s working! (No it’s not! Yes it is!)

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:58


A man walks into a doctor’s office, snapping his fingers.

“Why are you snapping your fingers?” asks the doctor.

“To keep the elephants away,” says the man, still snapping his fingers.

“That’s ridiculous!” says the doctor. “There are no elephants within 3,000 miles of here!”

“You see,” says the man, still snapping. “It’s working!”

Dr. Alan Rockoff
One of the hardest points to get across to students is that much of the effectiveness of medical treatment lies in the mind of the patient, not just in or on his or her body.

Even saying that sounds strange. Don’t we physicians apply the evidence-based fruits of science? What does the patient’s mind have to do with that?

Yesterday we saw Emma, who spent 5 years in Austria. On her back was perfectly circular purpura.

“Who does your cupping?” I asked her.

“My acupuncturist,” said Emma. “He does cupping too.”

“What’s it for?”

“Aches and pains, stress, that sort of thing.”

“Does it help?”

“It seems to,” said Emma. Sometimes, anyway.”

Later I asked my student what she thought Emma meant. “What did Emma see or feel to make her conclude that cupping was working, at least sometimes? Did she feel better Tuesday than Monday? What if she felt worse again Wednesday? Would that mean the treatment wasn’t working anymore? That it works some days and not others?”

If you think this line of analysis applies only to exotic forms of alternative medicine, consider how often we could ask the same questions about the medically approved treatments we prescribe every day.

Acne

• Henrietta, for whom I’d prescribed clindamycin in the morning and tretinoin at night. Her verdict? “I stopped the clindamycin because it didn’t work. But I love the tretinoin—it works great!”

Since she was putting both creams on exactly the same area, what did Henrietta observe to lead her to this paradoxical conclusion?

• Janet has two pimples, yet she’s decided that minocycline doesn’t work. Her evidence? “I still get breakouts around my period.”

Eczema

• “Amcinonide worked amazingly but clobetasol didn’t work at all!”

• “I stopped the betamethasone. Calendula works better.”

• And of course: “Sure the cream helped, but the rash came back!”

Patients say things like this all day long. From a medical standpoint, active ingredients work better than inert vehicles. In theory, class 1 steroids are more effective than class 3 steroids.

Perhaps, but many of my patients don’t agree. Maybe their eczema has gone into remission, in which case anything will work. Even if so, there is no way I can prove that to them. So I usually don’t try.

Psoriasis

“Your psoriasis looks better.”

“No, it’s worse.”

“Why? It covers a lot less skin than it used to.”

“But now it’s coming in new places.”

One could go on. With my students, I often do. If they learn nothing else, I try to convey the essential difference between a person and a toaster. Which is this:

If you know how to fix a toaster, the toaster does not have to agree with you.

A person is another matter. Patients have minds to go with their parts. They pick up knowledge from places doctors have never been and make inferences doctors would never make. Then they act on this knowledge and those inferences by saying things like: “The morning cream didn’t work but the night cream did, so I stopped the morning cream.”

I therefore advise students to ask patients two questions first thing:

• What treatments are the patients actually using? Assuming that they are doing what the chart says you asked them to do can jam your foot so deep in your mouth that you’ll never get it out.

• How do the patients themselves think they’re doing? One man with a couple of pimples or scaly spots is thrilled. Another with the same pimples or spots is miserable. It’s helpful to find out which he is before making suggestions. (See foot in mouth, above.)

Emma, by the way, was unhappy that she couldn’t find a practitioner of craniosacral therapy (look it up) as proficient as the one she had in Austria.

I asked her how she judged proficiency but won’t bother you with her answer. I just referred her to a physician who practices both Eastern and Western medicine.

That worked for her.
 

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass, and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His new book “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient” is now available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. This is his second book. Write to him at [email protected] .

Publications
Topics
Sections


A man walks into a doctor’s office, snapping his fingers.

“Why are you snapping your fingers?” asks the doctor.

“To keep the elephants away,” says the man, still snapping his fingers.

“That’s ridiculous!” says the doctor. “There are no elephants within 3,000 miles of here!”

“You see,” says the man, still snapping. “It’s working!”

Dr. Alan Rockoff
One of the hardest points to get across to students is that much of the effectiveness of medical treatment lies in the mind of the patient, not just in or on his or her body.

Even saying that sounds strange. Don’t we physicians apply the evidence-based fruits of science? What does the patient’s mind have to do with that?

Yesterday we saw Emma, who spent 5 years in Austria. On her back was perfectly circular purpura.

“Who does your cupping?” I asked her.

“My acupuncturist,” said Emma. “He does cupping too.”

“What’s it for?”

“Aches and pains, stress, that sort of thing.”

“Does it help?”

“It seems to,” said Emma. Sometimes, anyway.”

Later I asked my student what she thought Emma meant. “What did Emma see or feel to make her conclude that cupping was working, at least sometimes? Did she feel better Tuesday than Monday? What if she felt worse again Wednesday? Would that mean the treatment wasn’t working anymore? That it works some days and not others?”

If you think this line of analysis applies only to exotic forms of alternative medicine, consider how often we could ask the same questions about the medically approved treatments we prescribe every day.

Acne

• Henrietta, for whom I’d prescribed clindamycin in the morning and tretinoin at night. Her verdict? “I stopped the clindamycin because it didn’t work. But I love the tretinoin—it works great!”

Since she was putting both creams on exactly the same area, what did Henrietta observe to lead her to this paradoxical conclusion?

• Janet has two pimples, yet she’s decided that minocycline doesn’t work. Her evidence? “I still get breakouts around my period.”

Eczema

• “Amcinonide worked amazingly but clobetasol didn’t work at all!”

• “I stopped the betamethasone. Calendula works better.”

• And of course: “Sure the cream helped, but the rash came back!”

Patients say things like this all day long. From a medical standpoint, active ingredients work better than inert vehicles. In theory, class 1 steroids are more effective than class 3 steroids.

Perhaps, but many of my patients don’t agree. Maybe their eczema has gone into remission, in which case anything will work. Even if so, there is no way I can prove that to them. So I usually don’t try.

Psoriasis

“Your psoriasis looks better.”

“No, it’s worse.”

“Why? It covers a lot less skin than it used to.”

“But now it’s coming in new places.”

One could go on. With my students, I often do. If they learn nothing else, I try to convey the essential difference between a person and a toaster. Which is this:

If you know how to fix a toaster, the toaster does not have to agree with you.

A person is another matter. Patients have minds to go with their parts. They pick up knowledge from places doctors have never been and make inferences doctors would never make. Then they act on this knowledge and those inferences by saying things like: “The morning cream didn’t work but the night cream did, so I stopped the morning cream.”

I therefore advise students to ask patients two questions first thing:

• What treatments are the patients actually using? Assuming that they are doing what the chart says you asked them to do can jam your foot so deep in your mouth that you’ll never get it out.

• How do the patients themselves think they’re doing? One man with a couple of pimples or scaly spots is thrilled. Another with the same pimples or spots is miserable. It’s helpful to find out which he is before making suggestions. (See foot in mouth, above.)

Emma, by the way, was unhappy that she couldn’t find a practitioner of craniosacral therapy (look it up) as proficient as the one she had in Austria.

I asked her how she judged proficiency but won’t bother you with her answer. I just referred her to a physician who practices both Eastern and Western medicine.

That worked for her.
 

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass, and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His new book “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient” is now available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. This is his second book. Write to him at [email protected] .


A man walks into a doctor’s office, snapping his fingers.

“Why are you snapping your fingers?” asks the doctor.

“To keep the elephants away,” says the man, still snapping his fingers.

“That’s ridiculous!” says the doctor. “There are no elephants within 3,000 miles of here!”

“You see,” says the man, still snapping. “It’s working!”

Dr. Alan Rockoff
One of the hardest points to get across to students is that much of the effectiveness of medical treatment lies in the mind of the patient, not just in or on his or her body.

Even saying that sounds strange. Don’t we physicians apply the evidence-based fruits of science? What does the patient’s mind have to do with that?

Yesterday we saw Emma, who spent 5 years in Austria. On her back was perfectly circular purpura.

“Who does your cupping?” I asked her.

“My acupuncturist,” said Emma. “He does cupping too.”

“What’s it for?”

“Aches and pains, stress, that sort of thing.”

“Does it help?”

“It seems to,” said Emma. Sometimes, anyway.”

Later I asked my student what she thought Emma meant. “What did Emma see or feel to make her conclude that cupping was working, at least sometimes? Did she feel better Tuesday than Monday? What if she felt worse again Wednesday? Would that mean the treatment wasn’t working anymore? That it works some days and not others?”

If you think this line of analysis applies only to exotic forms of alternative medicine, consider how often we could ask the same questions about the medically approved treatments we prescribe every day.

Acne

• Henrietta, for whom I’d prescribed clindamycin in the morning and tretinoin at night. Her verdict? “I stopped the clindamycin because it didn’t work. But I love the tretinoin—it works great!”

Since she was putting both creams on exactly the same area, what did Henrietta observe to lead her to this paradoxical conclusion?

• Janet has two pimples, yet she’s decided that minocycline doesn’t work. Her evidence? “I still get breakouts around my period.”

Eczema

• “Amcinonide worked amazingly but clobetasol didn’t work at all!”

• “I stopped the betamethasone. Calendula works better.”

• And of course: “Sure the cream helped, but the rash came back!”

Patients say things like this all day long. From a medical standpoint, active ingredients work better than inert vehicles. In theory, class 1 steroids are more effective than class 3 steroids.

Perhaps, but many of my patients don’t agree. Maybe their eczema has gone into remission, in which case anything will work. Even if so, there is no way I can prove that to them. So I usually don’t try.

Psoriasis

“Your psoriasis looks better.”

“No, it’s worse.”

“Why? It covers a lot less skin than it used to.”

“But now it’s coming in new places.”

One could go on. With my students, I often do. If they learn nothing else, I try to convey the essential difference between a person and a toaster. Which is this:

If you know how to fix a toaster, the toaster does not have to agree with you.

A person is another matter. Patients have minds to go with their parts. They pick up knowledge from places doctors have never been and make inferences doctors would never make. Then they act on this knowledge and those inferences by saying things like: “The morning cream didn’t work but the night cream did, so I stopped the morning cream.”

I therefore advise students to ask patients two questions first thing:

• What treatments are the patients actually using? Assuming that they are doing what the chart says you asked them to do can jam your foot so deep in your mouth that you’ll never get it out.

• How do the patients themselves think they’re doing? One man with a couple of pimples or scaly spots is thrilled. Another with the same pimples or spots is miserable. It’s helpful to find out which he is before making suggestions. (See foot in mouth, above.)

Emma, by the way, was unhappy that she couldn’t find a practitioner of craniosacral therapy (look it up) as proficient as the one she had in Austria.

I asked her how she judged proficiency but won’t bother you with her answer. I just referred her to a physician who practices both Eastern and Western medicine.

That worked for her.
 

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass, and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His new book “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient” is now available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. This is his second book. Write to him at [email protected] .

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

FOUND IN TRANSLATION Minimal nomenclature and maximum sensitivity complicate MRD measures

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 09:57

 

In hematologic malignancies, there is a deep and direct connection between each individual patient, that patient’s symptoms, the visible cells that cause the disease, and the direct measurements and assessments of those cells. The totality of these factors helps to determine the diagnosis and treatment plan. As a butterfly needle often is sufficient for obtaining a diagnostic tumor biopsy, it is not surprising that these same diagnostic techniques are now standardly being used to monitor disease response.

The techniques differ in their limits of detection, however. With sequencing depths able to reliably detect variant allele frequencies of less than 10%, even when patients’ overt leukemia may no longer be detectable, clinicians may be left to ponder what to do with persistent “preleukemic” or “rising clones.”1-3

Dr. Aaron Viny
Clearly, minimal residual disease (MRD) status is prognostic and can be used to risk stratify patients for appropriate postremission therapy, as noted in the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) clinical practice guidelines for postinduction assessment in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Given the high risk of relapse in this population, consideration of upfront allogeneic stem cell transplant in MRD-positive ALL patients is recommended by the NCCN. Similarly, given the high risk of MRD-positive status in AML patients, clinical trials are examining agents such as SL-401 for consolidation therapy in MRD-positive AML in CR1 or CR2, as noted in work presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH 2016) by Andrew Lane, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and his colleagues.4

These patients, now more appropriately stratified for risk of recurrence, are in desperate need of better care algorithms. Standard MRD assessment by flow cytometric analysis is able to detect less than 1 x 10-4 cells. While it can be applied to most patients, its sensitivity will likely be surpassed by new and emerging genomic assays. Real time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and next generation sequencing (NGS) require a leukemia-specific abnormality but have the potential for far greater sensitivity with deeper sequencing techniques.

Long-term follow up data in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) provides the illustrative example where morphologic remission is not durable in the setting of a persistent PML-RARa transcript and therapeutic goals for PCR negativity irrespective of morphology are standard. Pathologic fusion proteins are ideal for marker-driven therapy, but are found in only about 50% of patients, mainly those with APL and Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias.

With driver mutations identified in the majority of patients, we can be hopeful that NGS negativity may be a useful clinical endpoint. In work presented at ASH 2016 by Bartlomiej M Getta, MBBS, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his colleagues, patients with concordant MRD positivity by flow cytometry and NGS had inferior outcomes, even after allogeneic transplant, compared to patients with MRD positivity on one assay but not both.5 Nonetheless, caution should be taken in early adoption of NGS as a independent marker of MRD status for two main reasons: 1) False positives and lack of standardization make current interpretation difficult. 2) The presence of “preleukemic” clones remains enigmatic – and no matter the nomenclature used, can a DNMT3A or IDH-mutant clone really be deemed “clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential” when a patient has already had clonal transformation?

Conversely, not all patients reported in the work by Klco2 and Getta ultimately relapse. Thus, while it would be preferred to clear all mutant clones, as a therapeutic goal this likely would subject many patients to unnecessary toxicity. One half of the patients reported by Getta were disease free at a year with concordant flow and NGS positive MRD while patients with NGS positivity alone had outcomes equivalent to those of MRD-negative patients, highlighting that certain persistent clones in NGS-only, MRD-positive patients might be amenable to immunotherapy, either with checkpoint inhibitors or allogeneic transplant. Insight into which clones remain quiescent and which are more sinister will require more investigation, but there does seem to be an additive role to NGS-positivity, whereby all MRD is not created equal and the precision and clinical utility of MRD status will likely take on nuanced nomenclature.
 

References

1. Jan, M. et al. Clonal evolution of preleukemic hematopoietic stem cells precedes human acute myeloid leukemia. Science Translational Medicine 4, 149ra118, doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004315 (2012).

2. Klco, J. M. et al. Association Between Mutation Clearance After Induction Therapy and Outcomes in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. JAMA 2015;314:811-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.9643.

3. Wong, T. N. et al. Rapid expansion of preexisting nonleukemic hematopoietic clones frequently follows induction therapy for de novo AML. Blood 2016;127:893-7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-10-677021 (2016).

4. Lane, A. A. et al. Results from Ongoing Phase II Trial of SL-401 As Consolidation Therapy in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in Remission with High Relapse Risk Including Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), Abstract 215, ASH 2016.

5. Getta, B. M. et al. Multicolor Flow Cytometry and Multi-Gene Next Generation Sequencing Are Complimentary and Highly Predictive for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Following Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant, Abstract 834, ASH 2016.

 

 

Dr. Viny is with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, where he is a clinical instructor, on the staff of the leukemia service, and a clinical researcher in The Ross Levine Lab. Contact Dr. Viny at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

In hematologic malignancies, there is a deep and direct connection between each individual patient, that patient’s symptoms, the visible cells that cause the disease, and the direct measurements and assessments of those cells. The totality of these factors helps to determine the diagnosis and treatment plan. As a butterfly needle often is sufficient for obtaining a diagnostic tumor biopsy, it is not surprising that these same diagnostic techniques are now standardly being used to monitor disease response.

The techniques differ in their limits of detection, however. With sequencing depths able to reliably detect variant allele frequencies of less than 10%, even when patients’ overt leukemia may no longer be detectable, clinicians may be left to ponder what to do with persistent “preleukemic” or “rising clones.”1-3

Dr. Aaron Viny
Clearly, minimal residual disease (MRD) status is prognostic and can be used to risk stratify patients for appropriate postremission therapy, as noted in the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) clinical practice guidelines for postinduction assessment in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Given the high risk of relapse in this population, consideration of upfront allogeneic stem cell transplant in MRD-positive ALL patients is recommended by the NCCN. Similarly, given the high risk of MRD-positive status in AML patients, clinical trials are examining agents such as SL-401 for consolidation therapy in MRD-positive AML in CR1 or CR2, as noted in work presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH 2016) by Andrew Lane, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and his colleagues.4

These patients, now more appropriately stratified for risk of recurrence, are in desperate need of better care algorithms. Standard MRD assessment by flow cytometric analysis is able to detect less than 1 x 10-4 cells. While it can be applied to most patients, its sensitivity will likely be surpassed by new and emerging genomic assays. Real time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and next generation sequencing (NGS) require a leukemia-specific abnormality but have the potential for far greater sensitivity with deeper sequencing techniques.

Long-term follow up data in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) provides the illustrative example where morphologic remission is not durable in the setting of a persistent PML-RARa transcript and therapeutic goals for PCR negativity irrespective of morphology are standard. Pathologic fusion proteins are ideal for marker-driven therapy, but are found in only about 50% of patients, mainly those with APL and Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias.

With driver mutations identified in the majority of patients, we can be hopeful that NGS negativity may be a useful clinical endpoint. In work presented at ASH 2016 by Bartlomiej M Getta, MBBS, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his colleagues, patients with concordant MRD positivity by flow cytometry and NGS had inferior outcomes, even after allogeneic transplant, compared to patients with MRD positivity on one assay but not both.5 Nonetheless, caution should be taken in early adoption of NGS as a independent marker of MRD status for two main reasons: 1) False positives and lack of standardization make current interpretation difficult. 2) The presence of “preleukemic” clones remains enigmatic – and no matter the nomenclature used, can a DNMT3A or IDH-mutant clone really be deemed “clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential” when a patient has already had clonal transformation?

Conversely, not all patients reported in the work by Klco2 and Getta ultimately relapse. Thus, while it would be preferred to clear all mutant clones, as a therapeutic goal this likely would subject many patients to unnecessary toxicity. One half of the patients reported by Getta were disease free at a year with concordant flow and NGS positive MRD while patients with NGS positivity alone had outcomes equivalent to those of MRD-negative patients, highlighting that certain persistent clones in NGS-only, MRD-positive patients might be amenable to immunotherapy, either with checkpoint inhibitors or allogeneic transplant. Insight into which clones remain quiescent and which are more sinister will require more investigation, but there does seem to be an additive role to NGS-positivity, whereby all MRD is not created equal and the precision and clinical utility of MRD status will likely take on nuanced nomenclature.
 

References

1. Jan, M. et al. Clonal evolution of preleukemic hematopoietic stem cells precedes human acute myeloid leukemia. Science Translational Medicine 4, 149ra118, doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004315 (2012).

2. Klco, J. M. et al. Association Between Mutation Clearance After Induction Therapy and Outcomes in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. JAMA 2015;314:811-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.9643.

3. Wong, T. N. et al. Rapid expansion of preexisting nonleukemic hematopoietic clones frequently follows induction therapy for de novo AML. Blood 2016;127:893-7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-10-677021 (2016).

4. Lane, A. A. et al. Results from Ongoing Phase II Trial of SL-401 As Consolidation Therapy in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in Remission with High Relapse Risk Including Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), Abstract 215, ASH 2016.

5. Getta, B. M. et al. Multicolor Flow Cytometry and Multi-Gene Next Generation Sequencing Are Complimentary and Highly Predictive for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Following Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant, Abstract 834, ASH 2016.

 

 

Dr. Viny is with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, where he is a clinical instructor, on the staff of the leukemia service, and a clinical researcher in The Ross Levine Lab. Contact Dr. Viny at [email protected].

 

In hematologic malignancies, there is a deep and direct connection between each individual patient, that patient’s symptoms, the visible cells that cause the disease, and the direct measurements and assessments of those cells. The totality of these factors helps to determine the diagnosis and treatment plan. As a butterfly needle often is sufficient for obtaining a diagnostic tumor biopsy, it is not surprising that these same diagnostic techniques are now standardly being used to monitor disease response.

The techniques differ in their limits of detection, however. With sequencing depths able to reliably detect variant allele frequencies of less than 10%, even when patients’ overt leukemia may no longer be detectable, clinicians may be left to ponder what to do with persistent “preleukemic” or “rising clones.”1-3

Dr. Aaron Viny
Clearly, minimal residual disease (MRD) status is prognostic and can be used to risk stratify patients for appropriate postremission therapy, as noted in the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) clinical practice guidelines for postinduction assessment in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Given the high risk of relapse in this population, consideration of upfront allogeneic stem cell transplant in MRD-positive ALL patients is recommended by the NCCN. Similarly, given the high risk of MRD-positive status in AML patients, clinical trials are examining agents such as SL-401 for consolidation therapy in MRD-positive AML in CR1 or CR2, as noted in work presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH 2016) by Andrew Lane, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and his colleagues.4

These patients, now more appropriately stratified for risk of recurrence, are in desperate need of better care algorithms. Standard MRD assessment by flow cytometric analysis is able to detect less than 1 x 10-4 cells. While it can be applied to most patients, its sensitivity will likely be surpassed by new and emerging genomic assays. Real time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and next generation sequencing (NGS) require a leukemia-specific abnormality but have the potential for far greater sensitivity with deeper sequencing techniques.

Long-term follow up data in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) provides the illustrative example where morphologic remission is not durable in the setting of a persistent PML-RARa transcript and therapeutic goals for PCR negativity irrespective of morphology are standard. Pathologic fusion proteins are ideal for marker-driven therapy, but are found in only about 50% of patients, mainly those with APL and Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias.

With driver mutations identified in the majority of patients, we can be hopeful that NGS negativity may be a useful clinical endpoint. In work presented at ASH 2016 by Bartlomiej M Getta, MBBS, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his colleagues, patients with concordant MRD positivity by flow cytometry and NGS had inferior outcomes, even after allogeneic transplant, compared to patients with MRD positivity on one assay but not both.5 Nonetheless, caution should be taken in early adoption of NGS as a independent marker of MRD status for two main reasons: 1) False positives and lack of standardization make current interpretation difficult. 2) The presence of “preleukemic” clones remains enigmatic – and no matter the nomenclature used, can a DNMT3A or IDH-mutant clone really be deemed “clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential” when a patient has already had clonal transformation?

Conversely, not all patients reported in the work by Klco2 and Getta ultimately relapse. Thus, while it would be preferred to clear all mutant clones, as a therapeutic goal this likely would subject many patients to unnecessary toxicity. One half of the patients reported by Getta were disease free at a year with concordant flow and NGS positive MRD while patients with NGS positivity alone had outcomes equivalent to those of MRD-negative patients, highlighting that certain persistent clones in NGS-only, MRD-positive patients might be amenable to immunotherapy, either with checkpoint inhibitors or allogeneic transplant. Insight into which clones remain quiescent and which are more sinister will require more investigation, but there does seem to be an additive role to NGS-positivity, whereby all MRD is not created equal and the precision and clinical utility of MRD status will likely take on nuanced nomenclature.
 

References

1. Jan, M. et al. Clonal evolution of preleukemic hematopoietic stem cells precedes human acute myeloid leukemia. Science Translational Medicine 4, 149ra118, doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004315 (2012).

2. Klco, J. M. et al. Association Between Mutation Clearance After Induction Therapy and Outcomes in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. JAMA 2015;314:811-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.9643.

3. Wong, T. N. et al. Rapid expansion of preexisting nonleukemic hematopoietic clones frequently follows induction therapy for de novo AML. Blood 2016;127:893-7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-10-677021 (2016).

4. Lane, A. A. et al. Results from Ongoing Phase II Trial of SL-401 As Consolidation Therapy in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in Remission with High Relapse Risk Including Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), Abstract 215, ASH 2016.

5. Getta, B. M. et al. Multicolor Flow Cytometry and Multi-Gene Next Generation Sequencing Are Complimentary and Highly Predictive for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Following Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant, Abstract 834, ASH 2016.

 

 

Dr. Viny is with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, where he is a clinical instructor, on the staff of the leukemia service, and a clinical researcher in The Ross Levine Lab. Contact Dr. Viny at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Stress management for ambitious students

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:26

 

Most parents hope that their children will be motivated and hard-working at school, but ambitious students usually face very high levels of stress. Ambitious young people typically push themselves very hard and may not spend enough time in play, relaxation, or exploring potential interests. Their time with peers might be more competitive than social or fun. They may become rigidly focused on a goal, paving the way for devastation if they fall short of their own expectations. They may internalize stress and not ask for help if it starts to take a toll on their mental health. But ambition is not incompatible with healthy development and well-being. Pediatricians usually know who the ambitious students in their practice are, and will hear about the stress they may be experiencing. You have the opportunity to offer them (or their parents) some strategies to manage their high stress levels, and build resilience.

Support ambition, but not perfectionism

It can be helpful to acknowledge to young people that they are ambitious, enabling them to acknowledge this fact about themselves. This kind of drive can be an admirable strength when it is part of an emerging identity, a wish to be successful as defined by the patient.

Dr. Susan D. Swick

It is more likely to be problematic if it is a product of a parent’s need to have a child perform as they deem best. Second, it is critical to differentiate ambition from perfectionism. While ambition can keep someone focused and motivated in the face of difficulty, perfectionism is a bully that leaves a person feeling perpetually inadequate. Ambition without a specific interest or focus can lead to general perfectionism in a young person, and parents might unwittingly support this by applauding successes or becoming overinvested in this success reflecting onto them. When the pediatrician points out to a patient (and parents) that perfection is neither possible nor desirable, they may respond, “why wouldn’t I want to be perfect?” Remind them that perfectionism is actually the enemy of long-term accomplishment, discouraging risk-taking, reflection, and growth.

Celebrate failure!

The critical difference between an ambitious person who is persistent and determined (and thus equipped to succeed) and the brittle perfectionist is the ability to tolerate failure and setbacks. Point out to your patients that ambition means there will be a lot of setbacks, disappointments, and failures, as they attempt things that are challenging. Indeed, they should embrace each little failure, as that is how real learning and growth happen, especially if they are constantly stretching their goals.

As children or teenagers learn that failure is evidence that they are on track, working hard, and improving, they will develop tenacity and flexibility. Carol S. Dweck, PhD, a psychologist who has studied school performance in young people, has demonstrated that when young people are praised for their results they tend to give up when they fail, whereas if they are praised for their hard work and persistence, they redouble their effort when they fail. Parents, teachers, and pediatricians have the power to shift an ambitious child’s mindset (Dweck’s term) by helping the child change his or her thinking about what failure really means.

Dr. Michael S. Jellinek

Cultivate self-awareness and perspective

It is one of the central tasks of growing up to learn what one’s interests, talents, and values are, and this self-knowledge is especially critical in ambitious young people. Without genuine interests or passions, ambition may feel like a hollow quest for approval. It is more likely to become general perfectionism. So children and teenagers need adults who are curious about their underlying interests, who patiently help them to cultivate these interests and dedicate their ambition to the pursuit of these passions. Younger children need adult time and support to explore a variety of interests, dabbling so they might figure out where their interests and talents converge. This can provide plenty of opportunity to celebrate effort over achievement. By adolescence, they should have a clearer sense of their personal interests and abilities, and will be deepening their efforts in fewer areas. Adolescence is also when they start to build a narrative of who they are and what values are truly their own. Parents can serve as models and facilitators for their teenagers’ emerging sets of values. Values such as honesty, compassion, or generosity (for example) organize one’s efforts, giving them deeper meaning and keeping difficulties in perspective. Values also will help ambitious young people set their own goals and create an individualized and meaningful definition of success, and keep bigger failures, losses, or disappointments in perspective.

 

 

Teach self-care

It seems obvious to state that learning how to care for one’s self is essential to well-being, but for ambitious young people (and adults), self-care is often the first thing to go (or the last thing they consider) in their busy days. Explain to your patients (and parents) that without adequate, consistent, restful sleep, all of their hard work will be inefficient or likely squandered. Explain that daily cardiovascular exercise is not frivolous, but rather essential to balance their cognitive efforts, and offers potent protection for their physical and mental health. There is even robust evidence that sleep and exercise are directly helpful to memory, learning, and creativity. When a parent models this kind of self-care, it is far more powerful than simply talking about it!

Relaxation is self-care!

While most teenagers do not need to be taught how to relax, those very ambitious ones are likely to need permission and even help in learning how to effectively and efficiently blow off steam. Help them to approach relaxation as they would approach a new subject, open-minded and trying different things to determine what works for them. Some may find exercise relaxing, while some may need a cognitive distraction (sometimes called “senseless fun,” an activity not dedicated to achievement) such as reading, family games, or television. Social time often is very effective relaxation for teenagers, and they should know that it is as important as sleep and studying for their performance. Some may find that a calming activity such as yoga or meditation recharges their batteries, whereas others may need noisy video games to feel renewed. Suggest that they should protect (just a little) time for relaxation even on their busiest days to help them develop good habits of self-care. Without consistent, reliable relaxation, ambitious young people are at risk for burnout or for impulsive and extreme behaviors such as binge-drinking.

Be on the lookout for red flags

In the same way that high performing athletes are at risk for stress fractures or other injuries of repetitive, intense physical activity, ambitious students are vulnerable to some of the problems that can follow sustained, intense cognitive effort. These risks go up if they are sleep deprived, stop exercising, or are socially isolated. Parents can be on the lookout for signs of depression or anxiety disorders, such as loss of energy, withdrawal from friends or beloved activities, persistent unhappiness or irritability (sustained over days to weeks), and of course morbid preoccupations.

Intense perfectionism is common among young people at risk for eating disorders, depression and self-injury, and anxiety disorders. Beyond recognizing signs, it is even more important for parents and pediatricians to equip ambitious young people to stay connected and ask for help if they experience a change in their emotional equilibrium. Suggest to your patients that they should never worry alone. They should ask for help if they are struggling to sleep, to sustain their motivation or effort, or notice feeling panicked, unusually tearful, or hopeless. Depression and anxiety are common and treatable problems in adolescents, but ambitious adolescents might be inclined to try to soldier through them. Caring adults should demystify and destigmatize mood and anxiety problems. You might point out that they would ask for help for a toothache or a painful knee joint, and that their mental health should be no different.

Many ambitious children have ambitious parents who might look back on their own adolescence and wonder if they were sufficiently balanced in their approach or whether they overreacted to failure. Sometimes honest sharing of successes, failures, and enduring dilemmas can build an empathic bridge from one generation to the next.
 

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Most parents hope that their children will be motivated and hard-working at school, but ambitious students usually face very high levels of stress. Ambitious young people typically push themselves very hard and may not spend enough time in play, relaxation, or exploring potential interests. Their time with peers might be more competitive than social or fun. They may become rigidly focused on a goal, paving the way for devastation if they fall short of their own expectations. They may internalize stress and not ask for help if it starts to take a toll on their mental health. But ambition is not incompatible with healthy development and well-being. Pediatricians usually know who the ambitious students in their practice are, and will hear about the stress they may be experiencing. You have the opportunity to offer them (or their parents) some strategies to manage their high stress levels, and build resilience.

Support ambition, but not perfectionism

It can be helpful to acknowledge to young people that they are ambitious, enabling them to acknowledge this fact about themselves. This kind of drive can be an admirable strength when it is part of an emerging identity, a wish to be successful as defined by the patient.

Dr. Susan D. Swick

It is more likely to be problematic if it is a product of a parent’s need to have a child perform as they deem best. Second, it is critical to differentiate ambition from perfectionism. While ambition can keep someone focused and motivated in the face of difficulty, perfectionism is a bully that leaves a person feeling perpetually inadequate. Ambition without a specific interest or focus can lead to general perfectionism in a young person, and parents might unwittingly support this by applauding successes or becoming overinvested in this success reflecting onto them. When the pediatrician points out to a patient (and parents) that perfection is neither possible nor desirable, they may respond, “why wouldn’t I want to be perfect?” Remind them that perfectionism is actually the enemy of long-term accomplishment, discouraging risk-taking, reflection, and growth.

Celebrate failure!

The critical difference between an ambitious person who is persistent and determined (and thus equipped to succeed) and the brittle perfectionist is the ability to tolerate failure and setbacks. Point out to your patients that ambition means there will be a lot of setbacks, disappointments, and failures, as they attempt things that are challenging. Indeed, they should embrace each little failure, as that is how real learning and growth happen, especially if they are constantly stretching their goals.

As children or teenagers learn that failure is evidence that they are on track, working hard, and improving, they will develop tenacity and flexibility. Carol S. Dweck, PhD, a psychologist who has studied school performance in young people, has demonstrated that when young people are praised for their results they tend to give up when they fail, whereas if they are praised for their hard work and persistence, they redouble their effort when they fail. Parents, teachers, and pediatricians have the power to shift an ambitious child’s mindset (Dweck’s term) by helping the child change his or her thinking about what failure really means.

Dr. Michael S. Jellinek

Cultivate self-awareness and perspective

It is one of the central tasks of growing up to learn what one’s interests, talents, and values are, and this self-knowledge is especially critical in ambitious young people. Without genuine interests or passions, ambition may feel like a hollow quest for approval. It is more likely to become general perfectionism. So children and teenagers need adults who are curious about their underlying interests, who patiently help them to cultivate these interests and dedicate their ambition to the pursuit of these passions. Younger children need adult time and support to explore a variety of interests, dabbling so they might figure out where their interests and talents converge. This can provide plenty of opportunity to celebrate effort over achievement. By adolescence, they should have a clearer sense of their personal interests and abilities, and will be deepening their efforts in fewer areas. Adolescence is also when they start to build a narrative of who they are and what values are truly their own. Parents can serve as models and facilitators for their teenagers’ emerging sets of values. Values such as honesty, compassion, or generosity (for example) organize one’s efforts, giving them deeper meaning and keeping difficulties in perspective. Values also will help ambitious young people set their own goals and create an individualized and meaningful definition of success, and keep bigger failures, losses, or disappointments in perspective.

 

 

Teach self-care

It seems obvious to state that learning how to care for one’s self is essential to well-being, but for ambitious young people (and adults), self-care is often the first thing to go (or the last thing they consider) in their busy days. Explain to your patients (and parents) that without adequate, consistent, restful sleep, all of their hard work will be inefficient or likely squandered. Explain that daily cardiovascular exercise is not frivolous, but rather essential to balance their cognitive efforts, and offers potent protection for their physical and mental health. There is even robust evidence that sleep and exercise are directly helpful to memory, learning, and creativity. When a parent models this kind of self-care, it is far more powerful than simply talking about it!

Relaxation is self-care!

While most teenagers do not need to be taught how to relax, those very ambitious ones are likely to need permission and even help in learning how to effectively and efficiently blow off steam. Help them to approach relaxation as they would approach a new subject, open-minded and trying different things to determine what works for them. Some may find exercise relaxing, while some may need a cognitive distraction (sometimes called “senseless fun,” an activity not dedicated to achievement) such as reading, family games, or television. Social time often is very effective relaxation for teenagers, and they should know that it is as important as sleep and studying for their performance. Some may find that a calming activity such as yoga or meditation recharges their batteries, whereas others may need noisy video games to feel renewed. Suggest that they should protect (just a little) time for relaxation even on their busiest days to help them develop good habits of self-care. Without consistent, reliable relaxation, ambitious young people are at risk for burnout or for impulsive and extreme behaviors such as binge-drinking.

Be on the lookout for red flags

In the same way that high performing athletes are at risk for stress fractures or other injuries of repetitive, intense physical activity, ambitious students are vulnerable to some of the problems that can follow sustained, intense cognitive effort. These risks go up if they are sleep deprived, stop exercising, or are socially isolated. Parents can be on the lookout for signs of depression or anxiety disorders, such as loss of energy, withdrawal from friends or beloved activities, persistent unhappiness or irritability (sustained over days to weeks), and of course morbid preoccupations.

Intense perfectionism is common among young people at risk for eating disorders, depression and self-injury, and anxiety disorders. Beyond recognizing signs, it is even more important for parents and pediatricians to equip ambitious young people to stay connected and ask for help if they experience a change in their emotional equilibrium. Suggest to your patients that they should never worry alone. They should ask for help if they are struggling to sleep, to sustain their motivation or effort, or notice feeling panicked, unusually tearful, or hopeless. Depression and anxiety are common and treatable problems in adolescents, but ambitious adolescents might be inclined to try to soldier through them. Caring adults should demystify and destigmatize mood and anxiety problems. You might point out that they would ask for help for a toothache or a painful knee joint, and that their mental health should be no different.

Many ambitious children have ambitious parents who might look back on their own adolescence and wonder if they were sufficiently balanced in their approach or whether they overreacted to failure. Sometimes honest sharing of successes, failures, and enduring dilemmas can build an empathic bridge from one generation to the next.
 

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

 

Most parents hope that their children will be motivated and hard-working at school, but ambitious students usually face very high levels of stress. Ambitious young people typically push themselves very hard and may not spend enough time in play, relaxation, or exploring potential interests. Their time with peers might be more competitive than social or fun. They may become rigidly focused on a goal, paving the way for devastation if they fall short of their own expectations. They may internalize stress and not ask for help if it starts to take a toll on their mental health. But ambition is not incompatible with healthy development and well-being. Pediatricians usually know who the ambitious students in their practice are, and will hear about the stress they may be experiencing. You have the opportunity to offer them (or their parents) some strategies to manage their high stress levels, and build resilience.

Support ambition, but not perfectionism

It can be helpful to acknowledge to young people that they are ambitious, enabling them to acknowledge this fact about themselves. This kind of drive can be an admirable strength when it is part of an emerging identity, a wish to be successful as defined by the patient.

Dr. Susan D. Swick

It is more likely to be problematic if it is a product of a parent’s need to have a child perform as they deem best. Second, it is critical to differentiate ambition from perfectionism. While ambition can keep someone focused and motivated in the face of difficulty, perfectionism is a bully that leaves a person feeling perpetually inadequate. Ambition without a specific interest or focus can lead to general perfectionism in a young person, and parents might unwittingly support this by applauding successes or becoming overinvested in this success reflecting onto them. When the pediatrician points out to a patient (and parents) that perfection is neither possible nor desirable, they may respond, “why wouldn’t I want to be perfect?” Remind them that perfectionism is actually the enemy of long-term accomplishment, discouraging risk-taking, reflection, and growth.

Celebrate failure!

The critical difference between an ambitious person who is persistent and determined (and thus equipped to succeed) and the brittle perfectionist is the ability to tolerate failure and setbacks. Point out to your patients that ambition means there will be a lot of setbacks, disappointments, and failures, as they attempt things that are challenging. Indeed, they should embrace each little failure, as that is how real learning and growth happen, especially if they are constantly stretching their goals.

As children or teenagers learn that failure is evidence that they are on track, working hard, and improving, they will develop tenacity and flexibility. Carol S. Dweck, PhD, a psychologist who has studied school performance in young people, has demonstrated that when young people are praised for their results they tend to give up when they fail, whereas if they are praised for their hard work and persistence, they redouble their effort when they fail. Parents, teachers, and pediatricians have the power to shift an ambitious child’s mindset (Dweck’s term) by helping the child change his or her thinking about what failure really means.

Dr. Michael S. Jellinek

Cultivate self-awareness and perspective

It is one of the central tasks of growing up to learn what one’s interests, talents, and values are, and this self-knowledge is especially critical in ambitious young people. Without genuine interests or passions, ambition may feel like a hollow quest for approval. It is more likely to become general perfectionism. So children and teenagers need adults who are curious about their underlying interests, who patiently help them to cultivate these interests and dedicate their ambition to the pursuit of these passions. Younger children need adult time and support to explore a variety of interests, dabbling so they might figure out where their interests and talents converge. This can provide plenty of opportunity to celebrate effort over achievement. By adolescence, they should have a clearer sense of their personal interests and abilities, and will be deepening their efforts in fewer areas. Adolescence is also when they start to build a narrative of who they are and what values are truly their own. Parents can serve as models and facilitators for their teenagers’ emerging sets of values. Values such as honesty, compassion, or generosity (for example) organize one’s efforts, giving them deeper meaning and keeping difficulties in perspective. Values also will help ambitious young people set their own goals and create an individualized and meaningful definition of success, and keep bigger failures, losses, or disappointments in perspective.

 

 

Teach self-care

It seems obvious to state that learning how to care for one’s self is essential to well-being, but for ambitious young people (and adults), self-care is often the first thing to go (or the last thing they consider) in their busy days. Explain to your patients (and parents) that without adequate, consistent, restful sleep, all of their hard work will be inefficient or likely squandered. Explain that daily cardiovascular exercise is not frivolous, but rather essential to balance their cognitive efforts, and offers potent protection for their physical and mental health. There is even robust evidence that sleep and exercise are directly helpful to memory, learning, and creativity. When a parent models this kind of self-care, it is far more powerful than simply talking about it!

Relaxation is self-care!

While most teenagers do not need to be taught how to relax, those very ambitious ones are likely to need permission and even help in learning how to effectively and efficiently blow off steam. Help them to approach relaxation as they would approach a new subject, open-minded and trying different things to determine what works for them. Some may find exercise relaxing, while some may need a cognitive distraction (sometimes called “senseless fun,” an activity not dedicated to achievement) such as reading, family games, or television. Social time often is very effective relaxation for teenagers, and they should know that it is as important as sleep and studying for their performance. Some may find that a calming activity such as yoga or meditation recharges their batteries, whereas others may need noisy video games to feel renewed. Suggest that they should protect (just a little) time for relaxation even on their busiest days to help them develop good habits of self-care. Without consistent, reliable relaxation, ambitious young people are at risk for burnout or for impulsive and extreme behaviors such as binge-drinking.

Be on the lookout for red flags

In the same way that high performing athletes are at risk for stress fractures or other injuries of repetitive, intense physical activity, ambitious students are vulnerable to some of the problems that can follow sustained, intense cognitive effort. These risks go up if they are sleep deprived, stop exercising, or are socially isolated. Parents can be on the lookout for signs of depression or anxiety disorders, such as loss of energy, withdrawal from friends or beloved activities, persistent unhappiness or irritability (sustained over days to weeks), and of course morbid preoccupations.

Intense perfectionism is common among young people at risk for eating disorders, depression and self-injury, and anxiety disorders. Beyond recognizing signs, it is even more important for parents and pediatricians to equip ambitious young people to stay connected and ask for help if they experience a change in their emotional equilibrium. Suggest to your patients that they should never worry alone. They should ask for help if they are struggling to sleep, to sustain their motivation or effort, or notice feeling panicked, unusually tearful, or hopeless. Depression and anxiety are common and treatable problems in adolescents, but ambitious adolescents might be inclined to try to soldier through them. Caring adults should demystify and destigmatize mood and anxiety problems. You might point out that they would ask for help for a toothache or a painful knee joint, and that their mental health should be no different.

Many ambitious children have ambitious parents who might look back on their own adolescence and wonder if they were sufficiently balanced in their approach or whether they overreacted to failure. Sometimes honest sharing of successes, failures, and enduring dilemmas can build an empathic bridge from one generation to the next.
 

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Professional time

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:58

 

As I write this article, the snow is piling up outside. While Cleveland’s west side citizens are raking up the last of fallen leaves, its east siders will dig out of 2 feet of snow. The lake effect is affecting us. The snow plow trucks vainly clear a path only for it to disappear in minutes. There seems to be no end to the torrents of white flakes that are each unique and tiny, but in aggregate uniform and overwhelming.

A blizzard of patients awaits my return from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in San Diego. Like snowflakes, they are each unique, but in aggregate can be overwhelming. Plowing through a clinic, we go from patient to patient knowing that we will eventually see them all, then return to our offices or home to finish the labor of charting.

Dr. Matt Kalyacio


For some physicians, this is a daily reality. Whether patients in the clinic, or cases in the queue, some hematologists revisit the storm every day. Most, however, are engaged in an academic practice where at least some respite from direct patient care is offered. Whether teaching medical students, analyzing data, participating in administrative meetings, or writing manuscripts, most of us do something more beyond the clinic. We do this during our “protected time.”

But what are we protected from? Patients and their concerns? Really, this is what we want to be protected from?

“Protected” is the wrong word. The time we spend pursuing academics is really “professional” time. Some centers call it administrative time, but this also falls short. Time allotted to nonclinical activities keeps us fresh, sharpens our intellect, and ultimately helps our patients. Professional time helps prevent burnout by making us more present when we are in clinic. Professional time allows for scientific inquiry to advance treatments, and encourages continuing education to remain at the cutting edge of technology. Professional time, though, competes with patient time and that tension can drive disengagement.

Patients, and their problems, do not operate according to half-day clinic schedules. When there exists any professional time, patient time is always interfering. The interference becomes more acute as academic success increases and the allotted professional time seems inadequate. Hematologists then start to blame patients for interfering with their careers. A pernicious disdain for patient care may develop because it interrupts the academic motivations that drive many physicians once they get a taste of success. Manifestations of this attitude include dread of inpatient service, negotiations to reduce clinic time for research, and refusal to see or sometimes even talk to patients when not assigned to clinic. The more successful the academic hematologist becomes, the less he or she wants to be troubled with patients without whom professional success could not have been achieved.

The professional and patient time balance is as important to recognize as work and life balance, as one tension directly impacts the other. When nature sends a snowstorm, a warm home allows survival, but if one never ventures from home, the beauty and grandeur of nature is lost. True satisfaction comes from a balance of the two and no one person knows how best to accomplish it. I believe we can learn to manage our professional and patient time better by exchanging ideas and best practices. Please email me at [email protected] with your ideas and we will post as many as we can on the Hematology News website for all to learn from.
 

Dr. Kalaycio is Editor in Chief of Hematology News. Dr. Kalaycio chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Contact him at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

As I write this article, the snow is piling up outside. While Cleveland’s west side citizens are raking up the last of fallen leaves, its east siders will dig out of 2 feet of snow. The lake effect is affecting us. The snow plow trucks vainly clear a path only for it to disappear in minutes. There seems to be no end to the torrents of white flakes that are each unique and tiny, but in aggregate uniform and overwhelming.

A blizzard of patients awaits my return from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in San Diego. Like snowflakes, they are each unique, but in aggregate can be overwhelming. Plowing through a clinic, we go from patient to patient knowing that we will eventually see them all, then return to our offices or home to finish the labor of charting.

Dr. Matt Kalyacio


For some physicians, this is a daily reality. Whether patients in the clinic, or cases in the queue, some hematologists revisit the storm every day. Most, however, are engaged in an academic practice where at least some respite from direct patient care is offered. Whether teaching medical students, analyzing data, participating in administrative meetings, or writing manuscripts, most of us do something more beyond the clinic. We do this during our “protected time.”

But what are we protected from? Patients and their concerns? Really, this is what we want to be protected from?

“Protected” is the wrong word. The time we spend pursuing academics is really “professional” time. Some centers call it administrative time, but this also falls short. Time allotted to nonclinical activities keeps us fresh, sharpens our intellect, and ultimately helps our patients. Professional time helps prevent burnout by making us more present when we are in clinic. Professional time allows for scientific inquiry to advance treatments, and encourages continuing education to remain at the cutting edge of technology. Professional time, though, competes with patient time and that tension can drive disengagement.

Patients, and their problems, do not operate according to half-day clinic schedules. When there exists any professional time, patient time is always interfering. The interference becomes more acute as academic success increases and the allotted professional time seems inadequate. Hematologists then start to blame patients for interfering with their careers. A pernicious disdain for patient care may develop because it interrupts the academic motivations that drive many physicians once they get a taste of success. Manifestations of this attitude include dread of inpatient service, negotiations to reduce clinic time for research, and refusal to see or sometimes even talk to patients when not assigned to clinic. The more successful the academic hematologist becomes, the less he or she wants to be troubled with patients without whom professional success could not have been achieved.

The professional and patient time balance is as important to recognize as work and life balance, as one tension directly impacts the other. When nature sends a snowstorm, a warm home allows survival, but if one never ventures from home, the beauty and grandeur of nature is lost. True satisfaction comes from a balance of the two and no one person knows how best to accomplish it. I believe we can learn to manage our professional and patient time better by exchanging ideas and best practices. Please email me at [email protected] with your ideas and we will post as many as we can on the Hematology News website for all to learn from.
 

Dr. Kalaycio is Editor in Chief of Hematology News. Dr. Kalaycio chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Contact him at [email protected].

 

As I write this article, the snow is piling up outside. While Cleveland’s west side citizens are raking up the last of fallen leaves, its east siders will dig out of 2 feet of snow. The lake effect is affecting us. The snow plow trucks vainly clear a path only for it to disappear in minutes. There seems to be no end to the torrents of white flakes that are each unique and tiny, but in aggregate uniform and overwhelming.

A blizzard of patients awaits my return from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in San Diego. Like snowflakes, they are each unique, but in aggregate can be overwhelming. Plowing through a clinic, we go from patient to patient knowing that we will eventually see them all, then return to our offices or home to finish the labor of charting.

Dr. Matt Kalyacio


For some physicians, this is a daily reality. Whether patients in the clinic, or cases in the queue, some hematologists revisit the storm every day. Most, however, are engaged in an academic practice where at least some respite from direct patient care is offered. Whether teaching medical students, analyzing data, participating in administrative meetings, or writing manuscripts, most of us do something more beyond the clinic. We do this during our “protected time.”

But what are we protected from? Patients and their concerns? Really, this is what we want to be protected from?

“Protected” is the wrong word. The time we spend pursuing academics is really “professional” time. Some centers call it administrative time, but this also falls short. Time allotted to nonclinical activities keeps us fresh, sharpens our intellect, and ultimately helps our patients. Professional time helps prevent burnout by making us more present when we are in clinic. Professional time allows for scientific inquiry to advance treatments, and encourages continuing education to remain at the cutting edge of technology. Professional time, though, competes with patient time and that tension can drive disengagement.

Patients, and their problems, do not operate according to half-day clinic schedules. When there exists any professional time, patient time is always interfering. The interference becomes more acute as academic success increases and the allotted professional time seems inadequate. Hematologists then start to blame patients for interfering with their careers. A pernicious disdain for patient care may develop because it interrupts the academic motivations that drive many physicians once they get a taste of success. Manifestations of this attitude include dread of inpatient service, negotiations to reduce clinic time for research, and refusal to see or sometimes even talk to patients when not assigned to clinic. The more successful the academic hematologist becomes, the less he or she wants to be troubled with patients without whom professional success could not have been achieved.

The professional and patient time balance is as important to recognize as work and life balance, as one tension directly impacts the other. When nature sends a snowstorm, a warm home allows survival, but if one never ventures from home, the beauty and grandeur of nature is lost. True satisfaction comes from a balance of the two and no one person knows how best to accomplish it. I believe we can learn to manage our professional and patient time better by exchanging ideas and best practices. Please email me at [email protected] with your ideas and we will post as many as we can on the Hematology News website for all to learn from.
 

Dr. Kalaycio is Editor in Chief of Hematology News. Dr. Kalaycio chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Contact him at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Choline and prevention of prevalent mental illnesses

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:26

 

Advocating on behalf of the power of prevention in psychiatry has been my life’s work. I ran a world-class community mental health center with a strong wellness component; have taught, researched, written, and spoken extensively about the importance of prevention; and have incorporated preventive ideas into my current clinical practice.

I would like to think that I have been one of the forces that helped start a new movement called “positive psychiatry,” the idea that mental health must encompass more than the reduction or elimination of psychiatric illness. In the new book edited by American Psychiatric Association Past-President Dilip V. Jeste, MD, and Barton W. Palmer, PhD, called “Positive Psychiatry” (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015), I contributed a chapter on the psychosocial factors tied to positive outcomes. In addition, I am part of a group of psychiatrists and researchers affiliated with the World Psychiatric Association who are starting an interest group focusing on positive psychiatry.

Dr. Carl C. Bell


Recently, because of the prevalence of neurobehavioral disorder associated with prenatal alcohol exposure (ND-PAE) (the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 version of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders) in my community, I have begun to tout this problem as a major public health issue. When we formulated the Institute of Medicine’s 2009 Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities report, we did not include the problem of fetal alcohol exposure – and this was an unfortunate oversight.

However, this area of interest had not yet fully developed, and nearly 8 years later, there have been some confluent developments regarding potential prevention of this problem. They both involve choline.

First, we know that when women drink while pregnant, the alcohol they consume rids their bodies of choline, a nutrient the fetus needs for proper cell construction, neurogenesis, and neurodevelopment. Accordingly, several scientists are exploring using choline both pre- and postnatally to see if the defects on ND-PAE can be ameliorated or prevented. All of the research in this area is new, but it looks very promising.

Recently, I had the good fortune to present an idea during the Andrea Delgado Memorial Lecture at the Black Psychiatrists of America transcultural conference in the Bahamas. I also spoke at a mini-plenary at the 32nd Annual Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Policy Symposium in Atlanta. The core of the presentations were not too deep (to paraphrase a line Morgan Freeman used on Jack Nicholson in the movie “The Bucket List” – ‘I have seen bathtubs that are deeper’), but I think it explicated an essential idea. Jessie Aujla, a 4th-year medical student, and I explored the content of choline in the 25 top prenatal vitamins and found none of them contained the 450-mg daily recommended dose of choline advised by the Institute of Medicine in 1998. In fact, only two contain 50 mg; six others contain less than 30 mg; and the other 17 have no choline whatsoever (this study is in press at the Journal of Family Medicine and Prevention). So we are advocating that the prenatal vitamin manufacturers increase the choline content of their prenatal vitamins, because although women may be getting some choline from their food diets, we found one large study illustrating that 90% of pregnant women are choline deficient.

The other area of interest regarding choline as a preventive agent for mental illness is work published by researchers at the University of Colorado Denver. This research group is proposing that choline may prevent the development of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and schizophrenia by an epigenetic mechanism involving a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. This makes perfectly good sense clinically among those of us who are treating patients with ND-PAE. Some of us are starting to think of ND-PAE as a choline deficiency disorder and see symptoms that are extremely similar to autism, ADHD, and schizophrenia in such patients. Many patients with ND-PAE are misdiagnosed with these disorders. Accordingly, there appears to be some common ground between ideas aimed at preventing fetal alcohol exposure and those aimed at preventing autism, ADHD, and schizophrenia – specifically, ensuring that pregnant women get an adequate supply of choline.

There is certainly a great need to do more research to nail down these two potential preventive actions. But until that research is done, it seems to me that the least we can do is to advocate for a position that the manufacturers of prenatal vitamins at least include the daily recommended dose of choline (450 mg/day) pregnant women need per the findings of the Institute of Medicine’s Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Folate, Other B Vitamins, and Choline, published in 1998.
 

 

 

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital Family Medicine Clinic in Chicago; clinical psychiatrist emeritus, department of psychiatry, at the University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Advocating on behalf of the power of prevention in psychiatry has been my life’s work. I ran a world-class community mental health center with a strong wellness component; have taught, researched, written, and spoken extensively about the importance of prevention; and have incorporated preventive ideas into my current clinical practice.

I would like to think that I have been one of the forces that helped start a new movement called “positive psychiatry,” the idea that mental health must encompass more than the reduction or elimination of psychiatric illness. In the new book edited by American Psychiatric Association Past-President Dilip V. Jeste, MD, and Barton W. Palmer, PhD, called “Positive Psychiatry” (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015), I contributed a chapter on the psychosocial factors tied to positive outcomes. In addition, I am part of a group of psychiatrists and researchers affiliated with the World Psychiatric Association who are starting an interest group focusing on positive psychiatry.

Dr. Carl C. Bell


Recently, because of the prevalence of neurobehavioral disorder associated with prenatal alcohol exposure (ND-PAE) (the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 version of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders) in my community, I have begun to tout this problem as a major public health issue. When we formulated the Institute of Medicine’s 2009 Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities report, we did not include the problem of fetal alcohol exposure – and this was an unfortunate oversight.

However, this area of interest had not yet fully developed, and nearly 8 years later, there have been some confluent developments regarding potential prevention of this problem. They both involve choline.

First, we know that when women drink while pregnant, the alcohol they consume rids their bodies of choline, a nutrient the fetus needs for proper cell construction, neurogenesis, and neurodevelopment. Accordingly, several scientists are exploring using choline both pre- and postnatally to see if the defects on ND-PAE can be ameliorated or prevented. All of the research in this area is new, but it looks very promising.

Recently, I had the good fortune to present an idea during the Andrea Delgado Memorial Lecture at the Black Psychiatrists of America transcultural conference in the Bahamas. I also spoke at a mini-plenary at the 32nd Annual Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Policy Symposium in Atlanta. The core of the presentations were not too deep (to paraphrase a line Morgan Freeman used on Jack Nicholson in the movie “The Bucket List” – ‘I have seen bathtubs that are deeper’), but I think it explicated an essential idea. Jessie Aujla, a 4th-year medical student, and I explored the content of choline in the 25 top prenatal vitamins and found none of them contained the 450-mg daily recommended dose of choline advised by the Institute of Medicine in 1998. In fact, only two contain 50 mg; six others contain less than 30 mg; and the other 17 have no choline whatsoever (this study is in press at the Journal of Family Medicine and Prevention). So we are advocating that the prenatal vitamin manufacturers increase the choline content of their prenatal vitamins, because although women may be getting some choline from their food diets, we found one large study illustrating that 90% of pregnant women are choline deficient.

The other area of interest regarding choline as a preventive agent for mental illness is work published by researchers at the University of Colorado Denver. This research group is proposing that choline may prevent the development of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and schizophrenia by an epigenetic mechanism involving a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. This makes perfectly good sense clinically among those of us who are treating patients with ND-PAE. Some of us are starting to think of ND-PAE as a choline deficiency disorder and see symptoms that are extremely similar to autism, ADHD, and schizophrenia in such patients. Many patients with ND-PAE are misdiagnosed with these disorders. Accordingly, there appears to be some common ground between ideas aimed at preventing fetal alcohol exposure and those aimed at preventing autism, ADHD, and schizophrenia – specifically, ensuring that pregnant women get an adequate supply of choline.

There is certainly a great need to do more research to nail down these two potential preventive actions. But until that research is done, it seems to me that the least we can do is to advocate for a position that the manufacturers of prenatal vitamins at least include the daily recommended dose of choline (450 mg/day) pregnant women need per the findings of the Institute of Medicine’s Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Folate, Other B Vitamins, and Choline, published in 1998.
 

 

 

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital Family Medicine Clinic in Chicago; clinical psychiatrist emeritus, department of psychiatry, at the University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago.

 

Advocating on behalf of the power of prevention in psychiatry has been my life’s work. I ran a world-class community mental health center with a strong wellness component; have taught, researched, written, and spoken extensively about the importance of prevention; and have incorporated preventive ideas into my current clinical practice.

I would like to think that I have been one of the forces that helped start a new movement called “positive psychiatry,” the idea that mental health must encompass more than the reduction or elimination of psychiatric illness. In the new book edited by American Psychiatric Association Past-President Dilip V. Jeste, MD, and Barton W. Palmer, PhD, called “Positive Psychiatry” (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2015), I contributed a chapter on the psychosocial factors tied to positive outcomes. In addition, I am part of a group of psychiatrists and researchers affiliated with the World Psychiatric Association who are starting an interest group focusing on positive psychiatry.

Dr. Carl C. Bell


Recently, because of the prevalence of neurobehavioral disorder associated with prenatal alcohol exposure (ND-PAE) (the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 version of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders) in my community, I have begun to tout this problem as a major public health issue. When we formulated the Institute of Medicine’s 2009 Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities report, we did not include the problem of fetal alcohol exposure – and this was an unfortunate oversight.

However, this area of interest had not yet fully developed, and nearly 8 years later, there have been some confluent developments regarding potential prevention of this problem. They both involve choline.

First, we know that when women drink while pregnant, the alcohol they consume rids their bodies of choline, a nutrient the fetus needs for proper cell construction, neurogenesis, and neurodevelopment. Accordingly, several scientists are exploring using choline both pre- and postnatally to see if the defects on ND-PAE can be ameliorated or prevented. All of the research in this area is new, but it looks very promising.

Recently, I had the good fortune to present an idea during the Andrea Delgado Memorial Lecture at the Black Psychiatrists of America transcultural conference in the Bahamas. I also spoke at a mini-plenary at the 32nd Annual Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Policy Symposium in Atlanta. The core of the presentations were not too deep (to paraphrase a line Morgan Freeman used on Jack Nicholson in the movie “The Bucket List” – ‘I have seen bathtubs that are deeper’), but I think it explicated an essential idea. Jessie Aujla, a 4th-year medical student, and I explored the content of choline in the 25 top prenatal vitamins and found none of them contained the 450-mg daily recommended dose of choline advised by the Institute of Medicine in 1998. In fact, only two contain 50 mg; six others contain less than 30 mg; and the other 17 have no choline whatsoever (this study is in press at the Journal of Family Medicine and Prevention). So we are advocating that the prenatal vitamin manufacturers increase the choline content of their prenatal vitamins, because although women may be getting some choline from their food diets, we found one large study illustrating that 90% of pregnant women are choline deficient.

The other area of interest regarding choline as a preventive agent for mental illness is work published by researchers at the University of Colorado Denver. This research group is proposing that choline may prevent the development of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and schizophrenia by an epigenetic mechanism involving a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. This makes perfectly good sense clinically among those of us who are treating patients with ND-PAE. Some of us are starting to think of ND-PAE as a choline deficiency disorder and see symptoms that are extremely similar to autism, ADHD, and schizophrenia in such patients. Many patients with ND-PAE are misdiagnosed with these disorders. Accordingly, there appears to be some common ground between ideas aimed at preventing fetal alcohol exposure and those aimed at preventing autism, ADHD, and schizophrenia – specifically, ensuring that pregnant women get an adequate supply of choline.

There is certainly a great need to do more research to nail down these two potential preventive actions. But until that research is done, it seems to me that the least we can do is to advocate for a position that the manufacturers of prenatal vitamins at least include the daily recommended dose of choline (450 mg/day) pregnant women need per the findings of the Institute of Medicine’s Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Folate, Other B Vitamins, and Choline, published in 1998.
 

 

 

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital Family Medicine Clinic in Chicago; clinical psychiatrist emeritus, department of psychiatry, at the University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

ADHD versus anxiety? An approach for pediatricians

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:26

 

This month’s column comes directly by request from a pediatric colleague. She asked about a common diagnostic dilemma for pediatricians that involves what at least on the surface appears like disruptive or oppositional behavior at the home, school, or both, but is complicated by the possibility that the primary engine of this behavior is anxiety. This is an important challenge to try and get right because the treatment plan will take different paths, depending on the final call that is made.

Case summary

Devin is a 6-year-old boy who comes in with his parents for concerns about his behavior. His parents note that he has always been “high strung” but not disruptive or aggressive. When he was younger, Devin was quite sensitive to sounds, textures, and tactile sensations, but this has improved on its own. Thunderstorms continue to bother him quite a bit, though, and he often will ask his parents repeated questions when it is cloudy about the possibility of a thunderstorm. With some extra teacher and parent support, Devin made the transition to kindergarten fairly well. Now, however, he is struggling in a larger 1st grade class. His teacher states that he often seems distracted, fidgety, and easily frustrated, causing him to “shut down” and refuse to do his work. This past week, during a more challenging assignment, he crawled under his desk and would not come out. The teacher is now recommending an evaluation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Discussion

Dr. David C. Rettew
The case example above brings up a number of potential findings from the history that can help the evaluating clinician sort out the role of ADHD and/or anxiety in a child’s difficulties. Here are five specific questions to consider asking in these kinds of situations.

1. Are there other times in the child’s life when clearly he is very anxious? The presence of developmentally elevated levels of anxiety in areas outside the particular situations in question can provide a clue that anxiety is contributing to what otherwise might be seen as more oppositional behavior. In this case, the high levels of anxiety about thunderstorms show that anxiety is present in the child and could be playing a role in his disruptive behavior at school.

2. When he’s not focusing on the task at hand, what is he thinking about? Nonanxious children with or without ADHD can frequently daydream and go “off task,” but the content of those thoughts frequently involves anticipation for more preferred activities, reminisces of positive events from the past, or attention to other stimuli in the environment (for example, the bird in a tree outside). More anxious children, by contrast, may have more worried and ruminating thoughts about poor performance, possible bad events that might happen in the future, or “what if?” kinds of concerns.

3. Is there a family history of anxiety? While one should not over-rely on family history, the presence of one or more family members with clinically significant anxiety does raise the possibility of anxiety in the identified patient. Research indicates that the heritability of anxiety is about 50%,1,2 but that a significant amount of the transmission of anxiety from parent to child comes from environmental mechanisms.3

4. Is there a consistent trigger to his outbursts? For anxious children, meltdowns are frequently provoked by situations in which a child feels uncomfortable, overstimulated, or overwhelmed, and the outburst is a reflection of those intense feelings that are difficult to manage. An outburst like that above, which occurs when a child is pushed to finish difficult work, might be a good example of one that is triggered by anxiety.

5. What does the rating scale show? A broad-based rating scale that assesses multiple domains of symptoms can be a big help for diagnostic dilemmas such as this one. Our clinic uses the Child Behavior Checklist4 which has subscales for both anxiety and attention problems. Evidence of a spike in either of those domains, or both, really can help guide our thinking.

Of course, it is very possible that the answer to the ADHD versus anxiety question is that both are present. This is a common conclusion when it comes to mental health assessment, and it is different from the traditional “this or that” thinking present in more classic differential diagnosis decision making. Research indicates that the ADHD and anxiety disorders frequently co-occur.5 When that happens, concurrent evidence-based psychotherapy for anxiety in conjunction with multimodal treatment for ADHD has been recommended as a first step.6

Case follow-up

Based on all the information, the pediatrician judges that Devin’s disruptive behavior is in large part being driven by his level of anxiety. She makes a referral to a child psychologist to begin evidence-based psychotherapy and recommends that the school consider some modifications and accommodations that may help his behavior at school. At a follow-up appointment, Devin’s difficulties have improved, and there is little evidence of ADHD now that the anxiety has been fully addressed.

 

 

References

1. Genes Brain Behav. 2005;4(8):466-81.

2. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(3):248-55.

3. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(7):630-7.

4. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles (Burlington, Vt.: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, 2001).

5. J Anxiety Disord. 1997;11(4):377-94.

6. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2000;28(6):527-41.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

This month’s column comes directly by request from a pediatric colleague. She asked about a common diagnostic dilemma for pediatricians that involves what at least on the surface appears like disruptive or oppositional behavior at the home, school, or both, but is complicated by the possibility that the primary engine of this behavior is anxiety. This is an important challenge to try and get right because the treatment plan will take different paths, depending on the final call that is made.

Case summary

Devin is a 6-year-old boy who comes in with his parents for concerns about his behavior. His parents note that he has always been “high strung” but not disruptive or aggressive. When he was younger, Devin was quite sensitive to sounds, textures, and tactile sensations, but this has improved on its own. Thunderstorms continue to bother him quite a bit, though, and he often will ask his parents repeated questions when it is cloudy about the possibility of a thunderstorm. With some extra teacher and parent support, Devin made the transition to kindergarten fairly well. Now, however, he is struggling in a larger 1st grade class. His teacher states that he often seems distracted, fidgety, and easily frustrated, causing him to “shut down” and refuse to do his work. This past week, during a more challenging assignment, he crawled under his desk and would not come out. The teacher is now recommending an evaluation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Discussion

Dr. David C. Rettew
The case example above brings up a number of potential findings from the history that can help the evaluating clinician sort out the role of ADHD and/or anxiety in a child’s difficulties. Here are five specific questions to consider asking in these kinds of situations.

1. Are there other times in the child’s life when clearly he is very anxious? The presence of developmentally elevated levels of anxiety in areas outside the particular situations in question can provide a clue that anxiety is contributing to what otherwise might be seen as more oppositional behavior. In this case, the high levels of anxiety about thunderstorms show that anxiety is present in the child and could be playing a role in his disruptive behavior at school.

2. When he’s not focusing on the task at hand, what is he thinking about? Nonanxious children with or without ADHD can frequently daydream and go “off task,” but the content of those thoughts frequently involves anticipation for more preferred activities, reminisces of positive events from the past, or attention to other stimuli in the environment (for example, the bird in a tree outside). More anxious children, by contrast, may have more worried and ruminating thoughts about poor performance, possible bad events that might happen in the future, or “what if?” kinds of concerns.

3. Is there a family history of anxiety? While one should not over-rely on family history, the presence of one or more family members with clinically significant anxiety does raise the possibility of anxiety in the identified patient. Research indicates that the heritability of anxiety is about 50%,1,2 but that a significant amount of the transmission of anxiety from parent to child comes from environmental mechanisms.3

4. Is there a consistent trigger to his outbursts? For anxious children, meltdowns are frequently provoked by situations in which a child feels uncomfortable, overstimulated, or overwhelmed, and the outburst is a reflection of those intense feelings that are difficult to manage. An outburst like that above, which occurs when a child is pushed to finish difficult work, might be a good example of one that is triggered by anxiety.

5. What does the rating scale show? A broad-based rating scale that assesses multiple domains of symptoms can be a big help for diagnostic dilemmas such as this one. Our clinic uses the Child Behavior Checklist4 which has subscales for both anxiety and attention problems. Evidence of a spike in either of those domains, or both, really can help guide our thinking.

Of course, it is very possible that the answer to the ADHD versus anxiety question is that both are present. This is a common conclusion when it comes to mental health assessment, and it is different from the traditional “this or that” thinking present in more classic differential diagnosis decision making. Research indicates that the ADHD and anxiety disorders frequently co-occur.5 When that happens, concurrent evidence-based psychotherapy for anxiety in conjunction with multimodal treatment for ADHD has been recommended as a first step.6

Case follow-up

Based on all the information, the pediatrician judges that Devin’s disruptive behavior is in large part being driven by his level of anxiety. She makes a referral to a child psychologist to begin evidence-based psychotherapy and recommends that the school consider some modifications and accommodations that may help his behavior at school. At a follow-up appointment, Devin’s difficulties have improved, and there is little evidence of ADHD now that the anxiety has been fully addressed.

 

 

References

1. Genes Brain Behav. 2005;4(8):466-81.

2. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(3):248-55.

3. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(7):630-7.

4. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles (Burlington, Vt.: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, 2001).

5. J Anxiety Disord. 1997;11(4):377-94.

6. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2000;28(6):527-41.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. Email him at [email protected].

 

This month’s column comes directly by request from a pediatric colleague. She asked about a common diagnostic dilemma for pediatricians that involves what at least on the surface appears like disruptive or oppositional behavior at the home, school, or both, but is complicated by the possibility that the primary engine of this behavior is anxiety. This is an important challenge to try and get right because the treatment plan will take different paths, depending on the final call that is made.

Case summary

Devin is a 6-year-old boy who comes in with his parents for concerns about his behavior. His parents note that he has always been “high strung” but not disruptive or aggressive. When he was younger, Devin was quite sensitive to sounds, textures, and tactile sensations, but this has improved on its own. Thunderstorms continue to bother him quite a bit, though, and he often will ask his parents repeated questions when it is cloudy about the possibility of a thunderstorm. With some extra teacher and parent support, Devin made the transition to kindergarten fairly well. Now, however, he is struggling in a larger 1st grade class. His teacher states that he often seems distracted, fidgety, and easily frustrated, causing him to “shut down” and refuse to do his work. This past week, during a more challenging assignment, he crawled under his desk and would not come out. The teacher is now recommending an evaluation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Discussion

Dr. David C. Rettew
The case example above brings up a number of potential findings from the history that can help the evaluating clinician sort out the role of ADHD and/or anxiety in a child’s difficulties. Here are five specific questions to consider asking in these kinds of situations.

1. Are there other times in the child’s life when clearly he is very anxious? The presence of developmentally elevated levels of anxiety in areas outside the particular situations in question can provide a clue that anxiety is contributing to what otherwise might be seen as more oppositional behavior. In this case, the high levels of anxiety about thunderstorms show that anxiety is present in the child and could be playing a role in his disruptive behavior at school.

2. When he’s not focusing on the task at hand, what is he thinking about? Nonanxious children with or without ADHD can frequently daydream and go “off task,” but the content of those thoughts frequently involves anticipation for more preferred activities, reminisces of positive events from the past, or attention to other stimuli in the environment (for example, the bird in a tree outside). More anxious children, by contrast, may have more worried and ruminating thoughts about poor performance, possible bad events that might happen in the future, or “what if?” kinds of concerns.

3. Is there a family history of anxiety? While one should not over-rely on family history, the presence of one or more family members with clinically significant anxiety does raise the possibility of anxiety in the identified patient. Research indicates that the heritability of anxiety is about 50%,1,2 but that a significant amount of the transmission of anxiety from parent to child comes from environmental mechanisms.3

4. Is there a consistent trigger to his outbursts? For anxious children, meltdowns are frequently provoked by situations in which a child feels uncomfortable, overstimulated, or overwhelmed, and the outburst is a reflection of those intense feelings that are difficult to manage. An outburst like that above, which occurs when a child is pushed to finish difficult work, might be a good example of one that is triggered by anxiety.

5. What does the rating scale show? A broad-based rating scale that assesses multiple domains of symptoms can be a big help for diagnostic dilemmas such as this one. Our clinic uses the Child Behavior Checklist4 which has subscales for both anxiety and attention problems. Evidence of a spike in either of those domains, or both, really can help guide our thinking.

Of course, it is very possible that the answer to the ADHD versus anxiety question is that both are present. This is a common conclusion when it comes to mental health assessment, and it is different from the traditional “this or that” thinking present in more classic differential diagnosis decision making. Research indicates that the ADHD and anxiety disorders frequently co-occur.5 When that happens, concurrent evidence-based psychotherapy for anxiety in conjunction with multimodal treatment for ADHD has been recommended as a first step.6

Case follow-up

Based on all the information, the pediatrician judges that Devin’s disruptive behavior is in large part being driven by his level of anxiety. She makes a referral to a child psychologist to begin evidence-based psychotherapy and recommends that the school consider some modifications and accommodations that may help his behavior at school. At a follow-up appointment, Devin’s difficulties have improved, and there is little evidence of ADHD now that the anxiety has been fully addressed.

 

 

References

1. Genes Brain Behav. 2005;4(8):466-81.

2. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(3):248-55.

3. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(7):630-7.

4. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles (Burlington, Vt.: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, 2001).

5. J Anxiety Disord. 1997;11(4):377-94.

6. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2000;28(6):527-41.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

PCI or CABG in the high-risk patient

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 12/12/2018 - 20:54

 

The recent report from the SYNTAX trials should give pause to our interventionalist colleagues embarking on multiple angioplasty and stenting procedures in patients with complex coronary anatomy.

SYNTAX randomized 1,800 patients with left main or triple-vessel coronary artery disease to either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the TAXUS drug-eluting stent or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after being judged by a heart team as being in equipoise in regard to the appropriateness of either procedure (Eur Heart J. 2011;32;2125-34). The findings of several previous analyses have trended toward benefit for CABG, but none as clearly as SYNTAX. The original study was reported 6 years ago (Lancet 2013 Feb;381:629-38) and indicated that CABG was superior to PCI in patients with complex lesions. The most recent 5-year data of that study (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jan:67;42-55) indicates that cardiac mortality in the CABG patients is superior to that in the PCI group (5.3% vs. 9.6%, respectively), and the follow-up data provide more in-depth analysis in addition to the mechanism of death. Most importantly, the recent 5-year data clarify the reasons PCI fails to measure up to the results of CABG in patients with complex coronary artery disease.

Dr. Sidney Goldstein
Although randomized data in regard to the benefit of CABG, compared with medical therapy in this high-risk population, are now available from the STICH 5-year follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374:1511-20), information about the long-term benefit of PCI, compared with medical therapy, does not exist. SYNTAX provides us at least a reference point in regard to the relative benefit of these two interventions. The recent analysis assists the interventional cardiologist and surgeon in making the choice between these two procedures based on anatomy. The joint decision making that has evolved in the last few years in regard to valvular surgery appears to have had an impact on the decision-making process in other cardiosurgical procedures, and particularly coronary artery interventions.

One of the overriding predictors of increased mortality with PCI is the increased complexity of anatomy. The higher SYNTAX score was related to incomplete revascularization using PCI, compared with CABG. The presence of concomitant peripheral and carotid vascular disease, in addition to a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%, favored the CABG group. Multiple stents and stent thrombosis were also issues leading to the increased mortality in the PCI group. The main cause of death was recurrent myocardial infarction, which occurred more frequently in the PCI patients and was associated with incomplete revascularization.

The data in the SYNTAX follow-up is not new, but do reinforce what has been reported in previous meta-analyses. This study does, however, emphasize the importance of recurrent infarction as a cause of death in these patients with complex anatomy. It is possible that new stent technology and coronary flow assessment at the time of intervention could have improved the outcome of this comparison and improved the long-term patency of the stented vessels. PCI is an evolving technology heavily affected by the experience of the operator. CABG surgery has also changed, and its associated mortality and morbidity have also changed and improved. It is clear that this population raises important questions in which the operators need to individualize their decision based on trials like SYNTAX.



Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The recent report from the SYNTAX trials should give pause to our interventionalist colleagues embarking on multiple angioplasty and stenting procedures in patients with complex coronary anatomy.

SYNTAX randomized 1,800 patients with left main or triple-vessel coronary artery disease to either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the TAXUS drug-eluting stent or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after being judged by a heart team as being in equipoise in regard to the appropriateness of either procedure (Eur Heart J. 2011;32;2125-34). The findings of several previous analyses have trended toward benefit for CABG, but none as clearly as SYNTAX. The original study was reported 6 years ago (Lancet 2013 Feb;381:629-38) and indicated that CABG was superior to PCI in patients with complex lesions. The most recent 5-year data of that study (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jan:67;42-55) indicates that cardiac mortality in the CABG patients is superior to that in the PCI group (5.3% vs. 9.6%, respectively), and the follow-up data provide more in-depth analysis in addition to the mechanism of death. Most importantly, the recent 5-year data clarify the reasons PCI fails to measure up to the results of CABG in patients with complex coronary artery disease.

Dr. Sidney Goldstein
Although randomized data in regard to the benefit of CABG, compared with medical therapy in this high-risk population, are now available from the STICH 5-year follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374:1511-20), information about the long-term benefit of PCI, compared with medical therapy, does not exist. SYNTAX provides us at least a reference point in regard to the relative benefit of these two interventions. The recent analysis assists the interventional cardiologist and surgeon in making the choice between these two procedures based on anatomy. The joint decision making that has evolved in the last few years in regard to valvular surgery appears to have had an impact on the decision-making process in other cardiosurgical procedures, and particularly coronary artery interventions.

One of the overriding predictors of increased mortality with PCI is the increased complexity of anatomy. The higher SYNTAX score was related to incomplete revascularization using PCI, compared with CABG. The presence of concomitant peripheral and carotid vascular disease, in addition to a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%, favored the CABG group. Multiple stents and stent thrombosis were also issues leading to the increased mortality in the PCI group. The main cause of death was recurrent myocardial infarction, which occurred more frequently in the PCI patients and was associated with incomplete revascularization.

The data in the SYNTAX follow-up is not new, but do reinforce what has been reported in previous meta-analyses. This study does, however, emphasize the importance of recurrent infarction as a cause of death in these patients with complex anatomy. It is possible that new stent technology and coronary flow assessment at the time of intervention could have improved the outcome of this comparison and improved the long-term patency of the stented vessels. PCI is an evolving technology heavily affected by the experience of the operator. CABG surgery has also changed, and its associated mortality and morbidity have also changed and improved. It is clear that this population raises important questions in which the operators need to individualize their decision based on trials like SYNTAX.



Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

 

The recent report from the SYNTAX trials should give pause to our interventionalist colleagues embarking on multiple angioplasty and stenting procedures in patients with complex coronary anatomy.

SYNTAX randomized 1,800 patients with left main or triple-vessel coronary artery disease to either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the TAXUS drug-eluting stent or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after being judged by a heart team as being in equipoise in regard to the appropriateness of either procedure (Eur Heart J. 2011;32;2125-34). The findings of several previous analyses have trended toward benefit for CABG, but none as clearly as SYNTAX. The original study was reported 6 years ago (Lancet 2013 Feb;381:629-38) and indicated that CABG was superior to PCI in patients with complex lesions. The most recent 5-year data of that study (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jan:67;42-55) indicates that cardiac mortality in the CABG patients is superior to that in the PCI group (5.3% vs. 9.6%, respectively), and the follow-up data provide more in-depth analysis in addition to the mechanism of death. Most importantly, the recent 5-year data clarify the reasons PCI fails to measure up to the results of CABG in patients with complex coronary artery disease.

Dr. Sidney Goldstein
Although randomized data in regard to the benefit of CABG, compared with medical therapy in this high-risk population, are now available from the STICH 5-year follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374:1511-20), information about the long-term benefit of PCI, compared with medical therapy, does not exist. SYNTAX provides us at least a reference point in regard to the relative benefit of these two interventions. The recent analysis assists the interventional cardiologist and surgeon in making the choice between these two procedures based on anatomy. The joint decision making that has evolved in the last few years in regard to valvular surgery appears to have had an impact on the decision-making process in other cardiosurgical procedures, and particularly coronary artery interventions.

One of the overriding predictors of increased mortality with PCI is the increased complexity of anatomy. The higher SYNTAX score was related to incomplete revascularization using PCI, compared with CABG. The presence of concomitant peripheral and carotid vascular disease, in addition to a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%, favored the CABG group. Multiple stents and stent thrombosis were also issues leading to the increased mortality in the PCI group. The main cause of death was recurrent myocardial infarction, which occurred more frequently in the PCI patients and was associated with incomplete revascularization.

The data in the SYNTAX follow-up is not new, but do reinforce what has been reported in previous meta-analyses. This study does, however, emphasize the importance of recurrent infarction as a cause of death in these patients with complex anatomy. It is possible that new stent technology and coronary flow assessment at the time of intervention could have improved the outcome of this comparison and improved the long-term patency of the stented vessels. PCI is an evolving technology heavily affected by the experience of the operator. CABG surgery has also changed, and its associated mortality and morbidity have also changed and improved. It is clear that this population raises important questions in which the operators need to individualize their decision based on trials like SYNTAX.



Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Addressing sexuality, gender identity issues is key to positive outcomes

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:25

 

A while ago, I gave a talk on LGBT health to a group of primary care pediatricians. Although I was glad that they invited me to speak, I also sensed some discomfort in the audience. At the end of the lecture, many pediatricians told me that they were uncomfortable with bringing up the topic of sexuality and gender identity with their patients, and others wanted guidance on how to ask questions on sexuality and gender identity.

There are many barriers for primary pediatricians in addressing sexuality and gender identity concerns in their patients. First, pediatricians often will have up to 15 minutes for a visit, so they will have little time to address a complex issue. Second, primary care pediatricians may have known many of their patients since birth, and asking questions on sexuality and gender can feel awkward. Finally, many pediatricians may be working in more conservative areas in the country where asking questions on sexuality and gender identity may be controversial.

Dr. Gerald Montano
Nevertheless, they will encounter LGBT patients whether they’re comfortable with it or not. It would be a disservice to ignore the health needs of LGBT patients. To expect them to go to a clinic whose providers are more comfortable with LGBT health issues would create major barriers for this vulnerable population, as many of these clinics are in urban areas and would require extensive traveling to reach. Contact with a primary care provider may be the only time when an LGBT youth will interact with the health care system. It can be a critical time, when pediatricians may have a positive impact on the health outcomes of the LGBT patient.

Although a very important topic, there is not much empirical evidence on how to ask questions on sexuality and gender appropriately, and most of these recommendations are based on my own experience working with LGBT youth. Regardless, I hope these pointers will help the primary care pediatrician address the needs of LGBT youth efficiently and with sensitivity.

Tip No. 1: The environment counts

I cannot overstate how important it is to make your clinic a welcoming place for LGBT youth. Having various signs and stickers – like rainbow flags or the Human Rights Campaign sticker – will signal to LGBT youth that they are safe in your clinic. Creating a safe and welcoming environment is important because many people in the LGBT community have experienced rejection and discrimination from their primary care doctors.1 Making your clinic a safe space will make it easier and efficient for patients to ask questions about sexuality and gender identity (see Dr. Gaya Chelvakumar’s column “Creating safe spaces for LGBTQ youth, families in health care settings” at pediatricnews.com).

Tip No. 2: Consider the context

Most likely, many presenting complaints – such as colds or sports injuries – of your adolescent patients will not involve sexual orientation or gender identity. There are exceptions. If you suspect an STD, then the risk for certain infections, such as HIV2 or gonorrhea of the anus or of the pharynx3 are higher in gay young men. For the latter, your screening method would be different (that is, obtaining a pharyngeal swab or an anal swab instead of a urine sample). Also, because many LGBT youth have higher rates of mental health problems compared with heterosexual youth,4 you may want to ask questions about sexuality or gender identity to patients complaining of depressive or anxiety symptoms. This is especially important for transgender youth, because the implementation of pubertal blockers or cross-sex hormones can be therapeutic.5 To prevent or reduce many of these health problems, asking about sexuality and gender identity is a good idea during the well visit, when you may have more time.

Tip No. 3: Not all developmental stages are considered equal

Adolescence is a period of rapid and phasic growth. Formation of an identity is one of the major psychosocial tasks for adolescence,6 and sexuality and gender are important identities. In general, in early adolescence identity becomes an issue as the teenager gains autonomy from parents. I typically start asking questions about sexuality and gender when the patient is 11 or 12, because many children may not understand sexuality and gender identity at a younger age. At these ages, I ask these questions with the parents in the room, then I ask them confidentially on subsequent well visits. This approach serves two purposes: it will prepare the adolescent for these complex and thought-provoking questions in future encounters, and it gives the parents an idea of the type of questions you will ask the children when they are old enough for the confidential visit, helping parents feel more comfortable in stepping out of the room during this time.

 

 

Tip No. 4: Keep it confidential

Many adolescents are reluctant to see a doctor, even if they are sick. The primary reason adolescents do not seek care is the fear that the provider will tell their parents about their illness.7 Although this should be applicable to all of your adolescent patients, you should make an extra effort to explicitly state to LGBT patients that the clinic visit is confidential (with the exception of risk of suicide, homicide, or child abuse). This is important for LGBT youth who are not out to their parents and may be in danger if they do come out.8

Tip No. 5: Normalize, normalize, normalize

Because of the stigma and discrimination surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity, many LGBT youth will be reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity to their health care providers. At the same time, heterosexual youth may think that you’re asking them questions about sexuality or gender identity because you suspect them to be a member of the LGBT community. To avoid this awkward situation, many pediatricians do not ask these questions at all. A good remedy for this is to preface your questions about sexual orientation or gender identity by saying that you ask these questions to all your patients – that way no one feels singled out.

Tip No. 6: Ask for permission

As previously mentioned, members of the LGBT community may experience discrimination from their health care providers after disclosing to them their sexual orientation or gender identity.1 This rejection can be traumatizing for LGBT youth, making them reluctant to discuss any issues related to sexual orientation or gender identity with any medical provider. As part of the trauma-informed approach, asking for permission before delving into issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity will give LGBT patients a sense of control, especially in an environment where there is a significant power differential.

Tip No. 7: Treat this as a skill

Despite the pressures for primary care pediatricians to maintain an efficient and effective clinical practice, many strive to learn new skills to provide the best care for their patients. Asking questions about sexuality and gender identity should be one of those skills. As with any skill, it will feel unnatural at first, and it will require practice. Mastering this skill, however, will help you address the health needs of this vulnerable population.

Asking questions about sexuality and gender identity is difficult for the primary care pediatrician. Hopefully, these tips can help you develop this important skill. It will also help you reach out to a population that is wary of the health care system.

References

1. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(1):156-60.

2. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html.

3. https://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/default.htm.

4. J Adolesc Health. 2011;49(2):115-23.

5. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7(8):466-72.
6. Neinstein LS. Adolescent health care: a practical guide. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

7. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40(3):218-26.

8. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1998;68(3):361-71.

Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

A while ago, I gave a talk on LGBT health to a group of primary care pediatricians. Although I was glad that they invited me to speak, I also sensed some discomfort in the audience. At the end of the lecture, many pediatricians told me that they were uncomfortable with bringing up the topic of sexuality and gender identity with their patients, and others wanted guidance on how to ask questions on sexuality and gender identity.

There are many barriers for primary pediatricians in addressing sexuality and gender identity concerns in their patients. First, pediatricians often will have up to 15 minutes for a visit, so they will have little time to address a complex issue. Second, primary care pediatricians may have known many of their patients since birth, and asking questions on sexuality and gender can feel awkward. Finally, many pediatricians may be working in more conservative areas in the country where asking questions on sexuality and gender identity may be controversial.

Dr. Gerald Montano
Nevertheless, they will encounter LGBT patients whether they’re comfortable with it or not. It would be a disservice to ignore the health needs of LGBT patients. To expect them to go to a clinic whose providers are more comfortable with LGBT health issues would create major barriers for this vulnerable population, as many of these clinics are in urban areas and would require extensive traveling to reach. Contact with a primary care provider may be the only time when an LGBT youth will interact with the health care system. It can be a critical time, when pediatricians may have a positive impact on the health outcomes of the LGBT patient.

Although a very important topic, there is not much empirical evidence on how to ask questions on sexuality and gender appropriately, and most of these recommendations are based on my own experience working with LGBT youth. Regardless, I hope these pointers will help the primary care pediatrician address the needs of LGBT youth efficiently and with sensitivity.

Tip No. 1: The environment counts

I cannot overstate how important it is to make your clinic a welcoming place for LGBT youth. Having various signs and stickers – like rainbow flags or the Human Rights Campaign sticker – will signal to LGBT youth that they are safe in your clinic. Creating a safe and welcoming environment is important because many people in the LGBT community have experienced rejection and discrimination from their primary care doctors.1 Making your clinic a safe space will make it easier and efficient for patients to ask questions about sexuality and gender identity (see Dr. Gaya Chelvakumar’s column “Creating safe spaces for LGBTQ youth, families in health care settings” at pediatricnews.com).

Tip No. 2: Consider the context

Most likely, many presenting complaints – such as colds or sports injuries – of your adolescent patients will not involve sexual orientation or gender identity. There are exceptions. If you suspect an STD, then the risk for certain infections, such as HIV2 or gonorrhea of the anus or of the pharynx3 are higher in gay young men. For the latter, your screening method would be different (that is, obtaining a pharyngeal swab or an anal swab instead of a urine sample). Also, because many LGBT youth have higher rates of mental health problems compared with heterosexual youth,4 you may want to ask questions about sexuality or gender identity to patients complaining of depressive or anxiety symptoms. This is especially important for transgender youth, because the implementation of pubertal blockers or cross-sex hormones can be therapeutic.5 To prevent or reduce many of these health problems, asking about sexuality and gender identity is a good idea during the well visit, when you may have more time.

Tip No. 3: Not all developmental stages are considered equal

Adolescence is a period of rapid and phasic growth. Formation of an identity is one of the major psychosocial tasks for adolescence,6 and sexuality and gender are important identities. In general, in early adolescence identity becomes an issue as the teenager gains autonomy from parents. I typically start asking questions about sexuality and gender when the patient is 11 or 12, because many children may not understand sexuality and gender identity at a younger age. At these ages, I ask these questions with the parents in the room, then I ask them confidentially on subsequent well visits. This approach serves two purposes: it will prepare the adolescent for these complex and thought-provoking questions in future encounters, and it gives the parents an idea of the type of questions you will ask the children when they are old enough for the confidential visit, helping parents feel more comfortable in stepping out of the room during this time.

 

 

Tip No. 4: Keep it confidential

Many adolescents are reluctant to see a doctor, even if they are sick. The primary reason adolescents do not seek care is the fear that the provider will tell their parents about their illness.7 Although this should be applicable to all of your adolescent patients, you should make an extra effort to explicitly state to LGBT patients that the clinic visit is confidential (with the exception of risk of suicide, homicide, or child abuse). This is important for LGBT youth who are not out to their parents and may be in danger if they do come out.8

Tip No. 5: Normalize, normalize, normalize

Because of the stigma and discrimination surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity, many LGBT youth will be reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity to their health care providers. At the same time, heterosexual youth may think that you’re asking them questions about sexuality or gender identity because you suspect them to be a member of the LGBT community. To avoid this awkward situation, many pediatricians do not ask these questions at all. A good remedy for this is to preface your questions about sexual orientation or gender identity by saying that you ask these questions to all your patients – that way no one feels singled out.

Tip No. 6: Ask for permission

As previously mentioned, members of the LGBT community may experience discrimination from their health care providers after disclosing to them their sexual orientation or gender identity.1 This rejection can be traumatizing for LGBT youth, making them reluctant to discuss any issues related to sexual orientation or gender identity with any medical provider. As part of the trauma-informed approach, asking for permission before delving into issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity will give LGBT patients a sense of control, especially in an environment where there is a significant power differential.

Tip No. 7: Treat this as a skill

Despite the pressures for primary care pediatricians to maintain an efficient and effective clinical practice, many strive to learn new skills to provide the best care for their patients. Asking questions about sexuality and gender identity should be one of those skills. As with any skill, it will feel unnatural at first, and it will require practice. Mastering this skill, however, will help you address the health needs of this vulnerable population.

Asking questions about sexuality and gender identity is difficult for the primary care pediatrician. Hopefully, these tips can help you develop this important skill. It will also help you reach out to a population that is wary of the health care system.

References

1. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(1):156-60.

2. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html.

3. https://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/default.htm.

4. J Adolesc Health. 2011;49(2):115-23.

5. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7(8):466-72.
6. Neinstein LS. Adolescent health care: a practical guide. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

7. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40(3):218-26.

8. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1998;68(3):361-71.

Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at [email protected].

 

A while ago, I gave a talk on LGBT health to a group of primary care pediatricians. Although I was glad that they invited me to speak, I also sensed some discomfort in the audience. At the end of the lecture, many pediatricians told me that they were uncomfortable with bringing up the topic of sexuality and gender identity with their patients, and others wanted guidance on how to ask questions on sexuality and gender identity.

There are many barriers for primary pediatricians in addressing sexuality and gender identity concerns in their patients. First, pediatricians often will have up to 15 minutes for a visit, so they will have little time to address a complex issue. Second, primary care pediatricians may have known many of their patients since birth, and asking questions on sexuality and gender can feel awkward. Finally, many pediatricians may be working in more conservative areas in the country where asking questions on sexuality and gender identity may be controversial.

Dr. Gerald Montano
Nevertheless, they will encounter LGBT patients whether they’re comfortable with it or not. It would be a disservice to ignore the health needs of LGBT patients. To expect them to go to a clinic whose providers are more comfortable with LGBT health issues would create major barriers for this vulnerable population, as many of these clinics are in urban areas and would require extensive traveling to reach. Contact with a primary care provider may be the only time when an LGBT youth will interact with the health care system. It can be a critical time, when pediatricians may have a positive impact on the health outcomes of the LGBT patient.

Although a very important topic, there is not much empirical evidence on how to ask questions on sexuality and gender appropriately, and most of these recommendations are based on my own experience working with LGBT youth. Regardless, I hope these pointers will help the primary care pediatrician address the needs of LGBT youth efficiently and with sensitivity.

Tip No. 1: The environment counts

I cannot overstate how important it is to make your clinic a welcoming place for LGBT youth. Having various signs and stickers – like rainbow flags or the Human Rights Campaign sticker – will signal to LGBT youth that they are safe in your clinic. Creating a safe and welcoming environment is important because many people in the LGBT community have experienced rejection and discrimination from their primary care doctors.1 Making your clinic a safe space will make it easier and efficient for patients to ask questions about sexuality and gender identity (see Dr. Gaya Chelvakumar’s column “Creating safe spaces for LGBTQ youth, families in health care settings” at pediatricnews.com).

Tip No. 2: Consider the context

Most likely, many presenting complaints – such as colds or sports injuries – of your adolescent patients will not involve sexual orientation or gender identity. There are exceptions. If you suspect an STD, then the risk for certain infections, such as HIV2 or gonorrhea of the anus or of the pharynx3 are higher in gay young men. For the latter, your screening method would be different (that is, obtaining a pharyngeal swab or an anal swab instead of a urine sample). Also, because many LGBT youth have higher rates of mental health problems compared with heterosexual youth,4 you may want to ask questions about sexuality or gender identity to patients complaining of depressive or anxiety symptoms. This is especially important for transgender youth, because the implementation of pubertal blockers or cross-sex hormones can be therapeutic.5 To prevent or reduce many of these health problems, asking about sexuality and gender identity is a good idea during the well visit, when you may have more time.

Tip No. 3: Not all developmental stages are considered equal

Adolescence is a period of rapid and phasic growth. Formation of an identity is one of the major psychosocial tasks for adolescence,6 and sexuality and gender are important identities. In general, in early adolescence identity becomes an issue as the teenager gains autonomy from parents. I typically start asking questions about sexuality and gender when the patient is 11 or 12, because many children may not understand sexuality and gender identity at a younger age. At these ages, I ask these questions with the parents in the room, then I ask them confidentially on subsequent well visits. This approach serves two purposes: it will prepare the adolescent for these complex and thought-provoking questions in future encounters, and it gives the parents an idea of the type of questions you will ask the children when they are old enough for the confidential visit, helping parents feel more comfortable in stepping out of the room during this time.

 

 

Tip No. 4: Keep it confidential

Many adolescents are reluctant to see a doctor, even if they are sick. The primary reason adolescents do not seek care is the fear that the provider will tell their parents about their illness.7 Although this should be applicable to all of your adolescent patients, you should make an extra effort to explicitly state to LGBT patients that the clinic visit is confidential (with the exception of risk of suicide, homicide, or child abuse). This is important for LGBT youth who are not out to their parents and may be in danger if they do come out.8

Tip No. 5: Normalize, normalize, normalize

Because of the stigma and discrimination surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity, many LGBT youth will be reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity to their health care providers. At the same time, heterosexual youth may think that you’re asking them questions about sexuality or gender identity because you suspect them to be a member of the LGBT community. To avoid this awkward situation, many pediatricians do not ask these questions at all. A good remedy for this is to preface your questions about sexual orientation or gender identity by saying that you ask these questions to all your patients – that way no one feels singled out.

Tip No. 6: Ask for permission

As previously mentioned, members of the LGBT community may experience discrimination from their health care providers after disclosing to them their sexual orientation or gender identity.1 This rejection can be traumatizing for LGBT youth, making them reluctant to discuss any issues related to sexual orientation or gender identity with any medical provider. As part of the trauma-informed approach, asking for permission before delving into issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity will give LGBT patients a sense of control, especially in an environment where there is a significant power differential.

Tip No. 7: Treat this as a skill

Despite the pressures for primary care pediatricians to maintain an efficient and effective clinical practice, many strive to learn new skills to provide the best care for their patients. Asking questions about sexuality and gender identity should be one of those skills. As with any skill, it will feel unnatural at first, and it will require practice. Mastering this skill, however, will help you address the health needs of this vulnerable population.

Asking questions about sexuality and gender identity is difficult for the primary care pediatrician. Hopefully, these tips can help you develop this important skill. It will also help you reach out to a population that is wary of the health care system.

References

1. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(1):156-60.

2. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html.

3. https://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/default.htm.

4. J Adolesc Health. 2011;49(2):115-23.

5. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7(8):466-72.
6. Neinstein LS. Adolescent health care: a practical guide. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

7. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40(3):218-26.

8. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1998;68(3):361-71.

Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

SVS (Specialty of Vascular Surgery): Why, How, and When

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/03/2019 - 10:29

 

The November 2016 issue of Annals of Vascular Surgery was devoted entirely to the history of the American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS) and the unsuccessful attempt to establish an independent specialty of Vascular Surgery.  The manuscript is methodically detailed by founders of the ABVS, James Stanley, MD, and Frank Veith, MD, and supplemented by commentaries from past board members as well as thought leaders in vascular surgery. In an attempt to maintain neutrality, readers are also provided with many of the documents that were either supportive or contrary to the development of the ABVS. Most senior vascular surgeons will recall the intense discussion and sometimes acrimonious arguments that accompanied the progress of the Board and its failed attempt to be recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). 

Younger vascular surgeons may not realize that the ABVS was ever established. Some may not even realize that, until relatively recently, vascular surgeons were not able to claim board certification even if they had completed a fellowship. Accordingly, as an historical document detailing an important aspect of the evolution of our specialty, this edition of Annals of Vascular surgery is a must read.

Cogent arguments both for and against an independent specialty were made by the leaders of our specialty at the time that the ABVS was being developed. Unfortunately, this did not lead to a uniform policy but rather long-standing, rancorous, and bitter divisions that in all probability prevented the ABVS from being recognized by the ABMS. Despite this failure, the debate around this issue elevated the stature of vascular surgery when the American Board of Surgery conceded that vascular surgeons could now claim “Board certification in vascular surgery” without having to be trained in general surgery. However, all important modifications to the current design of vascular residency and fellowship programs still need to be decided by the American Board of Surgery and its associated Residency Review Committee for Surgery (RRC-S). Further, many hospital administrators subordinate vascular surgery by insisting that vascular surgeons' interests be controlled by general or cardiothoracic surgeons. 

Most notably, this issue of Annals reignites fundamental questions that are at the heart of our existence as vascular surgeons. For example, has vascular surgery matured sufficiently to be considered a distinct specialty equivalent to other surgical specialties such as orthopedics, colorectal, urology, and otolaryngology surgery? If so, why did this not occur earlier? Does it warrant becoming independent from the American Board of Surgery such that only vascular surgeons will be in control of training programs, graduate education, and the practice of vascular surgery at universities, hospitals, and community practices? More significantly, why should these institutions, health agencies and the lay public care that there is a separate independent specialty – vascular surgery? The answer to these questions becomes apparent by an analysis of four historic elements that have changed since the ABVS was being formulated. 

First, and perhaps most importantly, the argument for an ABVS occurred when vascular surgery had just entered the endovascular revolution.  How difficult it must have been for those early vascular surgeons to realize that within a few years perhaps upward of 70%-80% of all procedures would not be performed in a standard operating room but rather an angiography suite, cath lab, or hybrid room? Could they envisage an era where abdominal aneurysms were treated not only without a laparotomy scar but even without a groin incision? That carotid endarterectomy may be replaced by a stent or that varicose veins would be abolished by an outpatient laser procedure?  Without such foresight, general surgeons and even those early vascular surgeons had to believe that vascular surgery, as then practiced, required general surgery training.

 A second historical reality that impacted the progress of the ABVS was the fragmentation of the governance of vascular surgeons on both a local and national level. Locally, university surgeons, assuming that vascular surgery was an intrinsic part of general surgery, may have been concerned that their leadership roles would be diminished if they were relegated to division heads rather than department chairs. Nationally, there existed three bodies representing vascular surgeons, each with its own leadership and motivations. These were the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), the North American chapter of the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery (NA-ISCVS) which later changed its name to the American Association for Vascular Surgery (AAVS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS). 

The SVS at the time was predominantly an academic association with its primary goal being the annual meeting. The SCVS was a casual community of predominantly private practice surgeons. The AAVS was the most representative but it did not have the infrastructure to be a dominant force. Further, there also existed the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery (APDVS).  This division was compounded by the formation of the ABVS.  Despite three polls of vascular surgeons, the majority of which supported an independent specialty, the divided leadership of these various organizations refused to abide by the voice of their respective memberships. The destructive internecine arguments that developed are detailed in the Annals manuscript, and this disunion of the vascular community and its leadership clearly hampered a collective identity.  

Thirdly, the members of the ABVS argued that an independent specialty was necessary in order to train vascular surgeons in the evolving field of endovascular procedures. However, many established leaders balked at this proposal and resisted incorporating such training into their programs. Their refusal to assist in the education of endo-competent vascular surgeons and the development of an independent specialty allowed cardiologists and interventional radiologists to infiltrate the field. Now, the argument for an independent specialty of vascular surgery is not so much with general surgeons but rather with Cardiologists and interventional radiologists. 

Fourth, the ABS at the time still considered itself an authoritative Board protective of an all-encompassing General surgery. Its leaders feared that separation of vascular surgery would lead to a stampede with other subspecialties such as pediatric and hand surgery clamoring for independence.

It is not surprising that there was little chance that the ABVS would succeed. However, much can be learned from this historical review that predicts a new initiative in today’s healthcare environment will likely be successful and benefit not only vascular surgeons but also their patients.

In this modern era the practice of vascular surgery involves multiple disciplines and various forms of therapy. As I have frequently claimed, vascular surgeons “operate, medicate, and dilate”.  When so much of what vascular surgeons do is beyond the realm of open surgery, wouldn’t most agree that vascular surgery should not be controlled by a governing body, the ABS, whose primary motivation remains operative therapy?

On the other hand, the current ABS recognizes all its subspecialties are similarly morphing away from general surgery and so the ABS is evolving into a Federation of quasi-independent boards. Accordingly, it is likely to be less resistant to a fully independent vascular specialty board existing under its umbrella organization.

Concomitantly, heads of divisions of vascular surgery in universities as well as community practice hospitals can no longer rely on the largesse of chairpersons of general or cardiothoracic surgery since most will not have clinical vascular experience.  Accordingly, these vascular surgeons must have complete autonomy with titles and positions elevated to chairs of a department rather than a division.

Vascular surgeons should also acknowledge that they can no longer claim total control of vascular patients. Vascular internists, cardiologists, interventional radiologists and even interventional nephrologists are all involved. An attempt to block further inroads will alienate these other specialties who in turn will attempt to deny us independent specialty designation.  We need to work in conjunction, while remaining the only specialty that can offer all forms of therapy. By providing quality care vascular surgeons will gain the respect of government, insurance agencies and our patients and thus support for our independent status.

Although our small specialty of probably no more than 3000 active vascular surgeons is still represented by many differing societies, the SVS has now become the de facto union of vascular surgeons. It has the ability to bring together all factions and it has the finances, the manpower and the organizational structure to represent all vascular surgeons on the national and international level. As such it is already recognized by governmental and commercial agencies as the authoritative voice of vascular surgeons.  The SVS, which has built a strong relationship with the APDVS, is also in a strong position to support and facilitate the undergraduate and postgraduate training of vascular surgeons and strengthen all aspects of an independent specialty of vascular surgery. Although there may still be disagreements about whether vascular surgery should be an independent specialty, the SVS should be the organization that serves as “convener” and ultimately implements the decision of the majority of vascular surgeons. It may be appropriate that the SVS Executive Committee authorizes one more survey of its membership to determine whether we continue to seek independent specialty designation and to approve it as a binding membership referendum.  

The plusses and minuses should be carefully defined and much thought given to how the questions in the opinion poll are defined. Whatever the results, they should stand, and be implemented.

Finally, as a practicing vascular surgeon and not necessarily in my role as medical editor of the Vascular Specialist I would like to thank Dr. Timothy M. Sullivan and the Annals of Vascular Surgery for publication of this review and Drs. Stanley and Veith for providing us with the gift of historical perspective.  Now our goal should not be to repeat history, but rather to learn from our past experiences. I am sure most will commend Drs. Stanley and Veith and all the other vascular surgeons who dedicated so much of their time in the pursuit of an independent vascular specialty.

However, we should not demonize those that held a contrary view, for most were a product of their times. As recent Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan has written, “The times they are a’changing,” and they are changing in our favor. ■ 

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The November 2016 issue of Annals of Vascular Surgery was devoted entirely to the history of the American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS) and the unsuccessful attempt to establish an independent specialty of Vascular Surgery.  The manuscript is methodically detailed by founders of the ABVS, James Stanley, MD, and Frank Veith, MD, and supplemented by commentaries from past board members as well as thought leaders in vascular surgery. In an attempt to maintain neutrality, readers are also provided with many of the documents that were either supportive or contrary to the development of the ABVS. Most senior vascular surgeons will recall the intense discussion and sometimes acrimonious arguments that accompanied the progress of the Board and its failed attempt to be recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). 

Younger vascular surgeons may not realize that the ABVS was ever established. Some may not even realize that, until relatively recently, vascular surgeons were not able to claim board certification even if they had completed a fellowship. Accordingly, as an historical document detailing an important aspect of the evolution of our specialty, this edition of Annals of Vascular surgery is a must read.

Cogent arguments both for and against an independent specialty were made by the leaders of our specialty at the time that the ABVS was being developed. Unfortunately, this did not lead to a uniform policy but rather long-standing, rancorous, and bitter divisions that in all probability prevented the ABVS from being recognized by the ABMS. Despite this failure, the debate around this issue elevated the stature of vascular surgery when the American Board of Surgery conceded that vascular surgeons could now claim “Board certification in vascular surgery” without having to be trained in general surgery. However, all important modifications to the current design of vascular residency and fellowship programs still need to be decided by the American Board of Surgery and its associated Residency Review Committee for Surgery (RRC-S). Further, many hospital administrators subordinate vascular surgery by insisting that vascular surgeons' interests be controlled by general or cardiothoracic surgeons. 

Most notably, this issue of Annals reignites fundamental questions that are at the heart of our existence as vascular surgeons. For example, has vascular surgery matured sufficiently to be considered a distinct specialty equivalent to other surgical specialties such as orthopedics, colorectal, urology, and otolaryngology surgery? If so, why did this not occur earlier? Does it warrant becoming independent from the American Board of Surgery such that only vascular surgeons will be in control of training programs, graduate education, and the practice of vascular surgery at universities, hospitals, and community practices? More significantly, why should these institutions, health agencies and the lay public care that there is a separate independent specialty – vascular surgery? The answer to these questions becomes apparent by an analysis of four historic elements that have changed since the ABVS was being formulated. 

First, and perhaps most importantly, the argument for an ABVS occurred when vascular surgery had just entered the endovascular revolution.  How difficult it must have been for those early vascular surgeons to realize that within a few years perhaps upward of 70%-80% of all procedures would not be performed in a standard operating room but rather an angiography suite, cath lab, or hybrid room? Could they envisage an era where abdominal aneurysms were treated not only without a laparotomy scar but even without a groin incision? That carotid endarterectomy may be replaced by a stent or that varicose veins would be abolished by an outpatient laser procedure?  Without such foresight, general surgeons and even those early vascular surgeons had to believe that vascular surgery, as then practiced, required general surgery training.

 A second historical reality that impacted the progress of the ABVS was the fragmentation of the governance of vascular surgeons on both a local and national level. Locally, university surgeons, assuming that vascular surgery was an intrinsic part of general surgery, may have been concerned that their leadership roles would be diminished if they were relegated to division heads rather than department chairs. Nationally, there existed three bodies representing vascular surgeons, each with its own leadership and motivations. These were the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), the North American chapter of the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery (NA-ISCVS) which later changed its name to the American Association for Vascular Surgery (AAVS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS). 

The SVS at the time was predominantly an academic association with its primary goal being the annual meeting. The SCVS was a casual community of predominantly private practice surgeons. The AAVS was the most representative but it did not have the infrastructure to be a dominant force. Further, there also existed the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery (APDVS).  This division was compounded by the formation of the ABVS.  Despite three polls of vascular surgeons, the majority of which supported an independent specialty, the divided leadership of these various organizations refused to abide by the voice of their respective memberships. The destructive internecine arguments that developed are detailed in the Annals manuscript, and this disunion of the vascular community and its leadership clearly hampered a collective identity.  

Thirdly, the members of the ABVS argued that an independent specialty was necessary in order to train vascular surgeons in the evolving field of endovascular procedures. However, many established leaders balked at this proposal and resisted incorporating such training into their programs. Their refusal to assist in the education of endo-competent vascular surgeons and the development of an independent specialty allowed cardiologists and interventional radiologists to infiltrate the field. Now, the argument for an independent specialty of vascular surgery is not so much with general surgeons but rather with Cardiologists and interventional radiologists. 

Fourth, the ABS at the time still considered itself an authoritative Board protective of an all-encompassing General surgery. Its leaders feared that separation of vascular surgery would lead to a stampede with other subspecialties such as pediatric and hand surgery clamoring for independence.

It is not surprising that there was little chance that the ABVS would succeed. However, much can be learned from this historical review that predicts a new initiative in today’s healthcare environment will likely be successful and benefit not only vascular surgeons but also their patients.

In this modern era the practice of vascular surgery involves multiple disciplines and various forms of therapy. As I have frequently claimed, vascular surgeons “operate, medicate, and dilate”.  When so much of what vascular surgeons do is beyond the realm of open surgery, wouldn’t most agree that vascular surgery should not be controlled by a governing body, the ABS, whose primary motivation remains operative therapy?

On the other hand, the current ABS recognizes all its subspecialties are similarly morphing away from general surgery and so the ABS is evolving into a Federation of quasi-independent boards. Accordingly, it is likely to be less resistant to a fully independent vascular specialty board existing under its umbrella organization.

Concomitantly, heads of divisions of vascular surgery in universities as well as community practice hospitals can no longer rely on the largesse of chairpersons of general or cardiothoracic surgery since most will not have clinical vascular experience.  Accordingly, these vascular surgeons must have complete autonomy with titles and positions elevated to chairs of a department rather than a division.

Vascular surgeons should also acknowledge that they can no longer claim total control of vascular patients. Vascular internists, cardiologists, interventional radiologists and even interventional nephrologists are all involved. An attempt to block further inroads will alienate these other specialties who in turn will attempt to deny us independent specialty designation.  We need to work in conjunction, while remaining the only specialty that can offer all forms of therapy. By providing quality care vascular surgeons will gain the respect of government, insurance agencies and our patients and thus support for our independent status.

Although our small specialty of probably no more than 3000 active vascular surgeons is still represented by many differing societies, the SVS has now become the de facto union of vascular surgeons. It has the ability to bring together all factions and it has the finances, the manpower and the organizational structure to represent all vascular surgeons on the national and international level. As such it is already recognized by governmental and commercial agencies as the authoritative voice of vascular surgeons.  The SVS, which has built a strong relationship with the APDVS, is also in a strong position to support and facilitate the undergraduate and postgraduate training of vascular surgeons and strengthen all aspects of an independent specialty of vascular surgery. Although there may still be disagreements about whether vascular surgery should be an independent specialty, the SVS should be the organization that serves as “convener” and ultimately implements the decision of the majority of vascular surgeons. It may be appropriate that the SVS Executive Committee authorizes one more survey of its membership to determine whether we continue to seek independent specialty designation and to approve it as a binding membership referendum.  

The plusses and minuses should be carefully defined and much thought given to how the questions in the opinion poll are defined. Whatever the results, they should stand, and be implemented.

Finally, as a practicing vascular surgeon and not necessarily in my role as medical editor of the Vascular Specialist I would like to thank Dr. Timothy M. Sullivan and the Annals of Vascular Surgery for publication of this review and Drs. Stanley and Veith for providing us with the gift of historical perspective.  Now our goal should not be to repeat history, but rather to learn from our past experiences. I am sure most will commend Drs. Stanley and Veith and all the other vascular surgeons who dedicated so much of their time in the pursuit of an independent vascular specialty.

However, we should not demonize those that held a contrary view, for most were a product of their times. As recent Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan has written, “The times they are a’changing,” and they are changing in our favor. ■ 

 

The November 2016 issue of Annals of Vascular Surgery was devoted entirely to the history of the American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS) and the unsuccessful attempt to establish an independent specialty of Vascular Surgery.  The manuscript is methodically detailed by founders of the ABVS, James Stanley, MD, and Frank Veith, MD, and supplemented by commentaries from past board members as well as thought leaders in vascular surgery. In an attempt to maintain neutrality, readers are also provided with many of the documents that were either supportive or contrary to the development of the ABVS. Most senior vascular surgeons will recall the intense discussion and sometimes acrimonious arguments that accompanied the progress of the Board and its failed attempt to be recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). 

Younger vascular surgeons may not realize that the ABVS was ever established. Some may not even realize that, until relatively recently, vascular surgeons were not able to claim board certification even if they had completed a fellowship. Accordingly, as an historical document detailing an important aspect of the evolution of our specialty, this edition of Annals of Vascular surgery is a must read.

Cogent arguments both for and against an independent specialty were made by the leaders of our specialty at the time that the ABVS was being developed. Unfortunately, this did not lead to a uniform policy but rather long-standing, rancorous, and bitter divisions that in all probability prevented the ABVS from being recognized by the ABMS. Despite this failure, the debate around this issue elevated the stature of vascular surgery when the American Board of Surgery conceded that vascular surgeons could now claim “Board certification in vascular surgery” without having to be trained in general surgery. However, all important modifications to the current design of vascular residency and fellowship programs still need to be decided by the American Board of Surgery and its associated Residency Review Committee for Surgery (RRC-S). Further, many hospital administrators subordinate vascular surgery by insisting that vascular surgeons' interests be controlled by general or cardiothoracic surgeons. 

Most notably, this issue of Annals reignites fundamental questions that are at the heart of our existence as vascular surgeons. For example, has vascular surgery matured sufficiently to be considered a distinct specialty equivalent to other surgical specialties such as orthopedics, colorectal, urology, and otolaryngology surgery? If so, why did this not occur earlier? Does it warrant becoming independent from the American Board of Surgery such that only vascular surgeons will be in control of training programs, graduate education, and the practice of vascular surgery at universities, hospitals, and community practices? More significantly, why should these institutions, health agencies and the lay public care that there is a separate independent specialty – vascular surgery? The answer to these questions becomes apparent by an analysis of four historic elements that have changed since the ABVS was being formulated. 

First, and perhaps most importantly, the argument for an ABVS occurred when vascular surgery had just entered the endovascular revolution.  How difficult it must have been for those early vascular surgeons to realize that within a few years perhaps upward of 70%-80% of all procedures would not be performed in a standard operating room but rather an angiography suite, cath lab, or hybrid room? Could they envisage an era where abdominal aneurysms were treated not only without a laparotomy scar but even without a groin incision? That carotid endarterectomy may be replaced by a stent or that varicose veins would be abolished by an outpatient laser procedure?  Without such foresight, general surgeons and even those early vascular surgeons had to believe that vascular surgery, as then practiced, required general surgery training.

 A second historical reality that impacted the progress of the ABVS was the fragmentation of the governance of vascular surgeons on both a local and national level. Locally, university surgeons, assuming that vascular surgery was an intrinsic part of general surgery, may have been concerned that their leadership roles would be diminished if they were relegated to division heads rather than department chairs. Nationally, there existed three bodies representing vascular surgeons, each with its own leadership and motivations. These were the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), the North American chapter of the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery (NA-ISCVS) which later changed its name to the American Association for Vascular Surgery (AAVS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS). 

The SVS at the time was predominantly an academic association with its primary goal being the annual meeting. The SCVS was a casual community of predominantly private practice surgeons. The AAVS was the most representative but it did not have the infrastructure to be a dominant force. Further, there also existed the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery (APDVS).  This division was compounded by the formation of the ABVS.  Despite three polls of vascular surgeons, the majority of which supported an independent specialty, the divided leadership of these various organizations refused to abide by the voice of their respective memberships. The destructive internecine arguments that developed are detailed in the Annals manuscript, and this disunion of the vascular community and its leadership clearly hampered a collective identity.  

Thirdly, the members of the ABVS argued that an independent specialty was necessary in order to train vascular surgeons in the evolving field of endovascular procedures. However, many established leaders balked at this proposal and resisted incorporating such training into their programs. Their refusal to assist in the education of endo-competent vascular surgeons and the development of an independent specialty allowed cardiologists and interventional radiologists to infiltrate the field. Now, the argument for an independent specialty of vascular surgery is not so much with general surgeons but rather with Cardiologists and interventional radiologists. 

Fourth, the ABS at the time still considered itself an authoritative Board protective of an all-encompassing General surgery. Its leaders feared that separation of vascular surgery would lead to a stampede with other subspecialties such as pediatric and hand surgery clamoring for independence.

It is not surprising that there was little chance that the ABVS would succeed. However, much can be learned from this historical review that predicts a new initiative in today’s healthcare environment will likely be successful and benefit not only vascular surgeons but also their patients.

In this modern era the practice of vascular surgery involves multiple disciplines and various forms of therapy. As I have frequently claimed, vascular surgeons “operate, medicate, and dilate”.  When so much of what vascular surgeons do is beyond the realm of open surgery, wouldn’t most agree that vascular surgery should not be controlled by a governing body, the ABS, whose primary motivation remains operative therapy?

On the other hand, the current ABS recognizes all its subspecialties are similarly morphing away from general surgery and so the ABS is evolving into a Federation of quasi-independent boards. Accordingly, it is likely to be less resistant to a fully independent vascular specialty board existing under its umbrella organization.

Concomitantly, heads of divisions of vascular surgery in universities as well as community practice hospitals can no longer rely on the largesse of chairpersons of general or cardiothoracic surgery since most will not have clinical vascular experience.  Accordingly, these vascular surgeons must have complete autonomy with titles and positions elevated to chairs of a department rather than a division.

Vascular surgeons should also acknowledge that they can no longer claim total control of vascular patients. Vascular internists, cardiologists, interventional radiologists and even interventional nephrologists are all involved. An attempt to block further inroads will alienate these other specialties who in turn will attempt to deny us independent specialty designation.  We need to work in conjunction, while remaining the only specialty that can offer all forms of therapy. By providing quality care vascular surgeons will gain the respect of government, insurance agencies and our patients and thus support for our independent status.

Although our small specialty of probably no more than 3000 active vascular surgeons is still represented by many differing societies, the SVS has now become the de facto union of vascular surgeons. It has the ability to bring together all factions and it has the finances, the manpower and the organizational structure to represent all vascular surgeons on the national and international level. As such it is already recognized by governmental and commercial agencies as the authoritative voice of vascular surgeons.  The SVS, which has built a strong relationship with the APDVS, is also in a strong position to support and facilitate the undergraduate and postgraduate training of vascular surgeons and strengthen all aspects of an independent specialty of vascular surgery. Although there may still be disagreements about whether vascular surgery should be an independent specialty, the SVS should be the organization that serves as “convener” and ultimately implements the decision of the majority of vascular surgeons. It may be appropriate that the SVS Executive Committee authorizes one more survey of its membership to determine whether we continue to seek independent specialty designation and to approve it as a binding membership referendum.  

The plusses and minuses should be carefully defined and much thought given to how the questions in the opinion poll are defined. Whatever the results, they should stand, and be implemented.

Finally, as a practicing vascular surgeon and not necessarily in my role as medical editor of the Vascular Specialist I would like to thank Dr. Timothy M. Sullivan and the Annals of Vascular Surgery for publication of this review and Drs. Stanley and Veith for providing us with the gift of historical perspective.  Now our goal should not be to repeat history, but rather to learn from our past experiences. I am sure most will commend Drs. Stanley and Veith and all the other vascular surgeons who dedicated so much of their time in the pursuit of an independent vascular specialty.

However, we should not demonize those that held a contrary view, for most were a product of their times. As recent Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan has written, “The times they are a’changing,” and they are changing in our favor. ■ 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads