Commentary

The Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Match was first established in 2008 as a joint-sponsored venture between the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the Arthroscopy Association of North America to pair applicants with participating training programs.¹ Operated under the San Francisco Match,² the current fellowship match process was adopted to systematically coordinate training appointments and eliminate the role of “exploding offers,” which are pressured early decisions predicated on immediate acceptance. Other advantages of this system include its operation through a central application service to avoid redundancy of submitted paperwork, as well as to create greater awareness and to publicize training options and standardization of the match timeline.¹

In its current state, the orthopedic sports medicine match represents 96 programs with 230 positions, accounting for approximately 97% of training programs and fellowship positions.¹ While unaccredited options remain available through the Match, many programs have migrated towards American Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation because of an increased focus on objective learning metrics during fellowship and the requirement for Subspecialty Certification in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine through the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery.³ However, other programs have also eschewed the increasing constraints and administrative resources associated with ACGME accreditation, particularly among fellowships based at community-based hospitals or private practices that lack formal affiliation with academic institutions or residency training programs.

Along with a greater understanding of the historical background of the match process, fellowship applicants must also appreciate the relative merits of fellowship training. More than 90% of orthopedic surgery residents now pursue further subspecialty fellowship training, with some individuals opting for 2 additional fellowship opportunities.⁴ As a so-called “nontraditional applicant,” I represent a different demographic, returning to fellowship after years of clinical practice while serving in the military. Individual preferences notwithstanding, I wanted to take the opportunity to emphasize some important considerations in deliberating between different fellowship programs.

• Geography. Your eventual desired practice location may play a role in determining fellowship location or, at least, region of the country. Additionally, this can be an important factor in family happiness. In competitive markets, such as the Northeast or the West Coast, you may make inroads and establish professional connections that result in potential job opportunities. Conversely, other programs may adopt anticompetitive measures to limit local practice options.
• Training setting. Despite the trending consolidation of fellowship training programs in affiliated university and hospital-based teaching systems, many community-based programs and private-practice models thrive, providing an alternative to traditional academic training centers. The latter may provide more in-depth exposure to practice management, billing/coding, and ancillary services. The former typically offer a more structured, academically oriented environment with formal teaching conferences and a broader department hierarchy.
• Program size. Some applicants may prefer a larger, more diverse array of teaching staff or fellows, while others gravitate toward fewer, more personal mentoring relationships that allow more intimate familiarity with practice habits or surgical techniques.
• Associated training programs. Affiliations with a residency or physician-extender training program can offer benefits and drawbacks, including offloading clerical work, shared hands-on experience in the clinic and operating room, and midlevel supervisory responsibilities. This can offer useful opportunities to formulate an individual teaching style and valuable mentoring relationships. However, it can also impose greater time requirements or detract from one-on-one teaching with staff.
• Reputation. Applicants may attach distinction to a well-established regional or national reputation associated with a given training program. Often, certain programs may carry prestige as a result of their academic name, hospital affiliation, or accomplishments. This can offer certain marketing advantages for patient recruitment. However, less renowned programs may provide better training opportunities and confer higher esteem among your professional colleagues. Program reputation can change dramatically with time, so this should be balanced with other potential strengths and overall training experience.
• Practice “niches”/areas of interest. With increasing adoption of arthroscopic techniques among practicing surgeons and a relative excess of sports medicine–trained orthopedists, it is paramount to develop a novel skill set during fellowship to differentiate you from other graduates. I sought a sports medicine fellowship that would offer me a broad-based exposure to arthroscopic and open knee and shoulder reconstruction, chondral restoration techniques, hip arthroscopy and preservation, and shoulder arthroplasty. Opportunities in elbow reconstruction, foot and ankle arthroscopy, and pediatric sports medicine may also be valuable as a distinguishing factor in searching for jobs after training.
• Marketability. Closely intertwined with reputation and scope of practice, an institution’s marketability is another intangible attribute to consider. Professional or collegiate team coverage offers significant market value for patient advertising, and it is frequently publicized by orthopedic practices and hospital systems. Additionally, the importance of ACGME accreditation should also be considered.
• Nonmedical training. This is increasingly important in subsequent subspecialty training. Further education on the business aspects of orthopedic surgery should be emphasized. Additionally, dedicated curricula on professional or leadership development are important for career progression.
• Mentorship. Throughout the interview process, one of my foremost priorities was a strong and enduring pattern of mentorship. Fellowship offers the opportunity to establish 1 or multiple mentors in your subspecialty. These individuals will be instrumental in the development of your early professional career and your approach to clinical practice. From discussions about complicated patients to advice on contract negotiations, your ideal mentor should champion your early successes and work generously on your behalf, even long after fellowship has ended. 

• Research opportunities. Given my academic career goals, I actively pursued a program with rich clinical and laboratory resources, and an established infrastructure for accomplishing high-quality, relevant research. Interested individuals should gauge the availability of research support staff, biomechanical or bench-level laboratory collaboration, grant or institutional research funding, cadaveric specimens, or clinical outcomes data for research conducted by fellows. However, not all fellowship applicants have a vested interest in research during fellowship, so I would encourage inquiries regarding core research requirements and expectations.
• Clinical exposure. This encompasses several different and equally important variables, including diversity of clinical or surgical caseloads, case complexity, operative exposure, athletic team coverage, and office or clinical experience. Interestingly, this latter aspect of training is often neglected but cannot be overemphasized. Outpatient clinical evaluation is key to honing important physical examination techniques and critically evaluating patients’ outcomes postoperatively.
• Surgical autonomy. Hands-on operative experience and surgical autonomy vary widely among fellowship programs. Most fellowships advocate for a graduated level of surgical responsibility dependent on individual abilities and staff comfort, while others offer greater potential for independence. Conversely, some programs espouse more of an “observership” model, and arthroscopic simulators and/or cadaveric skills laboratories are designed to complement operative experience. While most fellowship applicants desire maximal case participation, we must also recognize the value in watching talented surgeons performing technically demanding procedures.
• Family. You cannot put a premium on your personal contentment and family’s well-being. Proximity to a support network can be important with the work demands and time constraints of fellowship.

Despite financial obligations and significant time commitments, the fellowship match process offers an incredible range of programs and practice environments. Inevitably, no program can completely fulfill all your criteria, but you should be able to tailor your learning style, professional ambitions, and personal preferences with an excellent training program. For many, fellowship represents the last, and perhaps most integral, stage of formal surgical training. Considering all factors of your chosen fellowship program will ensure a rich and fulfilling educational experience.

The Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Match was first established in 2008 as a joint-sponsored venture between the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the Arthroscopy Association of North America to pair applicants with participating training programs.¹ Operated under the San Francisco Match,² the current fellowship match process was adopted to systematically coordinate training appointments and eliminate the role of “exploding offers,” which are pressured early decisions predicated on immediate acceptance. Other advantages of this system include its operation through a central application service to avoid redundancy of submitted paperwork, as well as to create greater awareness and to publicize training options and standardization of the match timeline.¹

In its current state, the orthopedic sports medicine match represents 96 programs with 230 positions, accounting for approximately 97% of training programs and fellowship positions.¹ While unaccredited options remain available through the Match, many programs have migrated towards American Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation because of an increased focus on objective learning metrics during fellowship and the requirement for Subspecialty Certification in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine through the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery.³ However, other programs have also eschewed the increasing constraints and administrative resources associated with ACGME accreditation, particularly among fellowships based at community-based hospitals or private practices that lack formal affiliation with academic institutions or residency training programs.

Along with a greater understanding of the historical background of the match process, fellowship applicants must also appreciate the relative merits of fellowship training. More than 90% of orthopedic surgery residents now pursue further subspecialty fellowship training, with some individuals opting for 2 additional fellowship opportunities.⁴ As a so-called “nontraditional applicant,” I represent a different demographic, returning to fellowship after years of clinical practice while serving in the military. Individual preferences notwithstanding, I wanted to take the opportunity to emphasize some important considerations in deliberating between different fellowship programs.

• Geography. Your eventual desired practice location may play a role in determining fellowship location or, at least, region of the country. Additionally, this can be an important factor in family happiness. In competitive markets, such as the Northeast or the West Coast, you may make inroads and establish professional connections that result in potential job opportunities. Conversely, other programs may adopt anticompetitive measures to limit local practice options.
• Training setting. Despite the trending consolidation of fellowship training programs in affiliated university and hospital-based teaching systems, many community-based programs and private-practice models thrive, providing an alternative to traditional academic training centers. The latter may provide more in-depth exposure to practice management, billing/coding, and ancillary services. The former typically offer a more structured, academically oriented environment with formal teaching conferences and a broader department hierarchy.
• Program size. Some applicants may prefer a larger, more diverse array of teaching staff or fellows, while others gravitate toward fewer, more personal mentoring relationships that allow more intimate familiarity with practice habits or surgical techniques.
• Associated training programs. Affiliations with a residency or physician-extender training program can offer benefits and drawbacks, including offloading clerical work, shared hands-on experience in the clinic and operating room, and midlevel supervisory responsibilities. This can offer useful opportunities to formulate an individual teaching style and valuable mentoring relationships. However, it can also impose greater time requirements or detract from one-on-one teaching with staff.
• Reputation. Applicants may attach distinction to a well-established regional or national reputation associated with a given training program. Often, certain programs may carry prestige as a result of their academic name, hospital affiliation, or accomplishments. This can offer certain marketing advantages for patient recruitment. However, less renowned programs may provide better training opportunities and confer higher esteem among your professional colleagues. Program reputation can change dramatically with time, so this should be balanced with other potential strengths and overall training experience.
• Practice “niches”/areas of interest. With increasing adoption of arthroscopic techniques among practicing surgeons and a relative excess of sports medicine–trained orthopedists, it is paramount to develop a novel skill set during fellowship to differentiate you from other graduates. I sought a sports medicine fellowship that would offer me a broad-based exposure to arthroscopic and open knee and shoulder reconstruction, chondral restoration techniques, hip arthroscopy and preservation, and shoulder arthroplasty. Opportunities in elbow reconstruction, foot and ankle arthroscopy, and pediatric sports medicine may also be valuable as a distinguishing factor in searching for jobs after training.
• Marketability. Closely intertwined with reputation and scope of practice, an institution’s marketability is another intangible attribute to consider. Professional or collegiate team coverage offers significant market value for patient advertising, and it is frequently publicized by orthopedic practices and hospital systems. Additionally, the importance of ACGME accreditation should also be considered.
• Nonmedical training. This is increasingly important in subsequent subspecialty training. Further education on the business aspects of orthopedic surgery should be emphasized. Additionally, dedicated curricula on professional or leadership development are important for career progression.
• Mentorship. Throughout the interview process, one of my foremost priorities was a strong and enduring pattern of mentorship. Fellowship offers the opportunity to establish 1 or multiple mentors in your subspecialty. These individuals will be instrumental in the development of your early professional career and your approach to clinical practice. From discussions about complicated patients to advice on contract negotiations, your ideal mentor should champion your early successes and work generously on your behalf, even long after fellowship has ended. 

• Research opportunities. Given my academic career goals, I actively pursued a program with rich clinical and laboratory resources, and an established infrastructure for accomplishing high-quality, relevant research. Interested individuals should gauge the availability of research support staff, biomechanical or bench-level laboratory collaboration, grant or institutional research funding, cadaveric specimens, or clinical outcomes data for research conducted by fellows. However, not all fellowship applicants have a vested interest in research during fellowship, so I would encourage inquiries regarding core research requirements and expectations.
• Clinical exposure. This encompasses several different and equally important variables, including diversity of clinical or surgical caseloads, case complexity, operative exposure, athletic team coverage, and office or clinical experience. Interestingly, this latter aspect of training is often neglected but cannot be overemphasized. Outpatient clinical evaluation is key to honing important physical examination techniques and critically evaluating patients’ outcomes postoperatively.
• Surgical autonomy. Hands-on operative experience and surgical autonomy vary widely among fellowship programs. Most fellowships advocate for a graduated level of surgical responsibility dependent on individual abilities and staff comfort, while others offer greater potential for independence. Conversely, some programs espouse more of an “observership” model, and arthroscopic simulators and/or cadaveric skills laboratories are designed to complement operative experience. While most fellowship applicants desire maximal case participation, we must also recognize the value in watching talented surgeons performing technically demanding procedures.
• Family. You cannot put a premium on your personal contentment and family’s well-being. Proximity to a support network can be important with the work demands and time constraints of fellowship.

Despite financial obligations and significant time commitments, the fellowship match process offers an incredible range of programs and practice environments. Inevitably, no program can completely fulfill all your criteria, but you should be able to tailor your learning style, professional ambitions, and personal preferences with an excellent training program. For many, fellowship represents the last, and perhaps most integral, stage of formal surgical training. Considering all factors of your chosen fellowship program will ensure a rich and fulfilling educational experience.

The Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Match was first established in 2008 as a joint-sponsored venture between the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the Arthroscopy Association of North America to pair applicants with participating training programs.¹ Operated under the San Francisco Match,² the current fellowship match process was adopted to systematically coordinate training appointments and eliminate the role of “exploding offers,” which are pressured early decisions predicated on immediate acceptance. Other advantages of this system include its operation through a central application service to avoid redundancy of submitted paperwork, as well as to create greater awareness and to publicize training options and standardization of the match timeline.¹

In its current state, the orthopedic sports medicine match represents 96 programs with 230 positions, accounting for approximately 97% of training programs and fellowship positions.¹ While unaccredited options remain available through the Match, many programs have migrated towards American Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation because of an increased focus on objective learning metrics during fellowship and the requirement for Subspecialty Certification in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine through the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery.³ However, other programs have also eschewed the increasing constraints and administrative resources associated with ACGME accreditation, particularly among fellowships based at community-based hospitals or private practices that lack formal affiliation with academic institutions or residency training programs.

Along with a greater understanding of the historical background of the match process, fellowship applicants must also appreciate the relative merits of fellowship training. More than 90% of orthopedic surgery residents now pursue further subspecialty fellowship training, with some individuals opting for 2 additional fellowship opportunities.⁴ As a so-called “nontraditional applicant,” I represent a different demographic, returning to fellowship after years of clinical practice while serving in the military. Individual preferences notwithstanding, I wanted to take the opportunity to emphasize some important considerations in deliberating between different fellowship programs.

• Geography. Your eventual desired practice location may play a role in determining fellowship location or, at least, region of the country. Additionally, this can be an important factor in family happiness. In competitive markets, such as the Northeast or the West Coast, you may make inroads and establish professional connections that result in potential job opportunities. Conversely, other programs may adopt anticompetitive measures to limit local practice options.
• Training setting. Despite the trending consolidation of fellowship training programs in affiliated university and hospital-based teaching systems, many community-based programs and private-practice models thrive, providing an alternative to traditional academic training centers. The latter may provide more in-depth exposure to practice management, billing/coding, and ancillary services. The former typically offer a more structured, academically oriented environment with formal teaching conferences and a broader department hierarchy.
• Program size. Some applicants may prefer a larger, more diverse array of teaching staff or fellows, while others gravitate toward fewer, more personal mentoring relationships that allow more intimate familiarity with practice habits or surgical techniques.
• Associated training programs. Affiliations with a residency or physician-extender training program can offer benefits and drawbacks, including offloading clerical work, shared hands-on experience in the clinic and operating room, and midlevel supervisory responsibilities. This can offer useful opportunities to formulate an individual teaching style and valuable mentoring relationships. However, it can also impose greater time requirements or detract from one-on-one teaching with staff.
• Reputation. Applicants may attach distinction to a well-established regional or national reputation associated with a given training program. Often, certain programs may carry prestige as a result of their academic name, hospital affiliation, or accomplishments. This can offer certain marketing advantages for patient recruitment. However, less renowned programs may provide better training opportunities and confer higher esteem among your professional colleagues. Program reputation can change dramatically with time, so this should be balanced with other potential strengths and overall training experience.
• Practice “niches”/areas of interest. With increasing adoption of arthroscopic techniques among practicing surgeons and a relative excess of sports medicine–trained orthopedists, it is paramount to develop a novel skill set during fellowship to differentiate you from other graduates. I sought a sports medicine fellowship that would offer me a broad-based exposure to arthroscopic and open knee and shoulder reconstruction, chondral restoration techniques, hip arthroscopy and preservation, and shoulder arthroplasty. Opportunities in elbow reconstruction, foot and ankle arthroscopy, and pediatric sports medicine may also be valuable as a distinguishing factor in searching for jobs after training.
• Marketability. Closely intertwined with reputation and scope of practice, an institution’s marketability is another intangible attribute to consider. Professional or collegiate team coverage offers significant market value for patient advertising, and it is frequently publicized by orthopedic practices and hospital systems. Additionally, the importance of ACGME accreditation should also be considered.
• Nonmedical training. This is increasingly important in subsequent subspecialty training. Further education on the business aspects of orthopedic surgery should be emphasized. Additionally, dedicated curricula on professional or leadership development are important for career progression.
• Mentorship. Throughout the interview process, one of my foremost priorities was a strong and enduring pattern of mentorship. Fellowship offers the opportunity to establish 1 or multiple mentors in your subspecialty. These individuals will be instrumental in the development of your early professional career and your approach to clinical practice. From discussions about complicated patients to advice on contract negotiations, your ideal mentor should champion your early successes and work generously on your behalf, even long after fellowship has ended. 

• Research opportunities. Given my academic career goals, I actively pursued a program with rich clinical and laboratory resources, and an established infrastructure for accomplishing high-quality, relevant research. Interested individuals should gauge the availability of research support staff, biomechanical or bench-level laboratory collaboration, grant or institutional research funding, cadaveric specimens, or clinical outcomes data for research conducted by fellows. However, not all fellowship applicants have a vested interest in research during fellowship, so I would encourage inquiries regarding core research requirements and expectations.
• Clinical exposure. This encompasses several different and equally important variables, including diversity of clinical or surgical caseloads, case complexity, operative exposure, athletic team coverage, and office or clinical experience. Interestingly, this latter aspect of training is often neglected but cannot be overemphasized. Outpatient clinical evaluation is key to honing important physical examination techniques and critically evaluating patients’ outcomes postoperatively.
• Surgical autonomy. Hands-on operative experience and surgical autonomy vary widely among fellowship programs. Most fellowships advocate for a graduated level of surgical responsibility dependent on individual abilities and staff comfort, while others offer greater potential for independence. Conversely, some programs espouse more of an “observership” model, and arthroscopic simulators and/or cadaveric skills laboratories are designed to complement operative experience. While most fellowship applicants desire maximal case participation, we must also recognize the value in watching talented surgeons performing technically demanding procedures.
• Family. You cannot put a premium on your personal contentment and family’s well-being. Proximity to a support network can be important with the work demands and time constraints of fellowship.

Despite financial obligations and significant time commitments, the fellowship match process offers an incredible range of programs and practice environments. Inevitably, no program can completely fulfill all your criteria, but you should be able to tailor your learning style, professional ambitions, and personal preferences with an excellent training program. For many, fellowship represents the last, and perhaps most integral, stage of formal surgical training. Considering all factors of your chosen fellowship program will ensure a rich and fulfilling educational experience.

Question: Which of the following statements regarding artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is least supported in ethics and/or law?

A. One may invoke medical futility and discontinue ANH in noncognitive, terminally ill patients.

B. Forgoing ANH at the end of life is part of good palliative care.

C. Tube feeding is a way to provide food and sustenance and does not constitute medical treatment.

D. Many state statutes allow for the discontinuation of ANH under specified conditions.

E. Discontinuing ANH is most contentious when it affects a young, otherwise healthy person in a persistent vegetative state.

Answer: C.

Only a few decades ago, litigation over end-of-life care took the form of surrogates demanding to stop treatment, e.g., mechanical ventilation, against the orders of the hospital and doctors.¹ The parties now tend to reverse their positions, with some families insisting on continuing all treatment modalities, especially artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) such as tube feedings. Medical futility has been variously defined as an intervention that has no pathophysiologic rationale, where such intervention had already failed in the patient, where maximal treatment is already failing, or where the intervention will not achieve the goals of care. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics advises: “Physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefiting their patients. Patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them.”² The AMA Code also clarifies that “life-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition” and “may include … artificial nutrition and hydration.”³

Although many palliative care specialists have deemed ANH to be of dubious medical benefit at the end of life,⁴ forgoing ANH nonetheless poses a particularly contentious dilemma. Opponents assert that ANH is a form of feeding rather than medical treatment, denial of which amounts to “starving” the patient to death. However in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cruzan v. Director⁵ declared that ANH could not be readily distinguished from other forms of medical treatment. The case involved a 25-year-old woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state (PVS) following an automobile accident. Her parents sought a court order to withdraw ANH when it became apparent that she had virtually no chance of recovering her cognitive faculties. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor opined: “Whether or not the techniques used to pass food and water into the patient’s alimentary tract are termed ‘medical treatment,’ it is clear they all involve some degree of intrusion and restraint. … Feeding a patient by means of a nasogastric tube requires a physician to pass a long flexible tube through the patient’s nose, throat, and esophagus and into the stomach. Because of the discomfort such a tube causes, ‘many patients need to be restrained forcibly and their hands put into large mittens to prevent them from removing the tube.’ A gastrostomy tube … or jejunostomy tube must be surgically implanted into the stomach or small intestine. … Requiring a competent adult to endure such procedures against her will burdens the patient’s liberty, dignity, and freedom to determine the course of her own treatment.”

The English High Court has likewise adopted this position in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland.⁶ Tony Bland, a young man, was crushed in a Hillsborough football melee in 1989, which caused him to develop PVS. The court wrote: “The question is not whether it is in the best interests of the patient that he should die. The question is whether it is in the best interests of the patient that his life should be prolonged by the continuance of this form of medical treatment or care. The correct formulation of the question is of particular importance in a case such as the present, where the patient is totally unconscious or where there is no hope whatsoever of any amelioration of his condition.”

In 2005, the United States witnessed its most public and highly politicized case regarding the withdrawal of ANH.⁷ In 1990, Terri Schiavo, then age 26, sustained a cardiac arrest, possibly caused by an eating disorder and hypokalemia. Her husband, Michael, filed a malpractice suit and won damages of $1.5 million, but the arrest left her in a PVS. Terri had left no advance directive, and her husband said she would rather die than be kept alive artificially, and therefore directed that her tube feeding be stopped. On the other hand, her parents Bob and Mary Schindler wished to keep her alive, and volunteered to take care of her. After a long and bitter legal battle, an appellate court finally agreed to stop Terri’s tube feeding, as it found clear and convincing evidence that she would not have wanted to live in that manner. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case. On Oct. 15, 2003, with the discontinuation of her tube feeding, Terri’s parents appealed to then Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, calling into question the diagnosis of PVS. They insisted Terri’s eyes were open, and she appeared to respond with smiles to the sound of her mother’s voice. Despite contrary expert opinion, 15 doctors testified she could and would improve. Both the Florida legislature and the U.S. Congress intervened but to no avail. Terri died at 10 a.m. on March 31, 2005, 13 days after tube withdrawal. An autopsy revealed severe brain atrophy.

In Cruzan, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause must protect an individual’s deeply personal decision to reject medical treatment, including the artificial delivery of food and water. However, where a patient’s wishes are not clear and convincing, a court will be reluctant to order cessation of treatment. In a 6-0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that a patient’s tube feedings could not be discontinued under the circumstances of the Wendland case.⁸ Robert Wendland regained consciousness after 14 months in a coma, but was left hemiparetic and incontinent, and could not feed by mouth or dress, bathe, and communicate consistently. His wife, Rose, refused to authorize reinsertion of his dislodged feeding tube, believing that Robert would not have wanted it replaced. The patient’s daughter and brother, as well as the hospital’s ethics committee, the county ombudsman, and a court-appointed counsel all agreed with the decision. Robert did not have an advance directive, but had made statements to the effect he would not want to live in a vegetative state. But the patient’s mother, Florence, went to court to block the action. The court determined that Robert’s statements were not clear and convincing because they did not address his current condition, were not sufficiently specific, and were not necessarily intended to direct his medical care. Further, the patient’s spouse had failed to provide sufficient evidence that her decision was in her husband’s best interests.

In some jurisdictions, a patient’s advance medical directive to discontinue ANH may require a specific opt-in or opt-out choice. And although medical directives typically spring into effect when a patient is terminally ill, many jurisdictions allow their applicability in nonterminal conditions such as irreversible unconscious states or where the likely risks and burdens of treatment would outweigh any expected benefits (Hawaii is such a state under HRS §327E-16). Physicians are legally bound to respect a patient’s wish regarding forgoing or continuing therapy including ANH. Given the wide variations in legal requirements governing this emotional matter, physicians must look closely at their individual state statute to determine the proper course of action under the circumstances.

References

1. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10 (1976).

2. Code of Medical Ethics of the AMA, 2014-5 ed., section 2.035.

3. Code of Medical Ethics of the AMA, 2014-5 ed., section 2.20.

4. Danis M. Stopping artificial nutrition and hydration at the end of life. UpToDate, Nov 2, 2015.

5. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990).

6. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) A.C. 789.

7. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case.

8. Wendland v. Wendland, 28 P.3d 151 (Cal., 2001).

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, and currently directs the St. Francis International Center for Healthcare Ethics in Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the articles in this series are adapted from the author’s 2006 book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk,” and his 2012 Halsbury treatise, “Medical Negligence and Professional Misconduct.” For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Question: Which of the following statements regarding artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is least supported in ethics and/or law?

A. One may invoke medical futility and discontinue ANH in noncognitive, terminally ill patients.

B. Forgoing ANH at the end of life is part of good palliative care.

C. Tube feeding is a way to provide food and sustenance and does not constitute medical treatment.

D. Many state statutes allow for the discontinuation of ANH under specified conditions.

E. Discontinuing ANH is most contentious when it affects a young, otherwise healthy person in a persistent vegetative state.

Answer: C.

Only a few decades ago, litigation over end-of-life care took the form of surrogates demanding to stop treatment, e.g., mechanical ventilation, against the orders of the hospital and doctors.¹ The parties now tend to reverse their positions, with some families insisting on continuing all treatment modalities, especially artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) such as tube feedings. Medical futility has been variously defined as an intervention that has no pathophysiologic rationale, where such intervention had already failed in the patient, where maximal treatment is already failing, or where the intervention will not achieve the goals of care. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics advises: “Physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefiting their patients. Patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them.”² The AMA Code also clarifies that “life-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition” and “may include … artificial nutrition and hydration.”³

Although many palliative care specialists have deemed ANH to be of dubious medical benefit at the end of life,⁴ forgoing ANH nonetheless poses a particularly contentious dilemma. Opponents assert that ANH is a form of feeding rather than medical treatment, denial of which amounts to “starving” the patient to death. However in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cruzan v. Director⁵ declared that ANH could not be readily distinguished from other forms of medical treatment. The case involved a 25-year-old woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state (PVS) following an automobile accident. Her parents sought a court order to withdraw ANH when it became apparent that she had virtually no chance of recovering her cognitive faculties. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor opined: “Whether or not the techniques used to pass food and water into the patient’s alimentary tract are termed ‘medical treatment,’ it is clear they all involve some degree of intrusion and restraint. … Feeding a patient by means of a nasogastric tube requires a physician to pass a long flexible tube through the patient’s nose, throat, and esophagus and into the stomach. Because of the discomfort such a tube causes, ‘many patients need to be restrained forcibly and their hands put into large mittens to prevent them from removing the tube.’ A gastrostomy tube … or jejunostomy tube must be surgically implanted into the stomach or small intestine. … Requiring a competent adult to endure such procedures against her will burdens the patient’s liberty, dignity, and freedom to determine the course of her own treatment.”

The English High Court has likewise adopted this position in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland.⁶ Tony Bland, a young man, was crushed in a Hillsborough football melee in 1989, which caused him to develop PVS. The court wrote: “The question is not whether it is in the best interests of the patient that he should die. The question is whether it is in the best interests of the patient that his life should be prolonged by the continuance of this form of medical treatment or care. The correct formulation of the question is of particular importance in a case such as the present, where the patient is totally unconscious or where there is no hope whatsoever of any amelioration of his condition.”

In 2005, the United States witnessed its most public and highly politicized case regarding the withdrawal of ANH.⁷ In 1990, Terri Schiavo, then age 26, sustained a cardiac arrest, possibly caused by an eating disorder and hypokalemia. Her husband, Michael, filed a malpractice suit and won damages of $1.5 million, but the arrest left her in a PVS. Terri had left no advance directive, and her husband said she would rather die than be kept alive artificially, and therefore directed that her tube feeding be stopped. On the other hand, her parents Bob and Mary Schindler wished to keep her alive, and volunteered to take care of her. After a long and bitter legal battle, an appellate court finally agreed to stop Terri’s tube feeding, as it found clear and convincing evidence that she would not have wanted to live in that manner. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case. On Oct. 15, 2003, with the discontinuation of her tube feeding, Terri’s parents appealed to then Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, calling into question the diagnosis of PVS. They insisted Terri’s eyes were open, and she appeared to respond with smiles to the sound of her mother’s voice. Despite contrary expert opinion, 15 doctors testified she could and would improve. Both the Florida legislature and the U.S. Congress intervened but to no avail. Terri died at 10 a.m. on March 31, 2005, 13 days after tube withdrawal. An autopsy revealed severe brain atrophy.

In Cruzan, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause must protect an individual’s deeply personal decision to reject medical treatment, including the artificial delivery of food and water. However, where a patient’s wishes are not clear and convincing, a court will be reluctant to order cessation of treatment. In a 6-0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that a patient’s tube feedings could not be discontinued under the circumstances of the Wendland case.⁸ Robert Wendland regained consciousness after 14 months in a coma, but was left hemiparetic and incontinent, and could not feed by mouth or dress, bathe, and communicate consistently. His wife, Rose, refused to authorize reinsertion of his dislodged feeding tube, believing that Robert would not have wanted it replaced. The patient’s daughter and brother, as well as the hospital’s ethics committee, the county ombudsman, and a court-appointed counsel all agreed with the decision. Robert did not have an advance directive, but had made statements to the effect he would not want to live in a vegetative state. But the patient’s mother, Florence, went to court to block the action. The court determined that Robert’s statements were not clear and convincing because they did not address his current condition, were not sufficiently specific, and were not necessarily intended to direct his medical care. Further, the patient’s spouse had failed to provide sufficient evidence that her decision was in her husband’s best interests.

In some jurisdictions, a patient’s advance medical directive to discontinue ANH may require a specific opt-in or opt-out choice. And although medical directives typically spring into effect when a patient is terminally ill, many jurisdictions allow their applicability in nonterminal conditions such as irreversible unconscious states or where the likely risks and burdens of treatment would outweigh any expected benefits (Hawaii is such a state under HRS §327E-16). Physicians are legally bound to respect a patient’s wish regarding forgoing or continuing therapy including ANH. Given the wide variations in legal requirements governing this emotional matter, physicians must look closely at their individual state statute to determine the proper course of action under the circumstances.

References

1. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10 (1976).

2. Code of Medical Ethics of the AMA, 2014-5 ed., section 2.035.

3. Code of Medical Ethics of the AMA, 2014-5 ed., section 2.20.

4. Danis M. Stopping artificial nutrition and hydration at the end of life. UpToDate, Nov 2, 2015.

5. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990).

6. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) A.C. 789.

7. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case.

8. Wendland v. Wendland, 28 P.3d 151 (Cal., 2001).

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, and currently directs the St. Francis International Center for Healthcare Ethics in Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the articles in this series are adapted from the author’s 2006 book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk,” and his 2012 Halsbury treatise, “Medical Negligence and Professional Misconduct.” For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Question: Which of the following statements regarding artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is least supported in ethics and/or law?

A. One may invoke medical futility and discontinue ANH in noncognitive, terminally ill patients.

B. Forgoing ANH at the end of life is part of good palliative care.

C. Tube feeding is a way to provide food and sustenance and does not constitute medical treatment.

D. Many state statutes allow for the discontinuation of ANH under specified conditions.

E. Discontinuing ANH is most contentious when it affects a young, otherwise healthy person in a persistent vegetative state.

Answer: C.

Only a few decades ago, litigation over end-of-life care took the form of surrogates demanding to stop treatment, e.g., mechanical ventilation, against the orders of the hospital and doctors.¹ The parties now tend to reverse their positions, with some families insisting on continuing all treatment modalities, especially artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) such as tube feedings. Medical futility has been variously defined as an intervention that has no pathophysiologic rationale, where such intervention had already failed in the patient, where maximal treatment is already failing, or where the intervention will not achieve the goals of care. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics advises: “Physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefiting their patients. Patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them.”² The AMA Code also clarifies that “life-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition” and “may include … artificial nutrition and hydration.”³

Although many palliative care specialists have deemed ANH to be of dubious medical benefit at the end of life,⁴ forgoing ANH nonetheless poses a particularly contentious dilemma. Opponents assert that ANH is a form of feeding rather than medical treatment, denial of which amounts to “starving” the patient to death. However in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cruzan v. Director⁵ declared that ANH could not be readily distinguished from other forms of medical treatment. The case involved a 25-year-old woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state (PVS) following an automobile accident. Her parents sought a court order to withdraw ANH when it became apparent that she had virtually no chance of recovering her cognitive faculties. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor opined: “Whether or not the techniques used to pass food and water into the patient’s alimentary tract are termed ‘medical treatment,’ it is clear they all involve some degree of intrusion and restraint. … Feeding a patient by means of a nasogastric tube requires a physician to pass a long flexible tube through the patient’s nose, throat, and esophagus and into the stomach. Because of the discomfort such a tube causes, ‘many patients need to be restrained forcibly and their hands put into large mittens to prevent them from removing the tube.’ A gastrostomy tube … or jejunostomy tube must be surgically implanted into the stomach or small intestine. … Requiring a competent adult to endure such procedures against her will burdens the patient’s liberty, dignity, and freedom to determine the course of her own treatment.”

The English High Court has likewise adopted this position in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland.⁶ Tony Bland, a young man, was crushed in a Hillsborough football melee in 1989, which caused him to develop PVS. The court wrote: “The question is not whether it is in the best interests of the patient that he should die. The question is whether it is in the best interests of the patient that his life should be prolonged by the continuance of this form of medical treatment or care. The correct formulation of the question is of particular importance in a case such as the present, where the patient is totally unconscious or where there is no hope whatsoever of any amelioration of his condition.”

In 2005, the United States witnessed its most public and highly politicized case regarding the withdrawal of ANH.⁷ In 1990, Terri Schiavo, then age 26, sustained a cardiac arrest, possibly caused by an eating disorder and hypokalemia. Her husband, Michael, filed a malpractice suit and won damages of $1.5 million, but the arrest left her in a PVS. Terri had left no advance directive, and her husband said she would rather die than be kept alive artificially, and therefore directed that her tube feeding be stopped. On the other hand, her parents Bob and Mary Schindler wished to keep her alive, and volunteered to take care of her. After a long and bitter legal battle, an appellate court finally agreed to stop Terri’s tube feeding, as it found clear and convincing evidence that she would not have wanted to live in that manner. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case. On Oct. 15, 2003, with the discontinuation of her tube feeding, Terri’s parents appealed to then Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, calling into question the diagnosis of PVS. They insisted Terri’s eyes were open, and she appeared to respond with smiles to the sound of her mother’s voice. Despite contrary expert opinion, 15 doctors testified she could and would improve. Both the Florida legislature and the U.S. Congress intervened but to no avail. Terri died at 10 a.m. on March 31, 2005, 13 days after tube withdrawal. An autopsy revealed severe brain atrophy.

In Cruzan, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause must protect an individual’s deeply personal decision to reject medical treatment, including the artificial delivery of food and water. However, where a patient’s wishes are not clear and convincing, a court will be reluctant to order cessation of treatment. In a 6-0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that a patient’s tube feedings could not be discontinued under the circumstances of the Wendland case.⁸ Robert Wendland regained consciousness after 14 months in a coma, but was left hemiparetic and incontinent, and could not feed by mouth or dress, bathe, and communicate consistently. His wife, Rose, refused to authorize reinsertion of his dislodged feeding tube, believing that Robert would not have wanted it replaced. The patient’s daughter and brother, as well as the hospital’s ethics committee, the county ombudsman, and a court-appointed counsel all agreed with the decision. Robert did not have an advance directive, but had made statements to the effect he would not want to live in a vegetative state. But the patient’s mother, Florence, went to court to block the action. The court determined that Robert’s statements were not clear and convincing because they did not address his current condition, were not sufficiently specific, and were not necessarily intended to direct his medical care. Further, the patient’s spouse had failed to provide sufficient evidence that her decision was in her husband’s best interests.

In some jurisdictions, a patient’s advance medical directive to discontinue ANH may require a specific opt-in or opt-out choice. And although medical directives typically spring into effect when a patient is terminally ill, many jurisdictions allow their applicability in nonterminal conditions such as irreversible unconscious states or where the likely risks and burdens of treatment would outweigh any expected benefits (Hawaii is such a state under HRS §327E-16). Physicians are legally bound to respect a patient’s wish regarding forgoing or continuing therapy including ANH. Given the wide variations in legal requirements governing this emotional matter, physicians must look closely at their individual state statute to determine the proper course of action under the circumstances.

References

1. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10 (1976).

2. Code of Medical Ethics of the AMA, 2014-5 ed., section 2.035.

3. Code of Medical Ethics of the AMA, 2014-5 ed., section 2.20.

4. Danis M. Stopping artificial nutrition and hydration at the end of life. UpToDate, Nov 2, 2015.

5. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990).

6. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) A.C. 789.

7. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case.

8. Wendland v. Wendland, 28 P.3d 151 (Cal., 2001).

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, and currently directs the St. Francis International Center for Healthcare Ethics in Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the articles in this series are adapted from the author’s 2006 book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk,” and his 2012 Halsbury treatise, “Medical Negligence and Professional Misconduct.” For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

Why do people steal stuff from my office?

I’m not talking about pens. I’ve unintentionally walked off with more pens then I can count over the years, and never realized that I did until later. I figure others do the same with mine.

In the last few years, I’ve had a Far Side cartoon book stolen from the lobby, a stapler off my secretary’s desk, a roll of medical tape from my EMG cart, and a few other items.

Most recently, my secretary bought a candy dish at the store. It was nothing fancy, just a few bucks, but she liked it. She set it out on the front desk with some Jolly Ranchers.

A few days later, she left her desk to refill her coffee cup. While in back she heard the front door of the office open and close. When she returned up front, the dish (and candy) were gone.

None of these are a major financial loss, maybe adding up to $15-$20 a year at most. But it’s irritating to have someone steal something minor from my office.

Taking pens, or even magazines, is perhaps understandable, at times unintentional. But to reach over a desk and grab a stapler, or to walk in, grab a candy dish, and leave, are volitional and just wrong. I don’t understand this. Do people feel that, because I’m a doctor (and therefore stereotyped as rich), I can afford it? Do they do it because, since they’re giving me a copay and letting me bill their insurance, they feel entitled to something back? Or are they angry at me over something, and this is a passive-aggressive way to get even?

I don’t know. Admittedly, it’s a tiny minority who do such things. The vast majority of people wouldn’t dream of stealing a $3 candy dish from an office. But still, it points to a sad level of dishonesty among a few of the routine people I see day in and day out. I’m pretty sure they aren’t so hard up that they need to steal such petty items, either. I imagine the black market value of a used stapler is pretty low.

P.S. If someone out there is willing to return the candy dish or the Beyond The Far Side cartoon book, no questions will be asked.

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

Why do people steal stuff from my office?

I’m not talking about pens. I’ve unintentionally walked off with more pens then I can count over the years, and never realized that I did until later. I figure others do the same with mine.

In the last few years, I’ve had a Far Side cartoon book stolen from the lobby, a stapler off my secretary’s desk, a roll of medical tape from my EMG cart, and a few other items.

Most recently, my secretary bought a candy dish at the store. It was nothing fancy, just a few bucks, but she liked it. She set it out on the front desk with some Jolly Ranchers.

A few days later, she left her desk to refill her coffee cup. While in back she heard the front door of the office open and close. When she returned up front, the dish (and candy) were gone.

None of these are a major financial loss, maybe adding up to $15-$20 a year at most. But it’s irritating to have someone steal something minor from my office.

Taking pens, or even magazines, is perhaps understandable, at times unintentional. But to reach over a desk and grab a stapler, or to walk in, grab a candy dish, and leave, are volitional and just wrong. I don’t understand this. Do people feel that, because I’m a doctor (and therefore stereotyped as rich), I can afford it? Do they do it because, since they’re giving me a copay and letting me bill their insurance, they feel entitled to something back? Or are they angry at me over something, and this is a passive-aggressive way to get even?

I don’t know. Admittedly, it’s a tiny minority who do such things. The vast majority of people wouldn’t dream of stealing a $3 candy dish from an office. But still, it points to a sad level of dishonesty among a few of the routine people I see day in and day out. I’m pretty sure they aren’t so hard up that they need to steal such petty items, either. I imagine the black market value of a used stapler is pretty low.

P.S. If someone out there is willing to return the candy dish or the Beyond The Far Side cartoon book, no questions will be asked.

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

Why do people steal stuff from my office?

I’m not talking about pens. I’ve unintentionally walked off with more pens then I can count over the years, and never realized that I did until later. I figure others do the same with mine.

In the last few years, I’ve had a Far Side cartoon book stolen from the lobby, a stapler off my secretary’s desk, a roll of medical tape from my EMG cart, and a few other items.

Most recently, my secretary bought a candy dish at the store. It was nothing fancy, just a few bucks, but she liked it. She set it out on the front desk with some Jolly Ranchers.

A few days later, she left her desk to refill her coffee cup. While in back she heard the front door of the office open and close. When she returned up front, the dish (and candy) were gone.

None of these are a major financial loss, maybe adding up to $15-$20 a year at most. But it’s irritating to have someone steal something minor from my office.

Taking pens, or even magazines, is perhaps understandable, at times unintentional. But to reach over a desk and grab a stapler, or to walk in, grab a candy dish, and leave, are volitional and just wrong. I don’t understand this. Do people feel that, because I’m a doctor (and therefore stereotyped as rich), I can afford it? Do they do it because, since they’re giving me a copay and letting me bill their insurance, they feel entitled to something back? Or are they angry at me over something, and this is a passive-aggressive way to get even?

I don’t know. Admittedly, it’s a tiny minority who do such things. The vast majority of people wouldn’t dream of stealing a $3 candy dish from an office. But still, it points to a sad level of dishonesty among a few of the routine people I see day in and day out. I’m pretty sure they aren’t so hard up that they need to steal such petty items, either. I imagine the black market value of a used stapler is pretty low.

P.S. If someone out there is willing to return the candy dish or the Beyond The Far Side cartoon book, no questions will be asked.

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

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

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

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

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

It is always noteworthy when the headlines in the medical and mainstream media appear to be the same.

Typically, this means one of two things: 1) Sensationalism has propelled a minor issue into the common lexicon; or 2) a truly serious issue has grown to the point where the whole world is finally taking notice.

With the recent resurgence of Zika virus, something that initially seemed to be the former has unmistakably developed into the latter, and health care providers are again facing an age-old question: How do we adequately fight an evolving and serious illness in the midst of an ever-changing battlefield?

As has been the case countless times before, the answer to this question really lies in early identification. One might think that the advent of modern technology would make this a much easier proposition, but that has not exactly been the case.

In fact, recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks have actually served to demonstrate a big problem in many modern electronic health records: poor clinical decision support.

In this column, we felt it would be helpful to highlight this shortcoming, and make the suggestion that in the world of EHRs …

Change needs to be faster than Zika

Zika virus is not new (it was first identified in the Zika Forest of Uganda in 1947), and neither is the concept of serious mosquito-born illness. While the current Zika hot zones are South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, case reports indicate the virus is quickly migrating. At the time of this writing, more than 150 travel-associated cases of Zika have been identified in the continental United States, and it is clear that the consequences of undiagnosed Zika in pregnancy can be devastating.

Furthermore, Zika is just the latest of many viruses to threaten the health and welfare of modern civilization (for example, Ebola, swine flu, SARS, and so on), so screening and prevention is far from a novel idea.

Unfortunately, electronic record vendors don’t seem to have gotten the message that the ability to adapt quickly to public health threats should be a core element of any modern EHR.

On the contrary, EHRs seem to be designed for fixed “best practice” workflows, and updates are often slow in coming (typically requiring a major upgrade or “patch”). This renders them fairly unable to react nimbly to change.

This fact became evident to us as we attempted to implement a reminder for staff members to perform a Zika-focused travel history on all patients. We felt it was critical for this reminder to be prominent, be easy to interact with, and appear at the most appropriate time for screening.

Despite multiple attempts, we discovered that our top-ranked, industry-leading EHR was unable to do this seemingly straightforward task, and eventually we reverted to the age-old practice of hanging signs in all of the exam rooms. These encouraged patients to inform their doctor “of worrisome symptoms or recent travel history to affected areas.”

We refuse to accept the inability of any modern electronic health record to create simple and flexible clinical support rules and improve on the efficacy of the paper sign. This, especially in light of the fact that one of the core requirements of the Meaningful Use (MU) program – for which all EHRs are certified – is clinical decision support!

Unfortunately, the MU guidelines are not specific, so most vendors choose to include a standard set of rules and don’t allow the ability for customization. That just isn’t good enough. If Ebola and Zika have taught the health information technology community one thing, it’s that …

It is time for smarter EHRs!

For many people, the notion of artificial intelligence seems to be science fiction, but they don’t realize they are carrying incredible “AI” devices with them everywhere they go. We are, of course, referring to our cell phones, which seem to be getting more intelligent all the time.

If you own an iPhone, you may have noticed it often seems to know where you are about to drive and how long it will take you to get there. This can be a bit creepy at first, until you realize how helpful – and smart – it actually is.

Essentially, our devices are constantly collecting data, reading the patterns of our lives, and learning ways to enhance them. Smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, work, and play. Why, then, can’t our electronic health record software do the same?

It will surprise exactly none of our readers that the Meaningful Use program has fallen short of its goal of promoting the true benefits of electronic records. Many critics have suggested that the incentive program has faltered because EHRs have made physicians work harder, without helping them work smarter.

Zika virus proves the critics correct. Beyond creating just simple reminders as mentioned above, EHRs should be able to make intelligent suggestions based on patient data and current practice guidelines.

Some EHRs get it half correct. For example, they are “smart” enough to remind clinicians that women of a certain age should have mammograms, but they fall short in the ability to efficiently update those reminders when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updates the screening recommendation (as they did recently).

Other EHRs do allow you to customize preventative health reminders, but do not place them in a position of prominence – so they are easily overlooked by providers as they care for patients.

Few products seem to get it just right, and it’s time for this to change.

Simply put, as questions in the media loom about how to stop this rising threat, we as frontline health care providers should have the tools – and the decision support – required to provide meaningful answers.

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

Two new drugs have arrived to challenge our prescription pad or electronic record, depending on which you use. Empagliflozin (Jardiance), a drug used to modify glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease, demonstrated a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. The other drug, Entresto, appears to provide an added benefit in heart failure therapy and was compared with a standard ACE inhibitor.

The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting in Stockholm, showed empagliflozin to be the first drug to decrease the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. It is one of a group of new sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) blockers being tested in type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to placebo or empagliflozin while receiving standard medical and cardiovascular medications. After 3 years of follow-up, patients receiving the drug experienced a lower cardiovascular mortality rate, compared with placebo patients (3.7% vs. 5.9%, a 38% reduction) in addition to a decrease in hospitalization for heart failure and death from any cause. No effect was observed on the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke. In addition, the drug also lowered blood glucose and blood pressure and led to some significant weight loss. The drug also was shown to decrease vascular resistance and albuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2015. 373:2117-2).

Furthermore, an analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME presented in November at the American Society of Nephrology meeting in San Diego, showed a profound benefit on the new onset and progression of chronic renal disease in diabetes patients. The importance of these results needs emphasis. Up until recently, the Food and Drug Administration has given a pass to diabetes drugs in regard to cardiovascular endpoints; approval has been based on their primary effect on lowering blood glucose. Some drugs in the past, such as rosiglitazone, actually have shown an increase in mortality in some diabetes patients. At long last, FDA approval for diabetes drugs hinges on acceptable outcomes in cardiovascular endpoints. The addition of a drug that can actually affect cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, the major risk factor of diabetes, provides an important addition to therapy.

The other drug that provides a choice of drugs for the treatment of heart failure is Entresto, a combination of sacubitril, a neprilysin inhibitor, and the angiotensin receptor inhibitor valsartan, approved in July 2015. In PARADIGM-HF, the compound was compared to enalapril in the treatment of patients with class II, III, and IV heart failure who were also receiving beta-blockers. Entresto-treated patients reported a 21.8% incidence of the primary outcome measure, cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, compared with the enalapril alone incidence of 26.5% (P less than .001) (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993-1004). Investigators initially excluded 11.4% of the recruited patients from the study who could not tolerate Entresto or enalapril therapy. The drugs were well tolerated without any adverse reactions during therapy. Entresto was more effective than enalapril in regards to the occurrence of heart failure and death from any cause over a 27-month average follow-up.

The observations in this study emphasize how much the mortality of heart failure has decreased over the last decade. Cardiovascular deaths have decreased to roughly 7% per year and rehospitalization occurs in about 8% in the first year. Both drugs provide an important incremental benefit in heart failure patients.

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

Two new drugs have arrived to challenge our prescription pad or electronic record, depending on which you use. Empagliflozin (Jardiance), a drug used to modify glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease, demonstrated a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. The other drug, Entresto, appears to provide an added benefit in heart failure therapy and was compared with a standard ACE inhibitor.

The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting in Stockholm, showed empagliflozin to be the first drug to decrease the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. It is one of a group of new sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) blockers being tested in type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to placebo or empagliflozin while receiving standard medical and cardiovascular medications. After 3 years of follow-up, patients receiving the drug experienced a lower cardiovascular mortality rate, compared with placebo patients (3.7% vs. 5.9%, a 38% reduction) in addition to a decrease in hospitalization for heart failure and death from any cause. No effect was observed on the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke. In addition, the drug also lowered blood glucose and blood pressure and led to some significant weight loss. The drug also was shown to decrease vascular resistance and albuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2015. 373:2117-2).

Furthermore, an analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME presented in November at the American Society of Nephrology meeting in San Diego, showed a profound benefit on the new onset and progression of chronic renal disease in diabetes patients. The importance of these results needs emphasis. Up until recently, the Food and Drug Administration has given a pass to diabetes drugs in regard to cardiovascular endpoints; approval has been based on their primary effect on lowering blood glucose. Some drugs in the past, such as rosiglitazone, actually have shown an increase in mortality in some diabetes patients. At long last, FDA approval for diabetes drugs hinges on acceptable outcomes in cardiovascular endpoints. The addition of a drug that can actually affect cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, the major risk factor of diabetes, provides an important addition to therapy.

The other drug that provides a choice of drugs for the treatment of heart failure is Entresto, a combination of sacubitril, a neprilysin inhibitor, and the angiotensin receptor inhibitor valsartan, approved in July 2015. In PARADIGM-HF, the compound was compared to enalapril in the treatment of patients with class II, III, and IV heart failure who were also receiving beta-blockers. Entresto-treated patients reported a 21.8% incidence of the primary outcome measure, cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, compared with the enalapril alone incidence of 26.5% (P less than .001) (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993-1004). Investigators initially excluded 11.4% of the recruited patients from the study who could not tolerate Entresto or enalapril therapy. The drugs were well tolerated without any adverse reactions during therapy. Entresto was more effective than enalapril in regards to the occurrence of heart failure and death from any cause over a 27-month average follow-up.

The observations in this study emphasize how much the mortality of heart failure has decreased over the last decade. Cardiovascular deaths have decreased to roughly 7% per year and rehospitalization occurs in about 8% in the first year. Both drugs provide an important incremental benefit in heart failure patients.

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

Two new drugs have arrived to challenge our prescription pad or electronic record, depending on which you use. Empagliflozin (Jardiance), a drug used to modify glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease, demonstrated a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. The other drug, Entresto, appears to provide an added benefit in heart failure therapy and was compared with a standard ACE inhibitor.

The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting in Stockholm, showed empagliflozin to be the first drug to decrease the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. It is one of a group of new sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) blockers being tested in type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to placebo or empagliflozin while receiving standard medical and cardiovascular medications. After 3 years of follow-up, patients receiving the drug experienced a lower cardiovascular mortality rate, compared with placebo patients (3.7% vs. 5.9%, a 38% reduction) in addition to a decrease in hospitalization for heart failure and death from any cause. No effect was observed on the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke. In addition, the drug also lowered blood glucose and blood pressure and led to some significant weight loss. The drug also was shown to decrease vascular resistance and albuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2015. 373:2117-2).

Furthermore, an analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME presented in November at the American Society of Nephrology meeting in San Diego, showed a profound benefit on the new onset and progression of chronic renal disease in diabetes patients. The importance of these results needs emphasis. Up until recently, the Food and Drug Administration has given a pass to diabetes drugs in regard to cardiovascular endpoints; approval has been based on their primary effect on lowering blood glucose. Some drugs in the past, such as rosiglitazone, actually have shown an increase in mortality in some diabetes patients. At long last, FDA approval for diabetes drugs hinges on acceptable outcomes in cardiovascular endpoints. The addition of a drug that can actually affect cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, the major risk factor of diabetes, provides an important addition to therapy.

The other drug that provides a choice of drugs for the treatment of heart failure is Entresto, a combination of sacubitril, a neprilysin inhibitor, and the angiotensin receptor inhibitor valsartan, approved in July 2015. In PARADIGM-HF, the compound was compared to enalapril in the treatment of patients with class II, III, and IV heart failure who were also receiving beta-blockers. Entresto-treated patients reported a 21.8% incidence of the primary outcome measure, cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, compared with the enalapril alone incidence of 26.5% (P less than .001) (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993-1004). Investigators initially excluded 11.4% of the recruited patients from the study who could not tolerate Entresto or enalapril therapy. The drugs were well tolerated without any adverse reactions during therapy. Entresto was more effective than enalapril in regards to the occurrence of heart failure and death from any cause over a 27-month average follow-up.

The observations in this study emphasize how much the mortality of heart failure has decreased over the last decade. Cardiovascular deaths have decreased to roughly 7% per year and rehospitalization occurs in about 8% in the first year. Both drugs provide an important incremental benefit in heart failure patients.

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

In the early 1970’s, the three letters that a pediatric house officer hated to see on a slip returning from the lab were Q.N.S. Quality Not Sufficient meant that the minutes, which seemed like hours, you had invested torturing some poor sick child to obtain just a few cc’s of blood had been wasted. It also meant returning to the patient’s crib or bedside to explain to the child and her parents that the torture you had promised was over for the day was in fact not over.

Tourniquets were fished out of lapel buttonholes, and the search for a decent vein had to begin all over again. If the child was chubby or bloated with retained fluid, those veins were invisible. If the child had been ill for weeks – particularly if the patient had been on chemotherapy – all of the good veins had been blown or had clotted days ago.

Many of the patients were saintly and eerily cooperative despite your fumbling attempts at venipuncture, but most were not. Some parents were so supportive of your efforts that you wanted to hug them when the ordeal was over (and you did). A few parents amped up the tension at the bedside so much that you wanted to ask them to leave (but you didn’t). If a parent was understandably incapable of effectively restraining the child, you needed to find an experienced nurse to help. A few of the best nurses were so good that the house officer merely needed to hold the needle still, and the child was repositioned in just the right orientation so that the puncture occurred miraculously.

There were some last ditch efforts at phlebotomy that were so ghastly that you had to ask the parents to leave. I don’t know if the infamous internal jugular stick is still used, but it wasn’t pretty. And it was almost as frightening for the physician holding the needle as it was for the patient. Even in the big teaching hospitals, dedicated phlebotomists hadn’t been invented yet. A few nurses had earned reputations as good vein finders, but for the most part it was on-the-job training for the house officers.

It was not until 1973 that Dr. John Broviac’s central line catheters became available in some hospitals and 1979 until Dr. Robert Hickman’s version appeared. It took a few more years before techniques were perfected for safely drawing specimens from these lines that had been originally intended for infusion. But for me and my cohort of house officers and our unfortunate patients, it was years too late. I am sure that caring for hospitalized pediatric cancer patients today continues to be dominated by challenges. But for those of us tasked with drawing blood from patients without the benefit of central line catheters, it was gut wrenching.

Those battles for a few cc’s of blood left their scars. I have seldom ordered any blood test without asking myself whether there wasn’t a bloodless way of assessing the patient’s condition. Or couldn’t we just do the test on a drop or two of blood? Of course, as I as finishing my training, more tests were downsized so that they could be done “micro.” But as you know, getting enough blood from a heel stick or finger prick isn’t always as easy as it sounds. If the child is shocky or cold, a good blood flow is hard to obtain. Warming helps but squeezing doesn’t because tissue juices can dilute the sample, and the trauma of squeezing can contaminate the sample.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology raises the question of how accurately even a single drop of blood reflects what is going on in the patient’s total blood pool (“Drop by drop variation in the cellular components of fingerprick blood: Implications for point-of-care diagnostic development” [Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Dec;144(6):885-94]). Two bioengineers from Rice University discovered that six successive drops of blood from a single finger prick varied by a significant amount when analyzed for a variety of cellular components. For example, the drop-to-drop variability for hemoglobin was five times that of a sample collected by venipuncture.

You and I may dream of the day when just a drop will do it and we can put our needles away for good. Unfortunately, for now, the answer is that a single drop of blood is a Q.N.S.

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.”

In the early 1970’s, the three letters that a pediatric house officer hated to see on a slip returning from the lab were Q.N.S. Quality Not Sufficient meant that the minutes, which seemed like hours, you had invested torturing some poor sick child to obtain just a few cc’s of blood had been wasted. It also meant returning to the patient’s crib or bedside to explain to the child and her parents that the torture you had promised was over for the day was in fact not over.

Tourniquets were fished out of lapel buttonholes, and the search for a decent vein had to begin all over again. If the child was chubby or bloated with retained fluid, those veins were invisible. If the child had been ill for weeks – particularly if the patient had been on chemotherapy – all of the good veins had been blown or had clotted days ago.

Many of the patients were saintly and eerily cooperative despite your fumbling attempts at venipuncture, but most were not. Some parents were so supportive of your efforts that you wanted to hug them when the ordeal was over (and you did). A few parents amped up the tension at the bedside so much that you wanted to ask them to leave (but you didn’t). If a parent was understandably incapable of effectively restraining the child, you needed to find an experienced nurse to help. A few of the best nurses were so good that the house officer merely needed to hold the needle still, and the child was repositioned in just the right orientation so that the puncture occurred miraculously.

There were some last ditch efforts at phlebotomy that were so ghastly that you had to ask the parents to leave. I don’t know if the infamous internal jugular stick is still used, but it wasn’t pretty. And it was almost as frightening for the physician holding the needle as it was for the patient. Even in the big teaching hospitals, dedicated phlebotomists hadn’t been invented yet. A few nurses had earned reputations as good vein finders, but for the most part it was on-the-job training for the house officers.

It was not until 1973 that Dr. John Broviac’s central line catheters became available in some hospitals and 1979 until Dr. Robert Hickman’s version appeared. It took a few more years before techniques were perfected for safely drawing specimens from these lines that had been originally intended for infusion. But for me and my cohort of house officers and our unfortunate patients, it was years too late. I am sure that caring for hospitalized pediatric cancer patients today continues to be dominated by challenges. But for those of us tasked with drawing blood from patients without the benefit of central line catheters, it was gut wrenching.

Those battles for a few cc’s of blood left their scars. I have seldom ordered any blood test without asking myself whether there wasn’t a bloodless way of assessing the patient’s condition. Or couldn’t we just do the test on a drop or two of blood? Of course, as I as finishing my training, more tests were downsized so that they could be done “micro.” But as you know, getting enough blood from a heel stick or finger prick isn’t always as easy as it sounds. If the child is shocky or cold, a good blood flow is hard to obtain. Warming helps but squeezing doesn’t because tissue juices can dilute the sample, and the trauma of squeezing can contaminate the sample.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology raises the question of how accurately even a single drop of blood reflects what is going on in the patient’s total blood pool (“Drop by drop variation in the cellular components of fingerprick blood: Implications for point-of-care diagnostic development” [Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Dec;144(6):885-94]). Two bioengineers from Rice University discovered that six successive drops of blood from a single finger prick varied by a significant amount when analyzed for a variety of cellular components. For example, the drop-to-drop variability for hemoglobin was five times that of a sample collected by venipuncture.

You and I may dream of the day when just a drop will do it and we can put our needles away for good. Unfortunately, for now, the answer is that a single drop of blood is a Q.N.S.

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.”

In the early 1970’s, the three letters that a pediatric house officer hated to see on a slip returning from the lab were Q.N.S. Quality Not Sufficient meant that the minutes, which seemed like hours, you had invested torturing some poor sick child to obtain just a few cc’s of blood had been wasted. It also meant returning to the patient’s crib or bedside to explain to the child and her parents that the torture you had promised was over for the day was in fact not over.

Tourniquets were fished out of lapel buttonholes, and the search for a decent vein had to begin all over again. If the child was chubby or bloated with retained fluid, those veins were invisible. If the child had been ill for weeks – particularly if the patient had been on chemotherapy – all of the good veins had been blown or had clotted days ago.

Many of the patients were saintly and eerily cooperative despite your fumbling attempts at venipuncture, but most were not. Some parents were so supportive of your efforts that you wanted to hug them when the ordeal was over (and you did). A few parents amped up the tension at the bedside so much that you wanted to ask them to leave (but you didn’t). If a parent was understandably incapable of effectively restraining the child, you needed to find an experienced nurse to help. A few of the best nurses were so good that the house officer merely needed to hold the needle still, and the child was repositioned in just the right orientation so that the puncture occurred miraculously.

There were some last ditch efforts at phlebotomy that were so ghastly that you had to ask the parents to leave. I don’t know if the infamous internal jugular stick is still used, but it wasn’t pretty. And it was almost as frightening for the physician holding the needle as it was for the patient. Even in the big teaching hospitals, dedicated phlebotomists hadn’t been invented yet. A few nurses had earned reputations as good vein finders, but for the most part it was on-the-job training for the house officers.

It was not until 1973 that Dr. John Broviac’s central line catheters became available in some hospitals and 1979 until Dr. Robert Hickman’s version appeared. It took a few more years before techniques were perfected for safely drawing specimens from these lines that had been originally intended for infusion. But for me and my cohort of house officers and our unfortunate patients, it was years too late. I am sure that caring for hospitalized pediatric cancer patients today continues to be dominated by challenges. But for those of us tasked with drawing blood from patients without the benefit of central line catheters, it was gut wrenching.

Those battles for a few cc’s of blood left their scars. I have seldom ordered any blood test without asking myself whether there wasn’t a bloodless way of assessing the patient’s condition. Or couldn’t we just do the test on a drop or two of blood? Of course, as I as finishing my training, more tests were downsized so that they could be done “micro.” But as you know, getting enough blood from a heel stick or finger prick isn’t always as easy as it sounds. If the child is shocky or cold, a good blood flow is hard to obtain. Warming helps but squeezing doesn’t because tissue juices can dilute the sample, and the trauma of squeezing can contaminate the sample.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology raises the question of how accurately even a single drop of blood reflects what is going on in the patient’s total blood pool (“Drop by drop variation in the cellular components of fingerprick blood: Implications for point-of-care diagnostic development” [Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Dec;144(6):885-94]). Two bioengineers from Rice University discovered that six successive drops of blood from a single finger prick varied by a significant amount when analyzed for a variety of cellular components. For example, the drop-to-drop variability for hemoglobin was five times that of a sample collected by venipuncture.

You and I may dream of the day when just a drop will do it and we can put our needles away for good. Unfortunately, for now, the answer is that a single drop of blood is a Q.N.S.

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.”