Commentary

While most Americans were still reacting in horror and disbelief to news of a mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida in the early morning hours of June 12, 2016, the thoughts of most emergency physicians (EPs) were probably focused on the ongoing efforts to save as many victims as possible: What was the closest Level 1 trauma center, and how deep was the ED staffing there that night? Was there a need for additional resources, and perhaps even, could they get there in time to help? In this issue of Emergency Medicine (EM), Residency Program Director Salvatore Silvestri, MD, and his emergency medicine colleagues masterfully recount events from that night as they unfolded, both at the scene and two blocks away at the Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) ED, in the minutes and hours following the first reported shootings.

Being prepared for a mass-casualty incident (MCI) is an extraordinarily expensive requirement of a hospital: It must acquire and maintain adequate resources and communication capabilities; periodically perform unannounced drills that disrupt other hospital activities; and ensure that all EPs and staff are not only able to perform their own day-to-day roles as attending physicians, residents, nurses, etc, but are also capable of taking on even greater responsibilities during an MCI—depending on the day and time it occurs. As you will read in the pages that follow, in the early morning hours of June 12, many of the practiced exercises and rehearsed procedures proved useful, even life-saving, while others had to be discarded or ignored in favor of improvised solutions to rapidly transport and treat the large number of victims with unanticipated needs, under unique conditions. 

In any MCI, saving the largest number of victims invariably depends on rapidly instituting some deviations from standard operating procedures (SOPs) and standards of care (SOCs). As described by the ORMC EP authors, “...law enforcement vehicles and ambulances would make the two-block drive from the scene to ORMC carrying as many patients as they safely could, and return immediately after offload….minimal interventions were performed and unlike standard procedure, EMS could offer no prearrival report to the hospital.”

Deviations from SOPs and SOCs during an MCI are not confined to prehospital care, but often extend into the ED and beyond. Most difficult for an EP participating in an MCI is the moment of realization that the sheer number of seriously injured and dying patients arriving en masse mandates a change from “ED triage” to “battlefield triage.” As Dr Ponder recalled, “One of the first few patients I saw was pulse­less, and as I went to start chest compressions, I was stopped by a trauma surgeon who said, ‘He’s gone, focus on the ones we can help.’”

In EDs, dying patients are attended to first with extensive staff and resources, while, as a result, less seriously ill patients must sometimes wait longer for care. The opposite is true on the battlefield, where near-death victims of lethal injuries are provided only with comfort care, at most, in order to save those who have a chance of surviving their extensive or serious injuries. 

For hospitals and staff, the costs incurred by disaster preparedness are great and invariably exceed government funding provided for these efforts, but how much greater would be the human toll from an MCI without such efforts? All EPs should be proud of what our colleagues at ORMC accomplished on June 12. Though most EPs may never have to deal directly with an MCI, the Orlando nightclub shooting incident was only one of the latest MCIs, certainly not one of the last.

Previous editorials on MCIs may be found in EM September 2006 (9/11), June 2011 (first responders), September 2011 (9/11), November 2011 (surge capacity), and September 2012 (surge capacity/Hurricane Sandy).

While most Americans were still reacting in horror and disbelief to news of a mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida in the early morning hours of June 12, 2016, the thoughts of most emergency physicians (EPs) were probably focused on the ongoing efforts to save as many victims as possible: What was the closest Level 1 trauma center, and how deep was the ED staffing there that night? Was there a need for additional resources, and perhaps even, could they get there in time to help? In this issue of Emergency Medicine (EM), Residency Program Director Salvatore Silvestri, MD, and his emergency medicine colleagues masterfully recount events from that night as they unfolded, both at the scene and two blocks away at the Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) ED, in the minutes and hours following the first reported shootings.

Being prepared for a mass-casualty incident (MCI) is an extraordinarily expensive requirement of a hospital: It must acquire and maintain adequate resources and communication capabilities; periodically perform unannounced drills that disrupt other hospital activities; and ensure that all EPs and staff are not only able to perform their own day-to-day roles as attending physicians, residents, nurses, etc, but are also capable of taking on even greater responsibilities during an MCI—depending on the day and time it occurs. As you will read in the pages that follow, in the early morning hours of June 12, many of the practiced exercises and rehearsed procedures proved useful, even life-saving, while others had to be discarded or ignored in favor of improvised solutions to rapidly transport and treat the large number of victims with unanticipated needs, under unique conditions. 

In any MCI, saving the largest number of victims invariably depends on rapidly instituting some deviations from standard operating procedures (SOPs) and standards of care (SOCs). As described by the ORMC EP authors, “...law enforcement vehicles and ambulances would make the two-block drive from the scene to ORMC carrying as many patients as they safely could, and return immediately after offload….minimal interventions were performed and unlike standard procedure, EMS could offer no prearrival report to the hospital.”

Deviations from SOPs and SOCs during an MCI are not confined to prehospital care, but often extend into the ED and beyond. Most difficult for an EP participating in an MCI is the moment of realization that the sheer number of seriously injured and dying patients arriving en masse mandates a change from “ED triage” to “battlefield triage.” As Dr Ponder recalled, “One of the first few patients I saw was pulse­less, and as I went to start chest compressions, I was stopped by a trauma surgeon who said, ‘He’s gone, focus on the ones we can help.’”

In EDs, dying patients are attended to first with extensive staff and resources, while, as a result, less seriously ill patients must sometimes wait longer for care. The opposite is true on the battlefield, where near-death victims of lethal injuries are provided only with comfort care, at most, in order to save those who have a chance of surviving their extensive or serious injuries. 

For hospitals and staff, the costs incurred by disaster preparedness are great and invariably exceed government funding provided for these efforts, but how much greater would be the human toll from an MCI without such efforts? All EPs should be proud of what our colleagues at ORMC accomplished on June 12. Though most EPs may never have to deal directly with an MCI, the Orlando nightclub shooting incident was only one of the latest MCIs, certainly not one of the last.

Previous editorials on MCIs may be found in EM September 2006 (9/11), June 2011 (first responders), September 2011 (9/11), November 2011 (surge capacity), and September 2012 (surge capacity/Hurricane Sandy).

While most Americans were still reacting in horror and disbelief to news of a mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida in the early morning hours of June 12, 2016, the thoughts of most emergency physicians (EPs) were probably focused on the ongoing efforts to save as many victims as possible: What was the closest Level 1 trauma center, and how deep was the ED staffing there that night? Was there a need for additional resources, and perhaps even, could they get there in time to help? In this issue of Emergency Medicine (EM), Residency Program Director Salvatore Silvestri, MD, and his emergency medicine colleagues masterfully recount events from that night as they unfolded, both at the scene and two blocks away at the Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) ED, in the minutes and hours following the first reported shootings.

Being prepared for a mass-casualty incident (MCI) is an extraordinarily expensive requirement of a hospital: It must acquire and maintain adequate resources and communication capabilities; periodically perform unannounced drills that disrupt other hospital activities; and ensure that all EPs and staff are not only able to perform their own day-to-day roles as attending physicians, residents, nurses, etc, but are also capable of taking on even greater responsibilities during an MCI—depending on the day and time it occurs. As you will read in the pages that follow, in the early morning hours of June 12, many of the practiced exercises and rehearsed procedures proved useful, even life-saving, while others had to be discarded or ignored in favor of improvised solutions to rapidly transport and treat the large number of victims with unanticipated needs, under unique conditions. 

In any MCI, saving the largest number of victims invariably depends on rapidly instituting some deviations from standard operating procedures (SOPs) and standards of care (SOCs). As described by the ORMC EP authors, “...law enforcement vehicles and ambulances would make the two-block drive from the scene to ORMC carrying as many patients as they safely could, and return immediately after offload….minimal interventions were performed and unlike standard procedure, EMS could offer no prearrival report to the hospital.”

Deviations from SOPs and SOCs during an MCI are not confined to prehospital care, but often extend into the ED and beyond. Most difficult for an EP participating in an MCI is the moment of realization that the sheer number of seriously injured and dying patients arriving en masse mandates a change from “ED triage” to “battlefield triage.” As Dr Ponder recalled, “One of the first few patients I saw was pulse­less, and as I went to start chest compressions, I was stopped by a trauma surgeon who said, ‘He’s gone, focus on the ones we can help.’”

In EDs, dying patients are attended to first with extensive staff and resources, while, as a result, less seriously ill patients must sometimes wait longer for care. The opposite is true on the battlefield, where near-death victims of lethal injuries are provided only with comfort care, at most, in order to save those who have a chance of surviving their extensive or serious injuries. 

For hospitals and staff, the costs incurred by disaster preparedness are great and invariably exceed government funding provided for these efforts, but how much greater would be the human toll from an MCI without such efforts? All EPs should be proud of what our colleagues at ORMC accomplished on June 12. Though most EPs may never have to deal directly with an MCI, the Orlando nightclub shooting incident was only one of the latest MCIs, certainly not one of the last.

Previous editorials on MCIs may be found in EM September 2006 (9/11), June 2011 (first responders), September 2011 (9/11), November 2011 (surge capacity), and September 2012 (surge capacity/Hurricane Sandy).

“What Insect repellents are safe during pregnancy?”

ANUSHKA CHELLIAH, MD, AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (JUNE 2016)

Alternatives to DEET

Picaridin is not mentioned in this brief report from Drs. Chelliah and Duff. I suggest reviewing the July 2015 Consumer Reports article on repellents; picaridin is a likely safer alternative to DEET, with the highest efficacy of all those tested, at least in Sawyer Fisherman’s Formula Picaridin Insect Repellent and Natrapel 8 Hour Insect Repellent. Products that have little or no efficacy also were not mentioned, including Avon Skin So Soft, Coleman Naturals Insect Repellent Snap Band, and SuperBand Wristband. In addition, the concentration of products is very important, as is the precise formulation within brands. For example, Off! Deep Woods VIII (with DEET 25%) is very effective versus Off! FamilyCare II Clean Feel (with picaridin 5%), which has very little benefit.

David H. Janowitz, MD
Houston, Texas

Drs. Chelliah and Duff respond

In our short discussion of mosquito repellents, we based our recommendations on publications from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Florida Department of Health. Those publications presented DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) at the top of the list for preferred repellents. A recent publication from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (MotherToBaby, September 2013) indicated that, in a concentration of 20% to 30%, DEET was safe in pregnancy and was effective in protecting against 90% of all mosquito bites and tick attachments. Increasing the concentration of DEET above 30% does not enhance the product’s effectiveness or prolong its duration of action.

However, Dr. Janowitz is correct in stating that other agents are also highly effective and safe in pregnancy. These agents include picaridin (20%) and oil of lemon/eucalyptus (30%). We thank Dr. Janowitz for directing us to the most recent testing program conducted by Consumer Reports.¹ That testing program demonstrated that Sawyer Fisherman’s Formula Picaridin and Natrapel 8 Hour, which each contain 20% picaridin, and Off! Deep Woods VIII, which contains 25% DEET, kept Aedes mosquitoes from biting for approximately 8 hours. The Sawyer product was also effective in preventing bites from the Culex mosquitoes, which carry West Nile virus, and deer ticks, which can transmit Lyme disease. Repel Lemon Eucalyptus (30%) stopped Aedes mosquito bites for 7 hours.

In the Consumer Reports testing program, IR3535 products, which we recommended in our article, did not perform well, nor did repellents that contained only 7% DEET or less than 20% picaridin. Moreover, products made from natural plant oils—such as citronella, lemongrass oil, cedar oil, geraniol, rosemary oil, and cinnamon oil—were not particularly effective. Some did not last for more than 1 hour; some failed immediately.

When applying any of these products, individuals should observe the following guidelines:

• apply insect repellents only to exposed skin or clothing
• do not apply repellents on cuts, wounds, or abraded skin or immediately after shaving
• avoid the eyes and mouth when applying repellent to the face
• after exposure is over, wash the skin with soap and water
• clothing that has been treated with one of these agents or with permethrin should be washed separately before it is worn again.

Reference

“Tissue extraction: Can the pendulum change direction?”

ARNOLD P. ADVINCULA, MD (JUNE 2016)

We have met the enemy and he is us

While I share the optimism Dr. Advincula expressed in his recent guest editorial regarding a change in the direction of the pendulum that swung away from use of the power morcellator, I feel compelled to express the opinion that this entire fiasco has been nothing other than an outrageous regulatory overreach.

Shortly after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its proclamation in April 2014, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology repudiated the bogus statistics that were being used to describe the incidence of leiomyosarcoma and, further, stated that it would not matter how someone’s uterus containing this rare tumor was removed because the outcome would be poor. Similarly, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published an article enumerating the expected significant increase in complications and the resulting misery that could be expected for patients whose management was diverted from minimally invasive to open hysterectomy.¹ The AAGL also expressed opinions that this was an unnecessary, and counterproductive, policy—all to no avail.

My optimism, however, is tempered by a number of questions: 1) Why did it take more than a year for 36 nationally recognized gynecologic surgeons to write a letter to the FDA denouncing the warning, yet again, and reiterating the errors in analysis used to establish the policy? 2) Why are gynecologic surgeons only now being asked to serve in the FDA’s Network of Experts? Should not that have been the case before the warning was issued? 3) If the perioperative outcomes are similar using a containment bag compared with open morcellation, what is the benefit of using the containment system? I, for one, think that prolonging a procedure another half hour is significant.

The FDA’s egregious policy clearly has had a net negative impact on the welfare of our patients. The gynecologic surgeon community should have pushed back more forcefully and effectively. I hope the next time something like this happens (and it will) we can be better advocates for our patients. 

Mark S. Finkelston, DO
Shawnee Mission, Kansas

Reference

Dr. Advincula responds

I thank Dr. Finkelston for his thoughts regarding my editorial. There is no doubt that the issues surrounding tissue extraction have been heated. Although I do not have definitive answers that explain all of the various reactions, whether immediate or delayed, to the cascade of events surrounding morcellation, I do believe that much of it was a response to N-of-1 policy-making, as very nicely discussed in a New England Journal of Medicine article by Lisa Rosenbaum.¹ We must continue to foster constructive dialogues with our regulatory bodies and cultivate the spirit of innovation that has brought so many advances to the field of surgery. Ultimately, going forward, it will be important for clinicians and other health care providers to speak up and not remain silent for fear of being vilified.

Reference

Vaginal hysterectomy solves the tissue morcellation dilemma

Dr. Advincula starts his guest editorial with the statement, “With practical, evidence-based, sound clinical judgement, I believe that it can.”

In fact, what “practical, evidence-based, sound clinical judgement” supports is a return to vaginal hysterectomy with transvaginal extracorporeal morcellation techniques. As Dr. Carl Zimmerman said in a recent debate at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS annual meeting), “There is no recorded case of a vaginal hysterectomy with morcellation upgrading a patient with leiomyosarcoma.” In addition, the majority of cases in which Dr. Advincula and others are performing robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy or total laparoscopic hysterectomy have this clinical and demographic profile: average age, 42; average parity, G2; average body mass index, 30; most common diagnosis, abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids; most common pathology, fibroids; average uterine weight, 165 g. The majority of these can be performed much more safely, quickly, and cost effectively by transvaginal hysterectomy/morcellation. Please see an excellent commentary by Dr. Andrew Walter, immediate past president of SGS, on “Why we should strive for a vaginal hysterectomy rate of 40%.”¹

But the main reason Dr. Advincula should not be given a voice on this issue is because he has significant financial conflict of interest with the medical device industry. Should he even be on the OBG <scaps>Management</scaps> board of editors? I do not believe the rest of your editors have anywhere near his level of conflict of interest. Should he not be asked to recuse himself in this debate or abandon his financial connections with the medical device industry? Is this not the whole purpose of the Sunshine Act? Please, should you not be supporting what is in the best interest of our patients and payers?

R. Bruce Councell, MD
Asheville, North Carolina

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds

At OBG Management, we wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Councell that vaginal hysterectomy is an excellent approach to removing the uterus in most women with noncancer indications for surgery. Our recently featured articles focused on vaginal hysterectomy include: “Transforming vaginal hysterectomy: 7 solutions to the most daunting challenges,” “Is energy-based vessel sealing safer than suturing for vaginal hysterectomy?,” Is same-day discharge feasible and safe for women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy?,” and “Can we reduce the use of abdominal hysterectomy and increase the use of vaginal and laparoscopic approaches?” We plan to publish more content on advances in both vaginal and laparoscopic surgery.

We are proud to have Dr. Advincula, an internationally recognized leader in gynecologic surgery, serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board. His expertise and perspective is of great value to our readers. It is true that many leading surgeons, including Dr. Advincula, serve as consultants with manufacturers of surgical devices. Working together, clinical experts and device manufacturers help to advance medical care. In his editorial, Dr. Advincula did disclose these relationships. As a check on the quality and balance in our editorial material, I personally review all content and I have no financial relationships with any pharmaceutical or device manufacturer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“What Insect repellents are safe during pregnancy?”

ANUSHKA CHELLIAH, MD, AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (JUNE 2016)

Alternatives to DEET

Picaridin is not mentioned in this brief report from Drs. Chelliah and Duff. I suggest reviewing the July 2015 Consumer Reports article on repellents; picaridin is a likely safer alternative to DEET, with the highest efficacy of all those tested, at least in Sawyer Fisherman’s Formula Picaridin Insect Repellent and Natrapel 8 Hour Insect Repellent. Products that have little or no efficacy also were not mentioned, including Avon Skin So Soft, Coleman Naturals Insect Repellent Snap Band, and SuperBand Wristband. In addition, the concentration of products is very important, as is the precise formulation within brands. For example, Off! Deep Woods VIII (with DEET 25%) is very effective versus Off! FamilyCare II Clean Feel (with picaridin 5%), which has very little benefit.

David H. Janowitz, MD
Houston, Texas

Drs. Chelliah and Duff respond

In our short discussion of mosquito repellents, we based our recommendations on publications from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Florida Department of Health. Those publications presented DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) at the top of the list for preferred repellents. A recent publication from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (MotherToBaby, September 2013) indicated that, in a concentration of 20% to 30%, DEET was safe in pregnancy and was effective in protecting against 90% of all mosquito bites and tick attachments. Increasing the concentration of DEET above 30% does not enhance the product’s effectiveness or prolong its duration of action.

However, Dr. Janowitz is correct in stating that other agents are also highly effective and safe in pregnancy. These agents include picaridin (20%) and oil of lemon/eucalyptus (30%). We thank Dr. Janowitz for directing us to the most recent testing program conducted by Consumer Reports.¹ That testing program demonstrated that Sawyer Fisherman’s Formula Picaridin and Natrapel 8 Hour, which each contain 20% picaridin, and Off! Deep Woods VIII, which contains 25% DEET, kept Aedes mosquitoes from biting for approximately 8 hours. The Sawyer product was also effective in preventing bites from the Culex mosquitoes, which carry West Nile virus, and deer ticks, which can transmit Lyme disease. Repel Lemon Eucalyptus (30%) stopped Aedes mosquito bites for 7 hours.

In the Consumer Reports testing program, IR3535 products, which we recommended in our article, did not perform well, nor did repellents that contained only 7% DEET or less than 20% picaridin. Moreover, products made from natural plant oils—such as citronella, lemongrass oil, cedar oil, geraniol, rosemary oil, and cinnamon oil—were not particularly effective. Some did not last for more than 1 hour; some failed immediately.

When applying any of these products, individuals should observe the following guidelines:

• apply insect repellents only to exposed skin or clothing
• do not apply repellents on cuts, wounds, or abraded skin or immediately after shaving
• avoid the eyes and mouth when applying repellent to the face
• after exposure is over, wash the skin with soap and water
• clothing that has been treated with one of these agents or with permethrin should be washed separately before it is worn again.

Reference

“Tissue extraction: Can the pendulum change direction?”

ARNOLD P. ADVINCULA, MD (JUNE 2016)

We have met the enemy and he is us

While I share the optimism Dr. Advincula expressed in his recent guest editorial regarding a change in the direction of the pendulum that swung away from use of the power morcellator, I feel compelled to express the opinion that this entire fiasco has been nothing other than an outrageous regulatory overreach.

Shortly after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its proclamation in April 2014, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology repudiated the bogus statistics that were being used to describe the incidence of leiomyosarcoma and, further, stated that it would not matter how someone’s uterus containing this rare tumor was removed because the outcome would be poor. Similarly, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published an article enumerating the expected significant increase in complications and the resulting misery that could be expected for patients whose management was diverted from minimally invasive to open hysterectomy.¹ The AAGL also expressed opinions that this was an unnecessary, and counterproductive, policy—all to no avail.

My optimism, however, is tempered by a number of questions: 1) Why did it take more than a year for 36 nationally recognized gynecologic surgeons to write a letter to the FDA denouncing the warning, yet again, and reiterating the errors in analysis used to establish the policy? 2) Why are gynecologic surgeons only now being asked to serve in the FDA’s Network of Experts? Should not that have been the case before the warning was issued? 3) If the perioperative outcomes are similar using a containment bag compared with open morcellation, what is the benefit of using the containment system? I, for one, think that prolonging a procedure another half hour is significant.

The FDA’s egregious policy clearly has had a net negative impact on the welfare of our patients. The gynecologic surgeon community should have pushed back more forcefully and effectively. I hope the next time something like this happens (and it will) we can be better advocates for our patients. 

Mark S. Finkelston, DO
Shawnee Mission, Kansas

Reference

Dr. Advincula responds

I thank Dr. Finkelston for his thoughts regarding my editorial. There is no doubt that the issues surrounding tissue extraction have been heated. Although I do not have definitive answers that explain all of the various reactions, whether immediate or delayed, to the cascade of events surrounding morcellation, I do believe that much of it was a response to N-of-1 policy-making, as very nicely discussed in a New England Journal of Medicine article by Lisa Rosenbaum.¹ We must continue to foster constructive dialogues with our regulatory bodies and cultivate the spirit of innovation that has brought so many advances to the field of surgery. Ultimately, going forward, it will be important for clinicians and other health care providers to speak up and not remain silent for fear of being vilified.

Reference

Vaginal hysterectomy solves the tissue morcellation dilemma

Dr. Advincula starts his guest editorial with the statement, “With practical, evidence-based, sound clinical judgement, I believe that it can.”

In fact, what “practical, evidence-based, sound clinical judgement” supports is a return to vaginal hysterectomy with transvaginal extracorporeal morcellation techniques. As Dr. Carl Zimmerman said in a recent debate at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS annual meeting), “There is no recorded case of a vaginal hysterectomy with morcellation upgrading a patient with leiomyosarcoma.” In addition, the majority of cases in which Dr. Advincula and others are performing robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy or total laparoscopic hysterectomy have this clinical and demographic profile: average age, 42; average parity, G2; average body mass index, 30; most common diagnosis, abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids; most common pathology, fibroids; average uterine weight, 165 g. The majority of these can be performed much more safely, quickly, and cost effectively by transvaginal hysterectomy/morcellation. Please see an excellent commentary by Dr. Andrew Walter, immediate past president of SGS, on “Why we should strive for a vaginal hysterectomy rate of 40%.”¹

But the main reason Dr. Advincula should not be given a voice on this issue is because he has significant financial conflict of interest with the medical device industry. Should he even be on the OBG <scaps>Management</scaps> board of editors? I do not believe the rest of your editors have anywhere near his level of conflict of interest. Should he not be asked to recuse himself in this debate or abandon his financial connections with the medical device industry? Is this not the whole purpose of the Sunshine Act? Please, should you not be supporting what is in the best interest of our patients and payers?

R. Bruce Councell, MD
Asheville, North Carolina

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds

At OBG Management, we wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Councell that vaginal hysterectomy is an excellent approach to removing the uterus in most women with noncancer indications for surgery. Our recently featured articles focused on vaginal hysterectomy include: “Transforming vaginal hysterectomy: 7 solutions to the most daunting challenges,” “Is energy-based vessel sealing safer than suturing for vaginal hysterectomy?,” Is same-day discharge feasible and safe for women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy?,” and “Can we reduce the use of abdominal hysterectomy and increase the use of vaginal and laparoscopic approaches?” We plan to publish more content on advances in both vaginal and laparoscopic surgery.

We are proud to have Dr. Advincula, an internationally recognized leader in gynecologic surgery, serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board. His expertise and perspective is of great value to our readers. It is true that many leading surgeons, including Dr. Advincula, serve as consultants with manufacturers of surgical devices. Working together, clinical experts and device manufacturers help to advance medical care. In his editorial, Dr. Advincula did disclose these relationships. As a check on the quality and balance in our editorial material, I personally review all content and I have no financial relationships with any pharmaceutical or device manufacturer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“What Insect repellents are safe during pregnancy?”

ANUSHKA CHELLIAH, MD, AND PATRICK DUFF, MD (JUNE 2016)

Alternatives to DEET

Picaridin is not mentioned in this brief report from Drs. Chelliah and Duff. I suggest reviewing the July 2015 Consumer Reports article on repellents; picaridin is a likely safer alternative to DEET, with the highest efficacy of all those tested, at least in Sawyer Fisherman’s Formula Picaridin Insect Repellent and Natrapel 8 Hour Insect Repellent. Products that have little or no efficacy also were not mentioned, including Avon Skin So Soft, Coleman Naturals Insect Repellent Snap Band, and SuperBand Wristband. In addition, the concentration of products is very important, as is the precise formulation within brands. For example, Off! Deep Woods VIII (with DEET 25%) is very effective versus Off! FamilyCare II Clean Feel (with picaridin 5%), which has very little benefit.

David H. Janowitz, MD
Houston, Texas

Drs. Chelliah and Duff respond

In our short discussion of mosquito repellents, we based our recommendations on publications from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Florida Department of Health. Those publications presented DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) at the top of the list for preferred repellents. A recent publication from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (MotherToBaby, September 2013) indicated that, in a concentration of 20% to 30%, DEET was safe in pregnancy and was effective in protecting against 90% of all mosquito bites and tick attachments. Increasing the concentration of DEET above 30% does not enhance the product’s effectiveness or prolong its duration of action.

However, Dr. Janowitz is correct in stating that other agents are also highly effective and safe in pregnancy. These agents include picaridin (20%) and oil of lemon/eucalyptus (30%). We thank Dr. Janowitz for directing us to the most recent testing program conducted by Consumer Reports.¹ That testing program demonstrated that Sawyer Fisherman’s Formula Picaridin and Natrapel 8 Hour, which each contain 20% picaridin, and Off! Deep Woods VIII, which contains 25% DEET, kept Aedes mosquitoes from biting for approximately 8 hours. The Sawyer product was also effective in preventing bites from the Culex mosquitoes, which carry West Nile virus, and deer ticks, which can transmit Lyme disease. Repel Lemon Eucalyptus (30%) stopped Aedes mosquito bites for 7 hours.

In the Consumer Reports testing program, IR3535 products, which we recommended in our article, did not perform well, nor did repellents that contained only 7% DEET or less than 20% picaridin. Moreover, products made from natural plant oils—such as citronella, lemongrass oil, cedar oil, geraniol, rosemary oil, and cinnamon oil—were not particularly effective. Some did not last for more than 1 hour; some failed immediately.

When applying any of these products, individuals should observe the following guidelines:

• apply insect repellents only to exposed skin or clothing
• do not apply repellents on cuts, wounds, or abraded skin or immediately after shaving
• avoid the eyes and mouth when applying repellent to the face
• after exposure is over, wash the skin with soap and water
• clothing that has been treated with one of these agents or with permethrin should be washed separately before it is worn again.

Reference

“Tissue extraction: Can the pendulum change direction?”

ARNOLD P. ADVINCULA, MD (JUNE 2016)

We have met the enemy and he is us

While I share the optimism Dr. Advincula expressed in his recent guest editorial regarding a change in the direction of the pendulum that swung away from use of the power morcellator, I feel compelled to express the opinion that this entire fiasco has been nothing other than an outrageous regulatory overreach.

Shortly after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its proclamation in April 2014, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology repudiated the bogus statistics that were being used to describe the incidence of leiomyosarcoma and, further, stated that it would not matter how someone’s uterus containing this rare tumor was removed because the outcome would be poor. Similarly, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published an article enumerating the expected significant increase in complications and the resulting misery that could be expected for patients whose management was diverted from minimally invasive to open hysterectomy.¹ The AAGL also expressed opinions that this was an unnecessary, and counterproductive, policy—all to no avail.

My optimism, however, is tempered by a number of questions: 1) Why did it take more than a year for 36 nationally recognized gynecologic surgeons to write a letter to the FDA denouncing the warning, yet again, and reiterating the errors in analysis used to establish the policy? 2) Why are gynecologic surgeons only now being asked to serve in the FDA’s Network of Experts? Should not that have been the case before the warning was issued? 3) If the perioperative outcomes are similar using a containment bag compared with open morcellation, what is the benefit of using the containment system? I, for one, think that prolonging a procedure another half hour is significant.

The FDA’s egregious policy clearly has had a net negative impact on the welfare of our patients. The gynecologic surgeon community should have pushed back more forcefully and effectively. I hope the next time something like this happens (and it will) we can be better advocates for our patients. 

Mark S. Finkelston, DO
Shawnee Mission, Kansas

Reference

Dr. Advincula responds

I thank Dr. Finkelston for his thoughts regarding my editorial. There is no doubt that the issues surrounding tissue extraction have been heated. Although I do not have definitive answers that explain all of the various reactions, whether immediate or delayed, to the cascade of events surrounding morcellation, I do believe that much of it was a response to N-of-1 policy-making, as very nicely discussed in a New England Journal of Medicine article by Lisa Rosenbaum.¹ We must continue to foster constructive dialogues with our regulatory bodies and cultivate the spirit of innovation that has brought so many advances to the field of surgery. Ultimately, going forward, it will be important for clinicians and other health care providers to speak up and not remain silent for fear of being vilified.

Reference

Vaginal hysterectomy solves the tissue morcellation dilemma

Dr. Advincula starts his guest editorial with the statement, “With practical, evidence-based, sound clinical judgement, I believe that it can.”

In fact, what “practical, evidence-based, sound clinical judgement” supports is a return to vaginal hysterectomy with transvaginal extracorporeal morcellation techniques. As Dr. Carl Zimmerman said in a recent debate at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS annual meeting), “There is no recorded case of a vaginal hysterectomy with morcellation upgrading a patient with leiomyosarcoma.” In addition, the majority of cases in which Dr. Advincula and others are performing robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy or total laparoscopic hysterectomy have this clinical and demographic profile: average age, 42; average parity, G2; average body mass index, 30; most common diagnosis, abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids; most common pathology, fibroids; average uterine weight, 165 g. The majority of these can be performed much more safely, quickly, and cost effectively by transvaginal hysterectomy/morcellation. Please see an excellent commentary by Dr. Andrew Walter, immediate past president of SGS, on “Why we should strive for a vaginal hysterectomy rate of 40%.”¹

But the main reason Dr. Advincula should not be given a voice on this issue is because he has significant financial conflict of interest with the medical device industry. Should he even be on the OBG <scaps>Management</scaps> board of editors? I do not believe the rest of your editors have anywhere near his level of conflict of interest. Should he not be asked to recuse himself in this debate or abandon his financial connections with the medical device industry? Is this not the whole purpose of the Sunshine Act? Please, should you not be supporting what is in the best interest of our patients and payers?

R. Bruce Councell, MD
Asheville, North Carolina

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds

At OBG Management, we wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Councell that vaginal hysterectomy is an excellent approach to removing the uterus in most women with noncancer indications for surgery. Our recently featured articles focused on vaginal hysterectomy include: “Transforming vaginal hysterectomy: 7 solutions to the most daunting challenges,” “Is energy-based vessel sealing safer than suturing for vaginal hysterectomy?,” Is same-day discharge feasible and safe for women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy?,” and “Can we reduce the use of abdominal hysterectomy and increase the use of vaginal and laparoscopic approaches?” We plan to publish more content on advances in both vaginal and laparoscopic surgery.

We are proud to have Dr. Advincula, an internationally recognized leader in gynecologic surgery, serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board. His expertise and perspective is of great value to our readers. It is true that many leading surgeons, including Dr. Advincula, serve as consultants with manufacturers of surgical devices. Working together, clinical experts and device manufacturers help to advance medical care. In his editorial, Dr. Advincula did disclose these relationships. As a check on the quality and balance in our editorial material, I personally review all content and I have no financial relationships with any pharmaceutical or device manufacturer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The issues of racial tensions have surfaced in plain sight in America. These are very trying times for our nation, and I fear some of my European American colleagues may not “get it.”

I recall a decade ago when I was involved with the Committee of Black Psychiatrists in crafting the American Psychiatric Association’s position statement, “Resolution Against Racism and Racial Discrimination and Their Adverse Impacts on Mental Health.” There was great concern that some of our European American colleagues would not get it, so in the preamble to the position statement, we explained that African Americans and European Americans had similar and different experiences in America, and that those differences made dialogue between both groups difficult.

Specifically, both groups believed that in America, people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin; after all, that is a basic value of the United States – it is one of our ideals. So, when a European American is accused of racism, the person often replies: “No, I am not; I believe in the American ideal of not being prejudiced.”

Unfortunately, the experiences of African Americans too often indicate that they are being judged by the color of our skin and not by our character. Most of the gross societal outcome indicators illustrate those disparities. So, African Americans, although occasionally experience the ideal that makes America great, all too often experience the reality of racial discrimination – including, but not limited to, phenomena the founder of the Black Psychiatrists of America, Chester M. Pierce, MD, coined “microinsults” and “microaggressions.” Women, too, experience these subtle and not-so-subtle put-downs by men all the time.

Accordingly, when we come together to dialogue about racial issues in our nation, many European Americans are focused on the ideal, and African Americans are focused on our reality, leaving the two groups on different pages. Having put everyone on the same page with this preface, I am told by members of the APA’s assembly that the position statement passed easily as a result of this understanding.

The problem is that being European American often prevents absorbing the perspective from the other side. So I thought it would be a good idea to share some personal experiences to help illuminate why so many African Americans feel the way they do about law enforcement.

I clearly recall being around 9 years old and being instructed that when running from the police, we should run zigzag, so it would be more difficult for them to shoot and kill us. We were instructed that running around corners worked better, because bullets fly straight and do not turn corners.

Of course, there also was the occasional experience (about two or three times each year) of sitting on a fence with a few of my friends of the same age, talking about what we were going to do when we grew up. A police car would drive up to the curb, and a police officer would call one of us over to talk. I recall clearly once when I got called over – of course, I took my sweet time, as I was not doing anything wrong, other than being 9 years old and black. The police officer got angry that I had tried to preserve my dignity by cruising over to the car. I remember his threat: Since I thought I was smart, he would drive me down to the police station, and he would not be surprised if my hand accidentally got broken in the car door during my transportation. I was 9 years old! Obviously, that abuse of power might have ruined my future career as a physician, but he let me go.

Years later as a teenager, I learned from my brother, a Chicago police officer, that the police are taught to take control of situations and assert their authority to prevent any potential conflicts. My brother also told me that the police were unofficially taught to carry “drop guns” in case they shot an unarmed suspect.

The idea was that they could drop the gun on the person, in other words, plant it and say the person had a gun after they had killed him. (It was always better in these accidents to leave the person dead, so he could not tell his side of the story.)

I often wonder where my brother would stand on this issue in 2016, but unfortunately as a police officer, while in plain clothes, he tried to help some fellow white officers intervene in a robbery. After identifying himself as a Chicago police officer, he and the other two white officers gave chase, but he outran them and trapped the suspect in a vestibule of a Southside Chicago apartment building. While my brother and the suspect were exchanging gunfire, two newer white Chicago police officers came upon a black man (my brother) with a gun, and he was promptly shot and killed. Of course, exactly what happened is murky, but I have my suspicions. Of course, the suspect also was killed during this shootout, so neither of the two black men involved was left alive to tell his side of the story.

Then there was the time I was in college being advised by my white guidance counselor that I should seek a career in something like auto mechanics. Little did he know that my African American grandfather obtained his PhD from Yale in 1924, and my father, like his father, had a couple of PhDs. What caused him to think I could accomplish only blue-collar goals? Charles Pinderhughes, MD, (another wise black psychiatrist) did an excellent dissertation in the American Journal of Psychiatry on “stereotyping,” that explained much of the reason (1979 Jan;136[1]33-7).

Because I was from Chicago and a psychiatrist, I was called in to evaluate several of the more than 100 innocent black men whom Jon Burge (a former Chicago police commander) allegedly tortured to get them to confess to murders they did not commit. Officer Burge was never found guilty of this crime, but he was sent to federal prison for three counts of obstruction of justice and perjury for lying about police torture.

Accordingly, in Chicago we have a saying, “The police hunt black men.” Of course, this statement rang true when a white Chicago police officer was caught on film shooting a 17-year-old child who may have had a developmental disability – Laquan McDonald – 16 times in October 2014.

Until the perceptions of race are viewed from both sides of the equation, there will continue to be racial strife, and America will not be as strong as it could be. I have tried to present some of the perspectives many black people experience as their reality. Of course, there is another side we as Americans believe in – justice and equality for all.

This election places America at a pivotal crossroads – which path will we take? Will we seek a more perfect union – or a country divided?

Dr. Bell is 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.

The issues of racial tensions have surfaced in plain sight in America. These are very trying times for our nation, and I fear some of my European American colleagues may not “get it.”

I recall a decade ago when I was involved with the Committee of Black Psychiatrists in crafting the American Psychiatric Association’s position statement, “Resolution Against Racism and Racial Discrimination and Their Adverse Impacts on Mental Health.” There was great concern that some of our European American colleagues would not get it, so in the preamble to the position statement, we explained that African Americans and European Americans had similar and different experiences in America, and that those differences made dialogue between both groups difficult.

Specifically, both groups believed that in America, people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin; after all, that is a basic value of the United States – it is one of our ideals. So, when a European American is accused of racism, the person often replies: “No, I am not; I believe in the American ideal of not being prejudiced.”

Unfortunately, the experiences of African Americans too often indicate that they are being judged by the color of our skin and not by our character. Most of the gross societal outcome indicators illustrate those disparities. So, African Americans, although occasionally experience the ideal that makes America great, all too often experience the reality of racial discrimination – including, but not limited to, phenomena the founder of the Black Psychiatrists of America, Chester M. Pierce, MD, coined “microinsults” and “microaggressions.” Women, too, experience these subtle and not-so-subtle put-downs by men all the time.

Accordingly, when we come together to dialogue about racial issues in our nation, many European Americans are focused on the ideal, and African Americans are focused on our reality, leaving the two groups on different pages. Having put everyone on the same page with this preface, I am told by members of the APA’s assembly that the position statement passed easily as a result of this understanding.

The problem is that being European American often prevents absorbing the perspective from the other side. So I thought it would be a good idea to share some personal experiences to help illuminate why so many African Americans feel the way they do about law enforcement.

I clearly recall being around 9 years old and being instructed that when running from the police, we should run zigzag, so it would be more difficult for them to shoot and kill us. We were instructed that running around corners worked better, because bullets fly straight and do not turn corners.

Of course, there also was the occasional experience (about two or three times each year) of sitting on a fence with a few of my friends of the same age, talking about what we were going to do when we grew up. A police car would drive up to the curb, and a police officer would call one of us over to talk. I recall clearly once when I got called over – of course, I took my sweet time, as I was not doing anything wrong, other than being 9 years old and black. The police officer got angry that I had tried to preserve my dignity by cruising over to the car. I remember his threat: Since I thought I was smart, he would drive me down to the police station, and he would not be surprised if my hand accidentally got broken in the car door during my transportation. I was 9 years old! Obviously, that abuse of power might have ruined my future career as a physician, but he let me go.

Years later as a teenager, I learned from my brother, a Chicago police officer, that the police are taught to take control of situations and assert their authority to prevent any potential conflicts. My brother also told me that the police were unofficially taught to carry “drop guns” in case they shot an unarmed suspect.

The idea was that they could drop the gun on the person, in other words, plant it and say the person had a gun after they had killed him. (It was always better in these accidents to leave the person dead, so he could not tell his side of the story.)

I often wonder where my brother would stand on this issue in 2016, but unfortunately as a police officer, while in plain clothes, he tried to help some fellow white officers intervene in a robbery. After identifying himself as a Chicago police officer, he and the other two white officers gave chase, but he outran them and trapped the suspect in a vestibule of a Southside Chicago apartment building. While my brother and the suspect were exchanging gunfire, two newer white Chicago police officers came upon a black man (my brother) with a gun, and he was promptly shot and killed. Of course, exactly what happened is murky, but I have my suspicions. Of course, the suspect also was killed during this shootout, so neither of the two black men involved was left alive to tell his side of the story.

Then there was the time I was in college being advised by my white guidance counselor that I should seek a career in something like auto mechanics. Little did he know that my African American grandfather obtained his PhD from Yale in 1924, and my father, like his father, had a couple of PhDs. What caused him to think I could accomplish only blue-collar goals? Charles Pinderhughes, MD, (another wise black psychiatrist) did an excellent dissertation in the American Journal of Psychiatry on “stereotyping,” that explained much of the reason (1979 Jan;136[1]33-7).

Because I was from Chicago and a psychiatrist, I was called in to evaluate several of the more than 100 innocent black men whom Jon Burge (a former Chicago police commander) allegedly tortured to get them to confess to murders they did not commit. Officer Burge was never found guilty of this crime, but he was sent to federal prison for three counts of obstruction of justice and perjury for lying about police torture.

Accordingly, in Chicago we have a saying, “The police hunt black men.” Of course, this statement rang true when a white Chicago police officer was caught on film shooting a 17-year-old child who may have had a developmental disability – Laquan McDonald – 16 times in October 2014.

Until the perceptions of race are viewed from both sides of the equation, there will continue to be racial strife, and America will not be as strong as it could be. I have tried to present some of the perspectives many black people experience as their reality. Of course, there is another side we as Americans believe in – justice and equality for all.

This election places America at a pivotal crossroads – which path will we take? Will we seek a more perfect union – or a country divided?

Dr. Bell is 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.

The issues of racial tensions have surfaced in plain sight in America. These are very trying times for our nation, and I fear some of my European American colleagues may not “get it.”

I recall a decade ago when I was involved with the Committee of Black Psychiatrists in crafting the American Psychiatric Association’s position statement, “Resolution Against Racism and Racial Discrimination and Their Adverse Impacts on Mental Health.” There was great concern that some of our European American colleagues would not get it, so in the preamble to the position statement, we explained that African Americans and European Americans had similar and different experiences in America, and that those differences made dialogue between both groups difficult.

Specifically, both groups believed that in America, people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin; after all, that is a basic value of the United States – it is one of our ideals. So, when a European American is accused of racism, the person often replies: “No, I am not; I believe in the American ideal of not being prejudiced.”

Unfortunately, the experiences of African Americans too often indicate that they are being judged by the color of our skin and not by our character. Most of the gross societal outcome indicators illustrate those disparities. So, African Americans, although occasionally experience the ideal that makes America great, all too often experience the reality of racial discrimination – including, but not limited to, phenomena the founder of the Black Psychiatrists of America, Chester M. Pierce, MD, coined “microinsults” and “microaggressions.” Women, too, experience these subtle and not-so-subtle put-downs by men all the time.

Accordingly, when we come together to dialogue about racial issues in our nation, many European Americans are focused on the ideal, and African Americans are focused on our reality, leaving the two groups on different pages. Having put everyone on the same page with this preface, I am told by members of the APA’s assembly that the position statement passed easily as a result of this understanding.

The problem is that being European American often prevents absorbing the perspective from the other side. So I thought it would be a good idea to share some personal experiences to help illuminate why so many African Americans feel the way they do about law enforcement.

I clearly recall being around 9 years old and being instructed that when running from the police, we should run zigzag, so it would be more difficult for them to shoot and kill us. We were instructed that running around corners worked better, because bullets fly straight and do not turn corners.

Of course, there also was the occasional experience (about two or three times each year) of sitting on a fence with a few of my friends of the same age, talking about what we were going to do when we grew up. A police car would drive up to the curb, and a police officer would call one of us over to talk. I recall clearly once when I got called over – of course, I took my sweet time, as I was not doing anything wrong, other than being 9 years old and black. The police officer got angry that I had tried to preserve my dignity by cruising over to the car. I remember his threat: Since I thought I was smart, he would drive me down to the police station, and he would not be surprised if my hand accidentally got broken in the car door during my transportation. I was 9 years old! Obviously, that abuse of power might have ruined my future career as a physician, but he let me go.

Years later as a teenager, I learned from my brother, a Chicago police officer, that the police are taught to take control of situations and assert their authority to prevent any potential conflicts. My brother also told me that the police were unofficially taught to carry “drop guns” in case they shot an unarmed suspect.

The idea was that they could drop the gun on the person, in other words, plant it and say the person had a gun after they had killed him. (It was always better in these accidents to leave the person dead, so he could not tell his side of the story.)

I often wonder where my brother would stand on this issue in 2016, but unfortunately as a police officer, while in plain clothes, he tried to help some fellow white officers intervene in a robbery. After identifying himself as a Chicago police officer, he and the other two white officers gave chase, but he outran them and trapped the suspect in a vestibule of a Southside Chicago apartment building. While my brother and the suspect were exchanging gunfire, two newer white Chicago police officers came upon a black man (my brother) with a gun, and he was promptly shot and killed. Of course, exactly what happened is murky, but I have my suspicions. Of course, the suspect also was killed during this shootout, so neither of the two black men involved was left alive to tell his side of the story.

Then there was the time I was in college being advised by my white guidance counselor that I should seek a career in something like auto mechanics. Little did he know that my African American grandfather obtained his PhD from Yale in 1924, and my father, like his father, had a couple of PhDs. What caused him to think I could accomplish only blue-collar goals? Charles Pinderhughes, MD, (another wise black psychiatrist) did an excellent dissertation in the American Journal of Psychiatry on “stereotyping,” that explained much of the reason (1979 Jan;136[1]33-7).

Because I was from Chicago and a psychiatrist, I was called in to evaluate several of the more than 100 innocent black men whom Jon Burge (a former Chicago police commander) allegedly tortured to get them to confess to murders they did not commit. Officer Burge was never found guilty of this crime, but he was sent to federal prison for three counts of obstruction of justice and perjury for lying about police torture.

Accordingly, in Chicago we have a saying, “The police hunt black men.” Of course, this statement rang true when a white Chicago police officer was caught on film shooting a 17-year-old child who may have had a developmental disability – Laquan McDonald – 16 times in October 2014.

Until the perceptions of race are viewed from both sides of the equation, there will continue to be racial strife, and America will not be as strong as it could be. I have tried to present some of the perspectives many black people experience as their reality. Of course, there is another side we as Americans believe in – justice and equality for all.

This election places America at a pivotal crossroads – which path will we take? Will we seek a more perfect union – or a country divided?

Dr. Bell is 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.

Imagine the following scenario: a hospitalist on the previous shift accepted a patient from another hospital and received a verbal sign-out at the time of acceptance. Now, 14 hours later, a bed at your hospital is finally available. You were advised that the patient was hemodynamically stable, but that was 8 hours ago. The patient arrives in respiratory distress with a blood pressure of 75/40, and phenylephrine running through a 20g IV in the forearm.

A 400-page printout of the patient’s electronic chart arrives – but no discharge summary is found. You are now responsible for stabilizing the patient and getting to the bottom of why your patient decompensated.

The above vignette is the “worst-case” scenario, yet it highlights how treacherous interhospital transfer can be. A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2515), found increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [1.29-1.43]) for medical interhospital transfer patients as compared with those admitted from the ED. When care is transferred between hospitals, additional hurdles such as lack of face-to-face sign-out, delays in transport and bed availability, and lack of electronic medical record (EMR) interoperability all contribute to miscommunication and may lead to errors in diagnosis and delay of definitive care.

Diametrically opposed to our many victories in providing technologically advanced medical care, our inability to coordinate even the most basic care across hospitals is an unfortunate reality of our fragmented health care system, and must be promptly addressed.

There currently exists no widely accepted standard of care for communication between hospitals regarding transferred patients. Commonalities include a mandatory three-way recorded physician verbal handoff and a transmission of an insurance face sheet. However, real-time concurrent EMR connectivity and clinical status updates as frequently as every 2 hours in critically ill patients are uncommon, as our own study found (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2577).

The lack of a standard of care for interhospital handoffs is, in part, why every transfer is potentially problematic. Many tertiary referral centers receive patients from more than 100 different hospitals and networks, amplifying the need for universal expectations. With differences in expectations among sending and receiving hospitals, there is ample room for variable outcomes, ranging from smooth transfers to the worst-case scenario described above. Enhanced shared decision making between providers at both hospitals, facilitated via communication tools and transfer centers, could lead to more fluid care of the transferred patient.

In order to establish standardized interhospital handoffs, a multicenter study is needed to examine outcomes of various transfer practices. A standard of communication and transfer handoff practices, based on those that lead to better outcomes, could potentially be established. Until this is studied, it is imperative that hospital systems and the government work to adopt broader EMR interoperability and radiology networks; comprehensive health information exchanges can minimize redundancy and provide real-time clinical data to make transfers safer.

Ideally, interhospital transfer should provide no more risk to a patient than a routine shift change of care providers.

Dr. Dana Herrigel is associate program director, internal medicine residency at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. Madeline Carroll is PGY-3 internal medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Imagine the following scenario: a hospitalist on the previous shift accepted a patient from another hospital and received a verbal sign-out at the time of acceptance. Now, 14 hours later, a bed at your hospital is finally available. You were advised that the patient was hemodynamically stable, but that was 8 hours ago. The patient arrives in respiratory distress with a blood pressure of 75/40, and phenylephrine running through a 20g IV in the forearm.

A 400-page printout of the patient’s electronic chart arrives – but no discharge summary is found. You are now responsible for stabilizing the patient and getting to the bottom of why your patient decompensated.

The above vignette is the “worst-case” scenario, yet it highlights how treacherous interhospital transfer can be. A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2515), found increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [1.29-1.43]) for medical interhospital transfer patients as compared with those admitted from the ED. When care is transferred between hospitals, additional hurdles such as lack of face-to-face sign-out, delays in transport and bed availability, and lack of electronic medical record (EMR) interoperability all contribute to miscommunication and may lead to errors in diagnosis and delay of definitive care.

Diametrically opposed to our many victories in providing technologically advanced medical care, our inability to coordinate even the most basic care across hospitals is an unfortunate reality of our fragmented health care system, and must be promptly addressed.

There currently exists no widely accepted standard of care for communication between hospitals regarding transferred patients. Commonalities include a mandatory three-way recorded physician verbal handoff and a transmission of an insurance face sheet. However, real-time concurrent EMR connectivity and clinical status updates as frequently as every 2 hours in critically ill patients are uncommon, as our own study found (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2577).

The lack of a standard of care for interhospital handoffs is, in part, why every transfer is potentially problematic. Many tertiary referral centers receive patients from more than 100 different hospitals and networks, amplifying the need for universal expectations. With differences in expectations among sending and receiving hospitals, there is ample room for variable outcomes, ranging from smooth transfers to the worst-case scenario described above. Enhanced shared decision making between providers at both hospitals, facilitated via communication tools and transfer centers, could lead to more fluid care of the transferred patient.

In order to establish standardized interhospital handoffs, a multicenter study is needed to examine outcomes of various transfer practices. A standard of communication and transfer handoff practices, based on those that lead to better outcomes, could potentially be established. Until this is studied, it is imperative that hospital systems and the government work to adopt broader EMR interoperability and radiology networks; comprehensive health information exchanges can minimize redundancy and provide real-time clinical data to make transfers safer.

Ideally, interhospital transfer should provide no more risk to a patient than a routine shift change of care providers.

Dr. Dana Herrigel is associate program director, internal medicine residency at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. Madeline Carroll is PGY-3 internal medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Imagine the following scenario: a hospitalist on the previous shift accepted a patient from another hospital and received a verbal sign-out at the time of acceptance. Now, 14 hours later, a bed at your hospital is finally available. You were advised that the patient was hemodynamically stable, but that was 8 hours ago. The patient arrives in respiratory distress with a blood pressure of 75/40, and phenylephrine running through a 20g IV in the forearm.

A 400-page printout of the patient’s electronic chart arrives – but no discharge summary is found. You are now responsible for stabilizing the patient and getting to the bottom of why your patient decompensated.

The above vignette is the “worst-case” scenario, yet it highlights how treacherous interhospital transfer can be. A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2515), found increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [1.29-1.43]) for medical interhospital transfer patients as compared with those admitted from the ED. When care is transferred between hospitals, additional hurdles such as lack of face-to-face sign-out, delays in transport and bed availability, and lack of electronic medical record (EMR) interoperability all contribute to miscommunication and may lead to errors in diagnosis and delay of definitive care.

Diametrically opposed to our many victories in providing technologically advanced medical care, our inability to coordinate even the most basic care across hospitals is an unfortunate reality of our fragmented health care system, and must be promptly addressed.

There currently exists no widely accepted standard of care for communication between hospitals regarding transferred patients. Commonalities include a mandatory three-way recorded physician verbal handoff and a transmission of an insurance face sheet. However, real-time concurrent EMR connectivity and clinical status updates as frequently as every 2 hours in critically ill patients are uncommon, as our own study found (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2577).

The lack of a standard of care for interhospital handoffs is, in part, why every transfer is potentially problematic. Many tertiary referral centers receive patients from more than 100 different hospitals and networks, amplifying the need for universal expectations. With differences in expectations among sending and receiving hospitals, there is ample room for variable outcomes, ranging from smooth transfers to the worst-case scenario described above. Enhanced shared decision making between providers at both hospitals, facilitated via communication tools and transfer centers, could lead to more fluid care of the transferred patient.

In order to establish standardized interhospital handoffs, a multicenter study is needed to examine outcomes of various transfer practices. A standard of communication and transfer handoff practices, based on those that lead to better outcomes, could potentially be established. Until this is studied, it is imperative that hospital systems and the government work to adopt broader EMR interoperability and radiology networks; comprehensive health information exchanges can minimize redundancy and provide real-time clinical data to make transfers safer.

Ideally, interhospital transfer should provide no more risk to a patient than a routine shift change of care providers.

Dr. Dana Herrigel is associate program director, internal medicine residency at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. Madeline Carroll is PGY-3 internal medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

When our second daughter was born, she came home from the hospital in a box. All the babies born at Duke University Medical Center in 1973 were sent home in a cardboard box that had served as their bassinets during their stay in the newborn nursery. As I recall, the boxes were decorated with storks and musical notes; had spaces for the babies’ names, measurements, and birth dates; and had open slots that functioned as carrying handles.

Of course, 1973 predated crash-tested car seats, and so we put little Emily and her box in what we referred to as the “wayback” of our Ford Pinto wagon, a car that subsequently earned a reputation for turning into a fireball when involved in a rear-end collision. However, I believe I did take the extra precaution of “securing” the box in place with a bungee cord.

But Emily survived, and I filed away the memory of her cardboard bassinet until a few weeks ago when I read a story in the New York Times, “Why Finland’s Newborns Sleep in Cardboard Cribs” (Eli Rosenberg, July 6, 2016). It turns out the Finnish government gives out 40,000 cardboard boxes to pregnant women who agree to have a medical exam during the first trimester of their pregnancy. The gift boxes come along with 50 items of baby ware appropriate for Finland’s frigid climate, including a warm coat and a balaclava.

The baby box program began in the late 1930s as a way to encourage mothers to visit physicians. The current Finnish infant mortality is one of the lowest in the world and less than half of ours in the United States. There are some who have been tempted to attribute this dramatic decline to the baby box program. But it is hard to tease out one factor in a country that offers a 10-month paid parental leave and guarantees that a stay-at-home parent may return to his or her job at any time before the child’s third birthday.

Even without a broad social service support system, the cardboard box crib can save lives. For families who can’t afford a crib, the box offers a safer alternative to a couch with soft cushions and face-trapping gaps between its cushions, or to a bed shared with a sleep-deprived or inebriated parent, or to an antique crib with neck-pinching slats and layers of lead-laced paint.

Given this high costs of raising a child, the option of a no-cost cardboard box crib should appeal to most young families. But you know as well as I do that parents to be (and grandparents to be) are primed to buy and are focused on creating nurseries that match the images they see in the glossy magazines targeted at their vulnerable demographic.

It will require a major public relations campaign to counteract the image that bedding one’s precious newborn in a cardboard box conjures up. But maybe there is a role for us. If pediatricians began promoting the advantages of cardboard cribs, they might just catch on. On second thought, maybe we should focus our energies on promoting more child-friendly parental leave policies.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

When our second daughter was born, she came home from the hospital in a box. All the babies born at Duke University Medical Center in 1973 were sent home in a cardboard box that had served as their bassinets during their stay in the newborn nursery. As I recall, the boxes were decorated with storks and musical notes; had spaces for the babies’ names, measurements, and birth dates; and had open slots that functioned as carrying handles.

Of course, 1973 predated crash-tested car seats, and so we put little Emily and her box in what we referred to as the “wayback” of our Ford Pinto wagon, a car that subsequently earned a reputation for turning into a fireball when involved in a rear-end collision. However, I believe I did take the extra precaution of “securing” the box in place with a bungee cord.

But Emily survived, and I filed away the memory of her cardboard bassinet until a few weeks ago when I read a story in the New York Times, “Why Finland’s Newborns Sleep in Cardboard Cribs” (Eli Rosenberg, July 6, 2016). It turns out the Finnish government gives out 40,000 cardboard boxes to pregnant women who agree to have a medical exam during the first trimester of their pregnancy. The gift boxes come along with 50 items of baby ware appropriate for Finland’s frigid climate, including a warm coat and a balaclava.

The baby box program began in the late 1930s as a way to encourage mothers to visit physicians. The current Finnish infant mortality is one of the lowest in the world and less than half of ours in the United States. There are some who have been tempted to attribute this dramatic decline to the baby box program. But it is hard to tease out one factor in a country that offers a 10-month paid parental leave and guarantees that a stay-at-home parent may return to his or her job at any time before the child’s third birthday.

Even without a broad social service support system, the cardboard box crib can save lives. For families who can’t afford a crib, the box offers a safer alternative to a couch with soft cushions and face-trapping gaps between its cushions, or to a bed shared with a sleep-deprived or inebriated parent, or to an antique crib with neck-pinching slats and layers of lead-laced paint.

Given this high costs of raising a child, the option of a no-cost cardboard box crib should appeal to most young families. But you know as well as I do that parents to be (and grandparents to be) are primed to buy and are focused on creating nurseries that match the images they see in the glossy magazines targeted at their vulnerable demographic.

It will require a major public relations campaign to counteract the image that bedding one’s precious newborn in a cardboard box conjures up. But maybe there is a role for us. If pediatricians began promoting the advantages of cardboard cribs, they might just catch on. On second thought, maybe we should focus our energies on promoting more child-friendly parental leave policies.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

When our second daughter was born, she came home from the hospital in a box. All the babies born at Duke University Medical Center in 1973 were sent home in a cardboard box that had served as their bassinets during their stay in the newborn nursery. As I recall, the boxes were decorated with storks and musical notes; had spaces for the babies’ names, measurements, and birth dates; and had open slots that functioned as carrying handles.

Of course, 1973 predated crash-tested car seats, and so we put little Emily and her box in what we referred to as the “wayback” of our Ford Pinto wagon, a car that subsequently earned a reputation for turning into a fireball when involved in a rear-end collision. However, I believe I did take the extra precaution of “securing” the box in place with a bungee cord.

But Emily survived, and I filed away the memory of her cardboard bassinet until a few weeks ago when I read a story in the New York Times, “Why Finland’s Newborns Sleep in Cardboard Cribs” (Eli Rosenberg, July 6, 2016). It turns out the Finnish government gives out 40,000 cardboard boxes to pregnant women who agree to have a medical exam during the first trimester of their pregnancy. The gift boxes come along with 50 items of baby ware appropriate for Finland’s frigid climate, including a warm coat and a balaclava.

The baby box program began in the late 1930s as a way to encourage mothers to visit physicians. The current Finnish infant mortality is one of the lowest in the world and less than half of ours in the United States. There are some who have been tempted to attribute this dramatic decline to the baby box program. But it is hard to tease out one factor in a country that offers a 10-month paid parental leave and guarantees that a stay-at-home parent may return to his or her job at any time before the child’s third birthday.

Even without a broad social service support system, the cardboard box crib can save lives. For families who can’t afford a crib, the box offers a safer alternative to a couch with soft cushions and face-trapping gaps between its cushions, or to a bed shared with a sleep-deprived or inebriated parent, or to an antique crib with neck-pinching slats and layers of lead-laced paint.

Given this high costs of raising a child, the option of a no-cost cardboard box crib should appeal to most young families. But you know as well as I do that parents to be (and grandparents to be) are primed to buy and are focused on creating nurseries that match the images they see in the glossy magazines targeted at their vulnerable demographic.

It will require a major public relations campaign to counteract the image that bedding one’s precious newborn in a cardboard box conjures up. But maybe there is a role for us. If pediatricians began promoting the advantages of cardboard cribs, they might just catch on. On second thought, maybe we should focus our energies on promoting more child-friendly parental leave policies.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

If you are a veteran PA or a PA on active duty in the uniformed services, you may want to take advantage of the PA History Society’s plans to upgrade the Veteran Memorial Garden at the Eugene A. Stead, Jr, Center for Physician Assistants in Durham, North Carolina, into a “place of remembrance.”

The Society is selling 9 x 9-in engraved brick pavers for $100 each. For those interested in purchasing more than one paver, they are offering a sliding scale: 1 for $100, 2 for $175, 3 for $250, 4 for $325, and 5 for $400. The engraved paver will include the appropriate uniformed service logo and 3 lines for name, branch, and years of service. The pavers will be embedded in the wheelchair accessible walkway and in the patio area surrounding a life-size bronze combat medic statue— the centerpiece of the garden.

This is a chance to honor yourself and other PA colleagues who have served or are currently serving their country. Construction and landscaping is to begin in October 2016, with a dedication ceremony scheduled for April 2017.

Order now via the Society’s website at http://pahx.org/ to make sure that your paver is displayed prominently in the garden.

Reginald Carter, PhD, PA
Historian Emeritus
PA History Society

If you are a veteran PA or a PA on active duty in the uniformed services, you may want to take advantage of the PA History Society’s plans to upgrade the Veteran Memorial Garden at the Eugene A. Stead, Jr, Center for Physician Assistants in Durham, North Carolina, into a “place of remembrance.”

The Society is selling 9 x 9-in engraved brick pavers for $100 each. For those interested in purchasing more than one paver, they are offering a sliding scale: 1 for $100, 2 for $175, 3 for $250, 4 for $325, and 5 for $400. The engraved paver will include the appropriate uniformed service logo and 3 lines for name, branch, and years of service. The pavers will be embedded in the wheelchair accessible walkway and in the patio area surrounding a life-size bronze combat medic statue— the centerpiece of the garden.

This is a chance to honor yourself and other PA colleagues who have served or are currently serving their country. Construction and landscaping is to begin in October 2016, with a dedication ceremony scheduled for April 2017.

Order now via the Society’s website at http://pahx.org/ to make sure that your paver is displayed prominently in the garden.

Reginald Carter, PhD, PA
Historian Emeritus
PA History Society

If you are a veteran PA or a PA on active duty in the uniformed services, you may want to take advantage of the PA History Society’s plans to upgrade the Veteran Memorial Garden at the Eugene A. Stead, Jr, Center for Physician Assistants in Durham, North Carolina, into a “place of remembrance.”

The Society is selling 9 x 9-in engraved brick pavers for $100 each. For those interested in purchasing more than one paver, they are offering a sliding scale: 1 for $100, 2 for $175, 3 for $250, 4 for $325, and 5 for $400. The engraved paver will include the appropriate uniformed service logo and 3 lines for name, branch, and years of service. The pavers will be embedded in the wheelchair accessible walkway and in the patio area surrounding a life-size bronze combat medic statue— the centerpiece of the garden.

This is a chance to honor yourself and other PA colleagues who have served or are currently serving their country. Construction and landscaping is to begin in October 2016, with a dedication ceremony scheduled for April 2017.

Order now via the Society’s website at http://pahx.org/ to make sure that your paver is displayed prominently in the garden.

Reginald Carter, PhD, PA
Historian Emeritus
PA History Society

I. Hate. ATVs.

The modern world is full of potentially dangerous things that we regulate – sometimes by the knowledge of the person giving it (medication) or by age (tobacco, alcohol, cars). Or sometimes we simply ban something altogether (illicit drugs).

After years of neurology practice, I’ve learned to hate ATVs. Outside of firearms, I don’t think I’ve seen any gadget that has such a devastating effect on young lives.

My first medical encounter with one was 20-some years ago during my neurosurgery rotation. It was a man in his mid-20s. He was young, muscular, and clearly in excellent condition. And here he was, flaccid below the neck, and permanently on a ventilator.

I sat at the nurses station for a long time, looking at him and thinking about how a young life can go so horribly wrong so quickly. He hadn’t been drunk at the time. He’d simply had a wreck, the cause of which I never found out. After a few days, he was shipped off to a long-term ventilator facility, and I never saw him again.

Cars are dangerous, too, but are bigger and have gadgets to try to improve safety. ATVs are exposed, with only minimal, if any, protection for their riders. Their use is most typically by the young, meaning a disproportionate number of serious injuries will affect those at the beginning of adulthood.

Sadly, banning ATVs won’t stop injuries. There will always be people who do risky things in the name of being daring and having fun.

What’s changed is that 100 years ago they’d likely have died of their injuries soon afterward. Today they’ll probably survive, debilitated long term because of medical advancements.

These are the situations where I feel helpless. There are all kinds of horrible diseases we handle that have no known cause or cure. That’s one kind of helpless. But the ones with easily avoidable risk factors (ATVs, illegal drugs, tobacco) that occur are just plain frustrating for us and tragic for the patients and families.

In the land of the free, freedom to endanger your own life and health are pretty deeply entrenched. The best we can do is present people with the facts and let them make informed decisions about risky behaviors (sadly, the young often believe they’re immortal). If we ban ATVs, we still won’t stop people from making bad decisions on motorcycles or in cars, or with firearms or illegal drugs.

Like so much in medicine, there are no easy answers, and there likely never will be.

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

I. Hate. ATVs.

The modern world is full of potentially dangerous things that we regulate – sometimes by the knowledge of the person giving it (medication) or by age (tobacco, alcohol, cars). Or sometimes we simply ban something altogether (illicit drugs).

After years of neurology practice, I’ve learned to hate ATVs. Outside of firearms, I don’t think I’ve seen any gadget that has such a devastating effect on young lives.

My first medical encounter with one was 20-some years ago during my neurosurgery rotation. It was a man in his mid-20s. He was young, muscular, and clearly in excellent condition. And here he was, flaccid below the neck, and permanently on a ventilator.

I sat at the nurses station for a long time, looking at him and thinking about how a young life can go so horribly wrong so quickly. He hadn’t been drunk at the time. He’d simply had a wreck, the cause of which I never found out. After a few days, he was shipped off to a long-term ventilator facility, and I never saw him again.

Cars are dangerous, too, but are bigger and have gadgets to try to improve safety. ATVs are exposed, with only minimal, if any, protection for their riders. Their use is most typically by the young, meaning a disproportionate number of serious injuries will affect those at the beginning of adulthood.

Sadly, banning ATVs won’t stop injuries. There will always be people who do risky things in the name of being daring and having fun.

What’s changed is that 100 years ago they’d likely have died of their injuries soon afterward. Today they’ll probably survive, debilitated long term because of medical advancements.

These are the situations where I feel helpless. There are all kinds of horrible diseases we handle that have no known cause or cure. That’s one kind of helpless. But the ones with easily avoidable risk factors (ATVs, illegal drugs, tobacco) that occur are just plain frustrating for us and tragic for the patients and families.

In the land of the free, freedom to endanger your own life and health are pretty deeply entrenched. The best we can do is present people with the facts and let them make informed decisions about risky behaviors (sadly, the young often believe they’re immortal). If we ban ATVs, we still won’t stop people from making bad decisions on motorcycles or in cars, or with firearms or illegal drugs.

Like so much in medicine, there are no easy answers, and there likely never will be.

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

I. Hate. ATVs.

The modern world is full of potentially dangerous things that we regulate – sometimes by the knowledge of the person giving it (medication) or by age (tobacco, alcohol, cars). Or sometimes we simply ban something altogether (illicit drugs).

After years of neurology practice, I’ve learned to hate ATVs. Outside of firearms, I don’t think I’ve seen any gadget that has such a devastating effect on young lives.

My first medical encounter with one was 20-some years ago during my neurosurgery rotation. It was a man in his mid-20s. He was young, muscular, and clearly in excellent condition. And here he was, flaccid below the neck, and permanently on a ventilator.

I sat at the nurses station for a long time, looking at him and thinking about how a young life can go so horribly wrong so quickly. He hadn’t been drunk at the time. He’d simply had a wreck, the cause of which I never found out. After a few days, he was shipped off to a long-term ventilator facility, and I never saw him again.

Cars are dangerous, too, but are bigger and have gadgets to try to improve safety. ATVs are exposed, with only minimal, if any, protection for their riders. Their use is most typically by the young, meaning a disproportionate number of serious injuries will affect those at the beginning of adulthood.

Sadly, banning ATVs won’t stop injuries. There will always be people who do risky things in the name of being daring and having fun.

What’s changed is that 100 years ago they’d likely have died of their injuries soon afterward. Today they’ll probably survive, debilitated long term because of medical advancements.

These are the situations where I feel helpless. There are all kinds of horrible diseases we handle that have no known cause or cure. That’s one kind of helpless. But the ones with easily avoidable risk factors (ATVs, illegal drugs, tobacco) that occur are just plain frustrating for us and tragic for the patients and families.

In the land of the free, freedom to endanger your own life and health are pretty deeply entrenched. The best we can do is present people with the facts and let them make informed decisions about risky behaviors (sadly, the young often believe they’re immortal). If we ban ATVs, we still won’t stop people from making bad decisions on motorcycles or in cars, or with firearms or illegal drugs.

Like so much in medicine, there are no easy answers, and there likely never will be.

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

Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.

The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.

Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).¹ This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.² The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.

In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.

This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.

The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”

So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.

References

1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.

2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.

Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.

The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.

Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).¹ This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.² The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.

In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.

This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.

The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”

So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.

References

1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.

2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.

Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

Recently, a colleague of ours described the office electronic health record as “the vortex that sucks you in.” This statement occurred during a departmental meeting focused on physician burnout. When members of the department were asked about what things they felt contributed to a feeling of dissatisfaction with work, the electronic health record quickly emerged as a common denominator of dissatisfaction. There were certainly other contributors – the changing and challenging medical environment, fighting with insurance companies, decreased autonomy over practice decisions – but far and away the most cited contributor to dissatisfaction among members of the department was the EHR.

The reasons that EHRs have led to dissatisfaction seem to have changed over the last few years. Initially, physicians found it difficult to suddenly adapt practice styles developed over many years to the new world of electronic documentation. Suddenly they needed to type (or in the case of many, hunt and peck) notes into the history of present illness and fit patient histories into templates seemingly developed by engineers rather than physicians. Now, while most of us have adapted to the logistics of the EHR, there is no escaping the increasing demands for more and more information. There is also ongoing frustration with the lack of control in deciding whether information is relevant for the patient, as well as disparity between the promise and expectation of what electronic records should deliver and what we experience each day in front of us.

Given the degree to which EHRs are contributing to physician dissatisfaction and burnout, it is incumbent upon us to figure out ways to make the EHR work better for clinicians. The literature describes burnout as “a syndrome characterized by a loss of enthusiasm for work (emotional exhaustion), feelings of cynicism (depersonalization), and a low sense of personal accomplishment.” In a recent study, almost half of all physicians described at least one symptom of burnout. Interestingly, physician burnout is greatest in primary care specialties. Surprisingly, compared with other working adults in the United States, physicians are more likely to have symptoms of burnout (38% vs 28%) as well as express dissatisfaction with their work-life balance (40% vs. 23%).¹ This issue is important because burnout – in addition to its negative effects on physicians’ experience and quality of life – can erode the quality of the care they give, increase the risk of medical errors, and lead to early ending of lifelong careers.² The literature suggests that the high prevalence of burnout among U.S. physicians means that “the problem lies more with the system and environment in which physicians work rather than being due to innate vulnerabilities in a few susceptible individuals.” Not surprisingly, we have received letters from readers of our column over many years discussing how the entry of EHRs into their practice was a critical influence in their decisions to retire early.

In our discussion after the department meeting, several physicians described the need to do charting at night from home in order to have their work accomplished for the next day. This is not surprising to any of us who work in primary care and use EHRs. The ability to have access to the EHR anytime and from anywhere is a classic double-edged sword. It is certainly convenient to be able to complete our charting from home without having to stay late in the office on nights and weekends. Unfortunately, bringing work home also erodes into time that could otherwise be spent with family and pursuing other interests.

This is just one of many frustrations. Another common issue is superfluous documentation on the part of specialists. Often, the information is entered by physician extenders or using canned macros to “pad” the note. Sifting through paragraphs of this irrelevant – and sometimes inaccurate – information in consultant notes devalues the integrity of the interaction. It also minimizes the time that was actually spent in the office doing the real hard work of medicine instead of the rudimentary work of documenting things that were either never said or mentioned briefly in passing.

The week after our department meeting was the first week of work for our new interns. Rounding in one of our nursing homes, I handed the intern a patient’s chart and began to explain how the chart was organized – where the orders, progress notes, and labs were located in the chart. The intern had an odd smile on her face. I asked her what was wrong. She replied, “I didn’t know anyone still had paper charts; how do you enter a note there?”

So we come full circle. You can’t miss what you never had. Younger physicians do not resent the EHR, nor can they perceive the EHR to be contributing to discontent. That is not to say that it does not contribute; it is just difficult to identify problems when the way things are is what you have always known. The issue of EHRs contributing to physician burnout is real, and we need to learn more about its causes. Please email us with your thoughts about the aspects of EHRs that you find most frustrating or challenging. Our goal in hearing from you is that it is only by knowing the challenges that we face that we can begin to formulate solutions to overcome those challenges and together make tomorrow’s practice better than today’s.

References

1. Shanafelt TD et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among U.S. physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-85.

2. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995-1000.

Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

Question: In July 2002, a patient in California underwent surgery for a herniated T8-9 disk, but the surgeon instead removed the T6-7 and T7-8 disks. On Sept. 11, 2002, the surgeon discussed with the patient the MRI findings showing his mistake. On Sept. 17, 2003, the patient filed a malpractice lawsuit, just 6 days beyond California’s 1-year limitations period. California subscribes to the discovery rule, that is, a cause of action accrues only when a claimant discovers or should have discovered injury was the result of negligence.

Which of the following choices is best?

A. The lawsuit filed Sept. 17, 2003, is time barred, as the negligent surgery took place in July 2002.

B. On its face, the lawsuit was filed too late, being 1 year and 6 days after the Sept. 11, 2002, discussion date.

C. The lawsuit was timely filed, so long as the claimant can prove he was out of town for more than 6 days of that year.

D. The patient should sue as an action in battery, which has a longer statute of limitations.

E. All choices except A are correct.

Answer: E. At common law, there was no time limit that barred a plaintiff from bringing a claim, although an equitable doctrine of laches existed to foreclose an action that had long lapsed. Statutory changes in the law now require that lawsuits be brought in a timely manner so that the evidence remains fresh, accurate, and reliable.

Another reason is to provide repose to the wrongdoer, that is, relief from worrying for an indefinite period of time whether a lawsuit will be brought. This time period, during which a lawsuit must be filed or it will be barred, is termed the statute of limitations. It is 2 years for the tort of negligence in most jurisdictions, with states such as California and Tennessee placing a 1-year limit on medical malpractice claims. In California, the running of the statute is tolled (temporarily halted) for the days a claimant is out of state.

The above case scenario is taken from Kaplan v. Mamelak,¹ where the plaintiff’s lawsuit was not barred to allow him to identify the number of days he was out of town. The court also permitted a cause of action in battery, which is covered under a longer statute of limitations, as well as one sounding in malpractice.

Patients who are injured from malpractice may not always be aware that a negligent act had taken place, and some injuries may remain latent for a long period. Recognizing this, statutes of limitation emphasize the date when the plaintiff first discovered that the injury resulted from negligence. This is termed the discovery rule.

Stated more formally, the limitations period commences at the time the cause of action (negligence or other wrongs) accrues, and this usually means when the claimant knew (actual knowledge) or should have known (constructive knowledge).

The rule, in the words of one court, is meant to balance the need for “prompt assertion of claims” against a policy “favoring adjudication of claims on the merits and ensuring that a party with a valid claim will be given an opportunity to present it.”

As is typical of other jurisdictions, Hawaii sought to clarify the discovery rule in a series of court cases, beginning with Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital,² where the court deemed a cause of action “does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the defendant’s negligence.”

Subsequently, Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals explained that the state’s 2-year limitations statute commences when the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, 1) the damage; 2) the violation of the duty; and 3) the causal connection between the violation of the duty and the damage.³

The court subsequently held that the rule prevents the running of the limitations period until “the plaintiff [has] knowledge of those facts which are necessary for an actionable claim.”⁴ In 1999, the Hawaii Supreme Court clarified that it was “factual knowledge,” rather than “legal knowledge,” that starts the clock running, and that legal knowledge of a defendant’s negligence was not required.⁵

More recently, litigation over the time barring of claims was evident in Moon v. Rhode,⁶ where Dr. Clarissa Rhode and Central Illinois Radiological Associates were sued for negligently misreading a patient’s CT scans.

The 90-year-old patient, Kathryn Moon, was admitted to Proctor Hospital May 18, 2009, and died 11 days later following surgery and complications of fluid overload and a pneumoperitoneum. Dr. Rhode, a radiologist, interpreted two CT scans, which an independent expert in 2013 determined were negligently misread. A lawsuit was then brought against Dr. Rhode, who was not a named defendant when the plaintiff had timely filed a medical negligence action back in 2011 against the surgeon and the attending doctor.

The court of appeals held that the discovery rule can be applied to wrongful death and survival actions, and that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known that the death was “wrongfully caused.” However, this did not necessarily mean knowledge of a specific defendant’s negligent conduct or knowledge of the existence of a cause of action.

The court stated: “Plaintiff filed his complaint long after he became possessed with sufficient information, which put him on inquiry to determine whether actionable conduct was involved.” The court ruled that the relevant inquiry was not when the plaintiff became aware that Dr. Rhode may have committed medical negligence, but when any defendant may have committed medical negligence against the patient Kathryn. The case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

In addition to the discovery rule, other situations may toll the limitations period. One example is fraudulent concealment of a right of action, where the statute may be tolled during the period of concealment. And in all jurisdictions, the running of the time period is halted in malpractice complaints involving treatment of a minor until that minor reaches a certain age, such as age of majority, or after a stipulated number of years, for example, 6 years.

Occasionally, a health care provider may overlook an important tolling provision. California, for example, has a rule that any “payment” made to an injured party must be accompanied by a written statement regarding the applicable statute of limitations.

In the recent Coastal Surgical Institute v. Blevins case,⁷ the defendant surgeon made a payment of $4,118.23 for medical expenses incurred by an unrepresented plaintiff, but had neglected to attach a release or a written notice regarding the statute of limitations. The plaintiff subsequently decided to file a lawsuit, even though more than a year – the statutory period – had lapsed.

Under the facts, the limitation period was tolled, and the trial court allowed the case to go forward, ultimately finding liability and awarding damages of $500,000, later reduced to $285,114. The court of appeals affirmed the decision.

This case has prompted MIEC, a malpractice insurance carrier, to emphasize putting in writing the restrictions imposed by the limitations statute to any unrepresented patient. MIEC also warned that the term “payment” might be construed liberally, citing case examples that include a free counseling session and the provision of specialized care for a student injured by a school’s gym equipment.

References

1. Kaplan v. Mamelak, 162 Cal. App. 4th 637 (2008).

2. Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, 433 P.2d 220 (1967).

3. Jacoby v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 622 P.2d 613 (1981).

4. Yamaguchi v. Queen’s Medical Center, 648 P.2d 689 (1982).

5. Buck v. Miles, 971 P.2d 717 (1999).

6. Moon v. Rhode, IL. 2015 App. 3d 130613.

7. Coastal Surgical Institute v. Blevins, 232 Cal. App. 4th 1321 (2015).

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and a former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. It is adapted from the author’s book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk” (2006). For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Question: In July 2002, a patient in California underwent surgery for a herniated T8-9 disk, but the surgeon instead removed the T6-7 and T7-8 disks. On Sept. 11, 2002, the surgeon discussed with the patient the MRI findings showing his mistake. On Sept. 17, 2003, the patient filed a malpractice lawsuit, just 6 days beyond California’s 1-year limitations period. California subscribes to the discovery rule, that is, a cause of action accrues only when a claimant discovers or should have discovered injury was the result of negligence.

Which of the following choices is best?

A. The lawsuit filed Sept. 17, 2003, is time barred, as the negligent surgery took place in July 2002.

B. On its face, the lawsuit was filed too late, being 1 year and 6 days after the Sept. 11, 2002, discussion date.

C. The lawsuit was timely filed, so long as the claimant can prove he was out of town for more than 6 days of that year.

D. The patient should sue as an action in battery, which has a longer statute of limitations.

E. All choices except A are correct.

Answer: E. At common law, there was no time limit that barred a plaintiff from bringing a claim, although an equitable doctrine of laches existed to foreclose an action that had long lapsed. Statutory changes in the law now require that lawsuits be brought in a timely manner so that the evidence remains fresh, accurate, and reliable.

Another reason is to provide repose to the wrongdoer, that is, relief from worrying for an indefinite period of time whether a lawsuit will be brought. This time period, during which a lawsuit must be filed or it will be barred, is termed the statute of limitations. It is 2 years for the tort of negligence in most jurisdictions, with states such as California and Tennessee placing a 1-year limit on medical malpractice claims. In California, the running of the statute is tolled (temporarily halted) for the days a claimant is out of state.

The above case scenario is taken from Kaplan v. Mamelak,¹ where the plaintiff’s lawsuit was not barred to allow him to identify the number of days he was out of town. The court also permitted a cause of action in battery, which is covered under a longer statute of limitations, as well as one sounding in malpractice.

Patients who are injured from malpractice may not always be aware that a negligent act had taken place, and some injuries may remain latent for a long period. Recognizing this, statutes of limitation emphasize the date when the plaintiff first discovered that the injury resulted from negligence. This is termed the discovery rule.

Stated more formally, the limitations period commences at the time the cause of action (negligence or other wrongs) accrues, and this usually means when the claimant knew (actual knowledge) or should have known (constructive knowledge).

The rule, in the words of one court, is meant to balance the need for “prompt assertion of claims” against a policy “favoring adjudication of claims on the merits and ensuring that a party with a valid claim will be given an opportunity to present it.”

As is typical of other jurisdictions, Hawaii sought to clarify the discovery rule in a series of court cases, beginning with Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital,² where the court deemed a cause of action “does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the defendant’s negligence.”

Subsequently, Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals explained that the state’s 2-year limitations statute commences when the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, 1) the damage; 2) the violation of the duty; and 3) the causal connection between the violation of the duty and the damage.³

The court subsequently held that the rule prevents the running of the limitations period until “the plaintiff [has] knowledge of those facts which are necessary for an actionable claim.”⁴ In 1999, the Hawaii Supreme Court clarified that it was “factual knowledge,” rather than “legal knowledge,” that starts the clock running, and that legal knowledge of a defendant’s negligence was not required.⁵

More recently, litigation over the time barring of claims was evident in Moon v. Rhode,⁶ where Dr. Clarissa Rhode and Central Illinois Radiological Associates were sued for negligently misreading a patient’s CT scans.

The 90-year-old patient, Kathryn Moon, was admitted to Proctor Hospital May 18, 2009, and died 11 days later following surgery and complications of fluid overload and a pneumoperitoneum. Dr. Rhode, a radiologist, interpreted two CT scans, which an independent expert in 2013 determined were negligently misread. A lawsuit was then brought against Dr. Rhode, who was not a named defendant when the plaintiff had timely filed a medical negligence action back in 2011 against the surgeon and the attending doctor.

The court of appeals held that the discovery rule can be applied to wrongful death and survival actions, and that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known that the death was “wrongfully caused.” However, this did not necessarily mean knowledge of a specific defendant’s negligent conduct or knowledge of the existence of a cause of action.

The court stated: “Plaintiff filed his complaint long after he became possessed with sufficient information, which put him on inquiry to determine whether actionable conduct was involved.” The court ruled that the relevant inquiry was not when the plaintiff became aware that Dr. Rhode may have committed medical negligence, but when any defendant may have committed medical negligence against the patient Kathryn. The case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

In addition to the discovery rule, other situations may toll the limitations period. One example is fraudulent concealment of a right of action, where the statute may be tolled during the period of concealment. And in all jurisdictions, the running of the time period is halted in malpractice complaints involving treatment of a minor until that minor reaches a certain age, such as age of majority, or after a stipulated number of years, for example, 6 years.

Occasionally, a health care provider may overlook an important tolling provision. California, for example, has a rule that any “payment” made to an injured party must be accompanied by a written statement regarding the applicable statute of limitations.

In the recent Coastal Surgical Institute v. Blevins case,⁷ the defendant surgeon made a payment of $4,118.23 for medical expenses incurred by an unrepresented plaintiff, but had neglected to attach a release or a written notice regarding the statute of limitations. The plaintiff subsequently decided to file a lawsuit, even though more than a year – the statutory period – had lapsed.

Under the facts, the limitation period was tolled, and the trial court allowed the case to go forward, ultimately finding liability and awarding damages of $500,000, later reduced to $285,114. The court of appeals affirmed the decision.

This case has prompted MIEC, a malpractice insurance carrier, to emphasize putting in writing the restrictions imposed by the limitations statute to any unrepresented patient. MIEC also warned that the term “payment” might be construed liberally, citing case examples that include a free counseling session and the provision of specialized care for a student injured by a school’s gym equipment.

References

1. Kaplan v. Mamelak, 162 Cal. App. 4th 637 (2008).

2. Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, 433 P.2d 220 (1967).

3. Jacoby v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 622 P.2d 613 (1981).

4. Yamaguchi v. Queen’s Medical Center, 648 P.2d 689 (1982).

5. Buck v. Miles, 971 P.2d 717 (1999).

6. Moon v. Rhode, IL. 2015 App. 3d 130613.

7. Coastal Surgical Institute v. Blevins, 232 Cal. App. 4th 1321 (2015).

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and a former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. It is adapted from the author’s book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk” (2006). For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Question: In July 2002, a patient in California underwent surgery for a herniated T8-9 disk, but the surgeon instead removed the T6-7 and T7-8 disks. On Sept. 11, 2002, the surgeon discussed with the patient the MRI findings showing his mistake. On Sept. 17, 2003, the patient filed a malpractice lawsuit, just 6 days beyond California’s 1-year limitations period. California subscribes to the discovery rule, that is, a cause of action accrues only when a claimant discovers or should have discovered injury was the result of negligence.

Which of the following choices is best?

A. The lawsuit filed Sept. 17, 2003, is time barred, as the negligent surgery took place in July 2002.

B. On its face, the lawsuit was filed too late, being 1 year and 6 days after the Sept. 11, 2002, discussion date.

C. The lawsuit was timely filed, so long as the claimant can prove he was out of town for more than 6 days of that year.

D. The patient should sue as an action in battery, which has a longer statute of limitations.

E. All choices except A are correct.

Answer: E. At common law, there was no time limit that barred a plaintiff from bringing a claim, although an equitable doctrine of laches existed to foreclose an action that had long lapsed. Statutory changes in the law now require that lawsuits be brought in a timely manner so that the evidence remains fresh, accurate, and reliable.

Another reason is to provide repose to the wrongdoer, that is, relief from worrying for an indefinite period of time whether a lawsuit will be brought. This time period, during which a lawsuit must be filed or it will be barred, is termed the statute of limitations. It is 2 years for the tort of negligence in most jurisdictions, with states such as California and Tennessee placing a 1-year limit on medical malpractice claims. In California, the running of the statute is tolled (temporarily halted) for the days a claimant is out of state.

The above case scenario is taken from Kaplan v. Mamelak,¹ where the plaintiff’s lawsuit was not barred to allow him to identify the number of days he was out of town. The court also permitted a cause of action in battery, which is covered under a longer statute of limitations, as well as one sounding in malpractice.

Patients who are injured from malpractice may not always be aware that a negligent act had taken place, and some injuries may remain latent for a long period. Recognizing this, statutes of limitation emphasize the date when the plaintiff first discovered that the injury resulted from negligence. This is termed the discovery rule.

Stated more formally, the limitations period commences at the time the cause of action (negligence or other wrongs) accrues, and this usually means when the claimant knew (actual knowledge) or should have known (constructive knowledge).

The rule, in the words of one court, is meant to balance the need for “prompt assertion of claims” against a policy “favoring adjudication of claims on the merits and ensuring that a party with a valid claim will be given an opportunity to present it.”

As is typical of other jurisdictions, Hawaii sought to clarify the discovery rule in a series of court cases, beginning with Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital,² where the court deemed a cause of action “does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the defendant’s negligence.”

Subsequently, Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals explained that the state’s 2-year limitations statute commences when the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, 1) the damage; 2) the violation of the duty; and 3) the causal connection between the violation of the duty and the damage.³

The court subsequently held that the rule prevents the running of the limitations period until “the plaintiff [has] knowledge of those facts which are necessary for an actionable claim.”⁴ In 1999, the Hawaii Supreme Court clarified that it was “factual knowledge,” rather than “legal knowledge,” that starts the clock running, and that legal knowledge of a defendant’s negligence was not required.⁵

More recently, litigation over the time barring of claims was evident in Moon v. Rhode,⁶ where Dr. Clarissa Rhode and Central Illinois Radiological Associates were sued for negligently misreading a patient’s CT scans.

The 90-year-old patient, Kathryn Moon, was admitted to Proctor Hospital May 18, 2009, and died 11 days later following surgery and complications of fluid overload and a pneumoperitoneum. Dr. Rhode, a radiologist, interpreted two CT scans, which an independent expert in 2013 determined were negligently misread. A lawsuit was then brought against Dr. Rhode, who was not a named defendant when the plaintiff had timely filed a medical negligence action back in 2011 against the surgeon and the attending doctor.

The court of appeals held that the discovery rule can be applied to wrongful death and survival actions, and that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known that the death was “wrongfully caused.” However, this did not necessarily mean knowledge of a specific defendant’s negligent conduct or knowledge of the existence of a cause of action.

The court stated: “Plaintiff filed his complaint long after he became possessed with sufficient information, which put him on inquiry to determine whether actionable conduct was involved.” The court ruled that the relevant inquiry was not when the plaintiff became aware that Dr. Rhode may have committed medical negligence, but when any defendant may have committed medical negligence against the patient Kathryn. The case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

In addition to the discovery rule, other situations may toll the limitations period. One example is fraudulent concealment of a right of action, where the statute may be tolled during the period of concealment. And in all jurisdictions, the running of the time period is halted in malpractice complaints involving treatment of a minor until that minor reaches a certain age, such as age of majority, or after a stipulated number of years, for example, 6 years.

Occasionally, a health care provider may overlook an important tolling provision. California, for example, has a rule that any “payment” made to an injured party must be accompanied by a written statement regarding the applicable statute of limitations.

In the recent Coastal Surgical Institute v. Blevins case,⁷ the defendant surgeon made a payment of $4,118.23 for medical expenses incurred by an unrepresented plaintiff, but had neglected to attach a release or a written notice regarding the statute of limitations. The plaintiff subsequently decided to file a lawsuit, even though more than a year – the statutory period – had lapsed.

Under the facts, the limitation period was tolled, and the trial court allowed the case to go forward, ultimately finding liability and awarding damages of $500,000, later reduced to $285,114. The court of appeals affirmed the decision.

This case has prompted MIEC, a malpractice insurance carrier, to emphasize putting in writing the restrictions imposed by the limitations statute to any unrepresented patient. MIEC also warned that the term “payment” might be construed liberally, citing case examples that include a free counseling session and the provision of specialized care for a student injured by a school’s gym equipment.

References

1. Kaplan v. Mamelak, 162 Cal. App. 4th 637 (2008).

2. Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, 433 P.2d 220 (1967).

3. Jacoby v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 622 P.2d 613 (1981).

4. Yamaguchi v. Queen’s Medical Center, 648 P.2d 689 (1982).

5. Buck v. Miles, 971 P.2d 717 (1999).

6. Moon v. Rhode, IL. 2015 App. 3d 130613.

7. Coastal Surgical Institute v. Blevins, 232 Cal. App. 4th 1321 (2015).

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and a former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. It is adapted from the author’s book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk” (2006). For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Prolonged hospitalizations for complicated patients with severe infections who need long courses of intravenous antibiotics, are common in many institutions.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a safe and cost-effective way to administer intravenous (IV) antimicrobial therapy to patients with the potential to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). OPAT programs train motivated patients in self-administration of IV medications at home, in a stable environment. Ideally, infectious disease (ID) consultation should be involved to determine appropriate candidates for OPAT as well as a suitable drug regimen and duration of therapy.

A potential barrier to successful utilization of OPAT programs is the need for stable housing at discharge for home infusion services.

Challenge facing homeless patients

There is very little published data regarding the use of OPAT at a medical respite facility for homeless patients. This may be due to perceived concerns of difficulty in administering OPAT to these disadvantaged patients for multiple reasons such as unstable or no housing, inability to stay engaged in medical care, and underlying mental illness and substance abuse problems. In particular, active substance abuse, specifically injection drug use (IDU), is a significant problem.

Traditionally, homeless patients requiring ongoing parenteral therapy have remained inpatient for the duration of their course, which can cause significant inpatient discharge delays and increased LOS. Recommending long-term parenteral therapy as an inpatient for all patients who are homeless or have a history of IDU can lead to prolonged hospitalizations, increased health care costs and contribute to conflicts between patients and staff.

Our study, recently published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (J Hosp Med. 2016 Apr 27. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2597), aimed to evaluate our experience with administering OPAT to homeless patients at a medical respite facility and to determine if patients could complete a successful treatment course of antibiotics for a variety of illnesses.

We demonstrated that 87% of homeless patients were able to complete a defined course of antibiotic therapy, and 64% were successfully treated with OPAT at medical respite. To our knowledge this is the first study evaluating this specific population (including those with homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse) in which OPAT was received at medical respite.

Our rate of adverse events was 7%, similar to other OPAT studies in the published literature. Our total readmission rate of 30% was similar to what current literature suggests. Our data suggest that providing OPAT to homeless patients is feasible at a medical respite facility with care coordination between members of a multidisciplinary team, including nursing, home infusion pharmacist, and ID clinic.

Partnering with medical respite programs is important, as home infusion services are not available otherwise to homeless patients. The recommendation for ID consultation is beneficial to determine candidacy for OPAT, including close scrutiny of social behaviors in the OPAT patient selection process, and can assist with transitions in care from inpatient to outpatient setting.

Homeless IDU patients remain a challenging population to treat with long term IV antibiotics. However, in certain circumstances, IDU alone may not be a reason to fully exclude someone from OPAT candidacy. Careful review of substance abuse history and evaluation of psychosocial factors are needed. Furthermore, an evaluation of the patient’s willingness to comply with care agreements while inpatient and at medical respite, and ensuring appropriate resources for chemical dependency treatment are needed. Early consideration of oral antimicrobial options if the patient is readmitted for complications/non-adherence should be encouraged.

Medical respite programs

Treating homeless IDU patients with OPAT is possible under close supervision at medical respite. Our patients sign an agreement to refrain from using their IV access for drug use. Security seals are used on all connections and tubing to prevent tampering. The IV access sites are inspected daily, and ID providers are contacted to discuss any patients suspicious of tampering with their IV to determine plan of care – either readmission or transition to oral antibiotics.

Medical respite programs are gaining in popularity in the United States. Medical respite can help engage patients in follow-up care and provide linkage to housing, mental health, and chemical dependency services. Many programs support harm reduction IDU practices and offer referrals for substance abuse treatment programs, which are not typically offered during inpatient admission in most hospitals.

Medical respite may continue to be a site of OPAT expansion, as there is continued pressure to discharge nonacute patients from the hospital. Moving forward, it may be beneficial for hospitals, public health departments, and communities to support these programs, which can assist with close monitoring of homeless patients receiving OPAT.

There are ongoing challenges for housed IDU patients who require OPAT, as medical respite placement and home infusion are generally not options, and skilled nursing facility placement can be difficult. Careful review of substance abuse history; evaluation of psychosocial factors, such as housing status; mental health history; and outpatient support systems are needed.

Again, ID consultation is highly recommended to determine appropriate IV therapy, and if possible, early transition to oral antimicrobial therapy, as well as duration of treatment for specific illnesses on a case-by-case basis. Close follow-up is needed to ensure patient compliance with prescribed antimicrobial regimen, sometimes requiring weekly visits.

OPAT is effective for many patients, and it is optimal to utilize ID consultation to determine appropriate candidates – particularly among homeless and IDU patients. OPAT can be successful in a closely monitored medical respite setting for homeless patients with multiple comorbidities, with the help of a multidisciplinary team. Medical respite OPAT can decrease LOS in patients who would otherwise require long hospitalizations, resulting in overall cost savings.

Shireesha Dhanireddy, MD, is medical director of the infectious disease clinic at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle. Alison Beieler, PA-C, MPAS, runs the OPAT program in the infectious disease clinic at Harborview Medical Center.

Prolonged hospitalizations for complicated patients with severe infections who need long courses of intravenous antibiotics, are common in many institutions.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a safe and cost-effective way to administer intravenous (IV) antimicrobial therapy to patients with the potential to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). OPAT programs train motivated patients in self-administration of IV medications at home, in a stable environment. Ideally, infectious disease (ID) consultation should be involved to determine appropriate candidates for OPAT as well as a suitable drug regimen and duration of therapy.

A potential barrier to successful utilization of OPAT programs is the need for stable housing at discharge for home infusion services.

Challenge facing homeless patients

There is very little published data regarding the use of OPAT at a medical respite facility for homeless patients. This may be due to perceived concerns of difficulty in administering OPAT to these disadvantaged patients for multiple reasons such as unstable or no housing, inability to stay engaged in medical care, and underlying mental illness and substance abuse problems. In particular, active substance abuse, specifically injection drug use (IDU), is a significant problem.

Traditionally, homeless patients requiring ongoing parenteral therapy have remained inpatient for the duration of their course, which can cause significant inpatient discharge delays and increased LOS. Recommending long-term parenteral therapy as an inpatient for all patients who are homeless or have a history of IDU can lead to prolonged hospitalizations, increased health care costs and contribute to conflicts between patients and staff.

Our study, recently published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (J Hosp Med. 2016 Apr 27. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2597), aimed to evaluate our experience with administering OPAT to homeless patients at a medical respite facility and to determine if patients could complete a successful treatment course of antibiotics for a variety of illnesses.

We demonstrated that 87% of homeless patients were able to complete a defined course of antibiotic therapy, and 64% were successfully treated with OPAT at medical respite. To our knowledge this is the first study evaluating this specific population (including those with homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse) in which OPAT was received at medical respite.

Our rate of adverse events was 7%, similar to other OPAT studies in the published literature. Our total readmission rate of 30% was similar to what current literature suggests. Our data suggest that providing OPAT to homeless patients is feasible at a medical respite facility with care coordination between members of a multidisciplinary team, including nursing, home infusion pharmacist, and ID clinic.

Partnering with medical respite programs is important, as home infusion services are not available otherwise to homeless patients. The recommendation for ID consultation is beneficial to determine candidacy for OPAT, including close scrutiny of social behaviors in the OPAT patient selection process, and can assist with transitions in care from inpatient to outpatient setting.

Homeless IDU patients remain a challenging population to treat with long term IV antibiotics. However, in certain circumstances, IDU alone may not be a reason to fully exclude someone from OPAT candidacy. Careful review of substance abuse history and evaluation of psychosocial factors are needed. Furthermore, an evaluation of the patient’s willingness to comply with care agreements while inpatient and at medical respite, and ensuring appropriate resources for chemical dependency treatment are needed. Early consideration of oral antimicrobial options if the patient is readmitted for complications/non-adherence should be encouraged.

Medical respite programs

Treating homeless IDU patients with OPAT is possible under close supervision at medical respite. Our patients sign an agreement to refrain from using their IV access for drug use. Security seals are used on all connections and tubing to prevent tampering. The IV access sites are inspected daily, and ID providers are contacted to discuss any patients suspicious of tampering with their IV to determine plan of care – either readmission or transition to oral antibiotics.

Medical respite programs are gaining in popularity in the United States. Medical respite can help engage patients in follow-up care and provide linkage to housing, mental health, and chemical dependency services. Many programs support harm reduction IDU practices and offer referrals for substance abuse treatment programs, which are not typically offered during inpatient admission in most hospitals.

Medical respite may continue to be a site of OPAT expansion, as there is continued pressure to discharge nonacute patients from the hospital. Moving forward, it may be beneficial for hospitals, public health departments, and communities to support these programs, which can assist with close monitoring of homeless patients receiving OPAT.

There are ongoing challenges for housed IDU patients who require OPAT, as medical respite placement and home infusion are generally not options, and skilled nursing facility placement can be difficult. Careful review of substance abuse history; evaluation of psychosocial factors, such as housing status; mental health history; and outpatient support systems are needed.

Again, ID consultation is highly recommended to determine appropriate IV therapy, and if possible, early transition to oral antimicrobial therapy, as well as duration of treatment for specific illnesses on a case-by-case basis. Close follow-up is needed to ensure patient compliance with prescribed antimicrobial regimen, sometimes requiring weekly visits.

OPAT is effective for many patients, and it is optimal to utilize ID consultation to determine appropriate candidates – particularly among homeless and IDU patients. OPAT can be successful in a closely monitored medical respite setting for homeless patients with multiple comorbidities, with the help of a multidisciplinary team. Medical respite OPAT can decrease LOS in patients who would otherwise require long hospitalizations, resulting in overall cost savings.

Shireesha Dhanireddy, MD, is medical director of the infectious disease clinic at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle. Alison Beieler, PA-C, MPAS, runs the OPAT program in the infectious disease clinic at Harborview Medical Center.

Prolonged hospitalizations for complicated patients with severe infections who need long courses of intravenous antibiotics, are common in many institutions.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a safe and cost-effective way to administer intravenous (IV) antimicrobial therapy to patients with the potential to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). OPAT programs train motivated patients in self-administration of IV medications at home, in a stable environment. Ideally, infectious disease (ID) consultation should be involved to determine appropriate candidates for OPAT as well as a suitable drug regimen and duration of therapy.

A potential barrier to successful utilization of OPAT programs is the need for stable housing at discharge for home infusion services.

Challenge facing homeless patients

There is very little published data regarding the use of OPAT at a medical respite facility for homeless patients. This may be due to perceived concerns of difficulty in administering OPAT to these disadvantaged patients for multiple reasons such as unstable or no housing, inability to stay engaged in medical care, and underlying mental illness and substance abuse problems. In particular, active substance abuse, specifically injection drug use (IDU), is a significant problem.

Traditionally, homeless patients requiring ongoing parenteral therapy have remained inpatient for the duration of their course, which can cause significant inpatient discharge delays and increased LOS. Recommending long-term parenteral therapy as an inpatient for all patients who are homeless or have a history of IDU can lead to prolonged hospitalizations, increased health care costs and contribute to conflicts between patients and staff.

Our study, recently published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (J Hosp Med. 2016 Apr 27. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2597), aimed to evaluate our experience with administering OPAT to homeless patients at a medical respite facility and to determine if patients could complete a successful treatment course of antibiotics for a variety of illnesses.

We demonstrated that 87% of homeless patients were able to complete a defined course of antibiotic therapy, and 64% were successfully treated with OPAT at medical respite. To our knowledge this is the first study evaluating this specific population (including those with homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse) in which OPAT was received at medical respite.

Our rate of adverse events was 7%, similar to other OPAT studies in the published literature. Our total readmission rate of 30% was similar to what current literature suggests. Our data suggest that providing OPAT to homeless patients is feasible at a medical respite facility with care coordination between members of a multidisciplinary team, including nursing, home infusion pharmacist, and ID clinic.

Partnering with medical respite programs is important, as home infusion services are not available otherwise to homeless patients. The recommendation for ID consultation is beneficial to determine candidacy for OPAT, including close scrutiny of social behaviors in the OPAT patient selection process, and can assist with transitions in care from inpatient to outpatient setting.

Homeless IDU patients remain a challenging population to treat with long term IV antibiotics. However, in certain circumstances, IDU alone may not be a reason to fully exclude someone from OPAT candidacy. Careful review of substance abuse history and evaluation of psychosocial factors are needed. Furthermore, an evaluation of the patient’s willingness to comply with care agreements while inpatient and at medical respite, and ensuring appropriate resources for chemical dependency treatment are needed. Early consideration of oral antimicrobial options if the patient is readmitted for complications/non-adherence should be encouraged.

Medical respite programs

Treating homeless IDU patients with OPAT is possible under close supervision at medical respite. Our patients sign an agreement to refrain from using their IV access for drug use. Security seals are used on all connections and tubing to prevent tampering. The IV access sites are inspected daily, and ID providers are contacted to discuss any patients suspicious of tampering with their IV to determine plan of care – either readmission or transition to oral antibiotics.

Medical respite programs are gaining in popularity in the United States. Medical respite can help engage patients in follow-up care and provide linkage to housing, mental health, and chemical dependency services. Many programs support harm reduction IDU practices and offer referrals for substance abuse treatment programs, which are not typically offered during inpatient admission in most hospitals.

Medical respite may continue to be a site of OPAT expansion, as there is continued pressure to discharge nonacute patients from the hospital. Moving forward, it may be beneficial for hospitals, public health departments, and communities to support these programs, which can assist with close monitoring of homeless patients receiving OPAT.

There are ongoing challenges for housed IDU patients who require OPAT, as medical respite placement and home infusion are generally not options, and skilled nursing facility placement can be difficult. Careful review of substance abuse history; evaluation of psychosocial factors, such as housing status; mental health history; and outpatient support systems are needed.

Again, ID consultation is highly recommended to determine appropriate IV therapy, and if possible, early transition to oral antimicrobial therapy, as well as duration of treatment for specific illnesses on a case-by-case basis. Close follow-up is needed to ensure patient compliance with prescribed antimicrobial regimen, sometimes requiring weekly visits.

OPAT is effective for many patients, and it is optimal to utilize ID consultation to determine appropriate candidates – particularly among homeless and IDU patients. OPAT can be successful in a closely monitored medical respite setting for homeless patients with multiple comorbidities, with the help of a multidisciplinary team. Medical respite OPAT can decrease LOS in patients who would otherwise require long hospitalizations, resulting in overall cost savings.

Shireesha Dhanireddy, MD, is medical director of the infectious disease clinic at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle. Alison Beieler, PA-C, MPAS, runs the OPAT program in the infectious disease clinic at Harborview Medical Center.