User login
It takes work-arounds to make EHRs “work”
Dr. Hickner’s editorial “EHRs: Something’s gotta give” (J Fam Pract. 2014;63:558) prompted me to reflect on the elements of electronic health records (EHRs) that cannot change and the ones that can.
The EHR system I use allows the EHR to serve as a quality recorder, and it appears this is the most important part, because the reminders of what needs to be documented come first and are color-coded. From a reimbursement point of view, what is important is not the narrative, but the expanded “elements” that make it a billing document. I believe this will not change.
What can change is how the note information is organized, and I think the organization should be different for specific roles. At intake, a medical assistant can review allergies, medication lists, and preventive services; update family history; and take vital signs and history of present illness (HPI). As the physician, I want the note to show the information in the order that I process it during the visit: 1) allergies/medication list, 2) concerns/complaints with brief documentation, 3) vitals, 4) physical, 5) assessment, and 6) plan.
After the note is signed off on, I want a different format for review purposes: 1) assessment/plan (because this is what I look at first for follow-up), 2) HPI/review of systems, 3) physical, 4) allergies, 5) medication list, 6) past medical history, and 7) quality reminders (if they show up at all after the visit is complete).
Is it asking too much for a programmer to make the EHR organize information in this manner?
Edward Friedler, MD
Annandale, Va
I still dictate my notes and they very much tell a story that an EHR cannot. I have been audited repeatedly and I always have all the bullet points and essentials that the insurance company wants, but this information is in a format that everyone—including patients—can read and appreciate.
The move to APSO (assessment, plan, subjective, objective) from SOAP (subjective, objective, assessment, plan) is an example of the tail wagging the dog. Rather than fix the note so the time-honored SOAP format works, we acknowledge that no one actually reads the long template notes and they want to get to the bottom line (ie, the assessment and plan).
My dream is to return to the days when we only listed the positive findings, the assumption being that a competent physician did the exam that was required and it’s unnecessary to state that the examined anatomy was normal. Unfortunately, so much of what we must do is driven by lawyers and insurance companies—not by doctors.
David M. Brill, DO
Rocky River, Ohio
I now take photos of all of the ludicrous choices our EHR tosses at me, such as “laceration of third eyelid” or “injury, crushed by falling aircraft due to terrorist.” Most of my EHR entries now say, “See scanned handwritten note for accuracy.”
The issue of EHRs needs to be kept on the front burner. It is destroying doctor/patient relationships and quality diagnostic care while hiding the important findings in the garbage.
Jay Hammett, MD
Knoxville, Tenn
I’m in a group practice of 10 family physicians and in a typical workday, each of us sees 23 to 25 patients, answers e-mails/phone calls, and reviews labs/studies, which leaves no time for anything else. There’s a constant struggle to stay on top of the quality of the notes. I have preserved the quality of my own notes by free typing. I free type a differential next to my assessment or on the first line of the plan. I don’t use templates; they slow me down too much.
Kelly Luba, DO
Phoenix, Ariz
I was a civil service physician working for the Department of the Navy in 2005 when EHRs were thrust upon me. The system was not particularly user-friendly. Free texting was highly discouraged and it was strongly preferred that we used structured text embedded in the program.
I couldn’t use the program as envisioned, so I found a work-around. I would paste the 4 sections of the SOAP note directly into the appropriate free text sections of the electronic record. My assessment included the correct diagnosis, and I would pick a general EHR diagnosis from the dropdown list. Visually, my records did not look any different from those of other health care providers who used structured text.
I used this method until my civil service retirement in 2014. All of my record peer reviews were outstanding, and I was told that my records were easy to understand. I finally let on to all that I never used structured text and that all of my records were really written the old-fashioned way. I still used a clipboard during the patient visit, and completed all records after the patient left.
David F. Scaccia, DO, MPH
Kittery, Maine
Dr. Hickner’s editorial “EHRs: Something’s gotta give” (J Fam Pract. 2014;63:558) prompted me to reflect on the elements of electronic health records (EHRs) that cannot change and the ones that can.
The EHR system I use allows the EHR to serve as a quality recorder, and it appears this is the most important part, because the reminders of what needs to be documented come first and are color-coded. From a reimbursement point of view, what is important is not the narrative, but the expanded “elements” that make it a billing document. I believe this will not change.
What can change is how the note information is organized, and I think the organization should be different for specific roles. At intake, a medical assistant can review allergies, medication lists, and preventive services; update family history; and take vital signs and history of present illness (HPI). As the physician, I want the note to show the information in the order that I process it during the visit: 1) allergies/medication list, 2) concerns/complaints with brief documentation, 3) vitals, 4) physical, 5) assessment, and 6) plan.
After the note is signed off on, I want a different format for review purposes: 1) assessment/plan (because this is what I look at first for follow-up), 2) HPI/review of systems, 3) physical, 4) allergies, 5) medication list, 6) past medical history, and 7) quality reminders (if they show up at all after the visit is complete).
Is it asking too much for a programmer to make the EHR organize information in this manner?
Edward Friedler, MD
Annandale, Va
I still dictate my notes and they very much tell a story that an EHR cannot. I have been audited repeatedly and I always have all the bullet points and essentials that the insurance company wants, but this information is in a format that everyone—including patients—can read and appreciate.
The move to APSO (assessment, plan, subjective, objective) from SOAP (subjective, objective, assessment, plan) is an example of the tail wagging the dog. Rather than fix the note so the time-honored SOAP format works, we acknowledge that no one actually reads the long template notes and they want to get to the bottom line (ie, the assessment and plan).
My dream is to return to the days when we only listed the positive findings, the assumption being that a competent physician did the exam that was required and it’s unnecessary to state that the examined anatomy was normal. Unfortunately, so much of what we must do is driven by lawyers and insurance companies—not by doctors.
David M. Brill, DO
Rocky River, Ohio
I now take photos of all of the ludicrous choices our EHR tosses at me, such as “laceration of third eyelid” or “injury, crushed by falling aircraft due to terrorist.” Most of my EHR entries now say, “See scanned handwritten note for accuracy.”
The issue of EHRs needs to be kept on the front burner. It is destroying doctor/patient relationships and quality diagnostic care while hiding the important findings in the garbage.
Jay Hammett, MD
Knoxville, Tenn
I’m in a group practice of 10 family physicians and in a typical workday, each of us sees 23 to 25 patients, answers e-mails/phone calls, and reviews labs/studies, which leaves no time for anything else. There’s a constant struggle to stay on top of the quality of the notes. I have preserved the quality of my own notes by free typing. I free type a differential next to my assessment or on the first line of the plan. I don’t use templates; they slow me down too much.
Kelly Luba, DO
Phoenix, Ariz
I was a civil service physician working for the Department of the Navy in 2005 when EHRs were thrust upon me. The system was not particularly user-friendly. Free texting was highly discouraged and it was strongly preferred that we used structured text embedded in the program.
I couldn’t use the program as envisioned, so I found a work-around. I would paste the 4 sections of the SOAP note directly into the appropriate free text sections of the electronic record. My assessment included the correct diagnosis, and I would pick a general EHR diagnosis from the dropdown list. Visually, my records did not look any different from those of other health care providers who used structured text.
I used this method until my civil service retirement in 2014. All of my record peer reviews were outstanding, and I was told that my records were easy to understand. I finally let on to all that I never used structured text and that all of my records were really written the old-fashioned way. I still used a clipboard during the patient visit, and completed all records after the patient left.
David F. Scaccia, DO, MPH
Kittery, Maine
Dr. Hickner’s editorial “EHRs: Something’s gotta give” (J Fam Pract. 2014;63:558) prompted me to reflect on the elements of electronic health records (EHRs) that cannot change and the ones that can.
The EHR system I use allows the EHR to serve as a quality recorder, and it appears this is the most important part, because the reminders of what needs to be documented come first and are color-coded. From a reimbursement point of view, what is important is not the narrative, but the expanded “elements” that make it a billing document. I believe this will not change.
What can change is how the note information is organized, and I think the organization should be different for specific roles. At intake, a medical assistant can review allergies, medication lists, and preventive services; update family history; and take vital signs and history of present illness (HPI). As the physician, I want the note to show the information in the order that I process it during the visit: 1) allergies/medication list, 2) concerns/complaints with brief documentation, 3) vitals, 4) physical, 5) assessment, and 6) plan.
After the note is signed off on, I want a different format for review purposes: 1) assessment/plan (because this is what I look at first for follow-up), 2) HPI/review of systems, 3) physical, 4) allergies, 5) medication list, 6) past medical history, and 7) quality reminders (if they show up at all after the visit is complete).
Is it asking too much for a programmer to make the EHR organize information in this manner?
Edward Friedler, MD
Annandale, Va
I still dictate my notes and they very much tell a story that an EHR cannot. I have been audited repeatedly and I always have all the bullet points and essentials that the insurance company wants, but this information is in a format that everyone—including patients—can read and appreciate.
The move to APSO (assessment, plan, subjective, objective) from SOAP (subjective, objective, assessment, plan) is an example of the tail wagging the dog. Rather than fix the note so the time-honored SOAP format works, we acknowledge that no one actually reads the long template notes and they want to get to the bottom line (ie, the assessment and plan).
My dream is to return to the days when we only listed the positive findings, the assumption being that a competent physician did the exam that was required and it’s unnecessary to state that the examined anatomy was normal. Unfortunately, so much of what we must do is driven by lawyers and insurance companies—not by doctors.
David M. Brill, DO
Rocky River, Ohio
I now take photos of all of the ludicrous choices our EHR tosses at me, such as “laceration of third eyelid” or “injury, crushed by falling aircraft due to terrorist.” Most of my EHR entries now say, “See scanned handwritten note for accuracy.”
The issue of EHRs needs to be kept on the front burner. It is destroying doctor/patient relationships and quality diagnostic care while hiding the important findings in the garbage.
Jay Hammett, MD
Knoxville, Tenn
I’m in a group practice of 10 family physicians and in a typical workday, each of us sees 23 to 25 patients, answers e-mails/phone calls, and reviews labs/studies, which leaves no time for anything else. There’s a constant struggle to stay on top of the quality of the notes. I have preserved the quality of my own notes by free typing. I free type a differential next to my assessment or on the first line of the plan. I don’t use templates; they slow me down too much.
Kelly Luba, DO
Phoenix, Ariz
I was a civil service physician working for the Department of the Navy in 2005 when EHRs were thrust upon me. The system was not particularly user-friendly. Free texting was highly discouraged and it was strongly preferred that we used structured text embedded in the program.
I couldn’t use the program as envisioned, so I found a work-around. I would paste the 4 sections of the SOAP note directly into the appropriate free text sections of the electronic record. My assessment included the correct diagnosis, and I would pick a general EHR diagnosis from the dropdown list. Visually, my records did not look any different from those of other health care providers who used structured text.
I used this method until my civil service retirement in 2014. All of my record peer reviews were outstanding, and I was told that my records were easy to understand. I finally let on to all that I never used structured text and that all of my records were really written the old-fashioned way. I still used a clipboard during the patient visit, and completed all records after the patient left.
David F. Scaccia, DO, MPH
Kittery, Maine
We need to step up to the plate (again)
What brought this report to mind was the October launch of the “Family Medicine for America’s Health” initiative at the American Academy of Family Physicians Assembly. The initiative, led by a collaboration of 8 family medicine organizations, seeks to organize and reinvigorate family medicine to respond to today’s health care challenges.
As detailed in an article in Annals of Family Medicine,2 the goals of Family Medicine for America’s Health are “... to strategically align work to improve practice models, payment, technology, workforce and education, and research to support the Triple Aim.”2 The Triple Aim is an effort to create better health, better health care, and lower cost for patients and communities. Family Medicine for America’s Health “... is also a humble invitation to patients and to clinical and policy partners to collaborate in making family medicine even more effective.”2 Teams will develop initiatives in 6 areas—technology, practice, payment, workforce education, research, and engagement—to bring family medicine to the center stage of health care reform.
To quote the famous American philosopher Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Although we have clearly made significant progress over the past half century, family medicine has a long way to go. The landscape of health care in the United States has changed markedly, but the principles of family medicine remain the same. The implementation of these principles, however, is what is so difficult for us today.
That is why each of us needs to step up to the plate and work with our family medicine organizations to improve primary care delivery in the United States. Doing so will ensure that it is not “déjà vu all over again” 50 years from now.
1. Meeting the Challenge of Family Practice: The Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Education for Family Practice of the Council on Medical Education. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1966.
2. Phillips RL Jr, Pugno PA, Saultz JW, et al. Health is primary: Family Medicine for America’s Health. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12 suppl 1:S1-S12.
What brought this report to mind was the October launch of the “Family Medicine for America’s Health” initiative at the American Academy of Family Physicians Assembly. The initiative, led by a collaboration of 8 family medicine organizations, seeks to organize and reinvigorate family medicine to respond to today’s health care challenges.
As detailed in an article in Annals of Family Medicine,2 the goals of Family Medicine for America’s Health are “... to strategically align work to improve practice models, payment, technology, workforce and education, and research to support the Triple Aim.”2 The Triple Aim is an effort to create better health, better health care, and lower cost for patients and communities. Family Medicine for America’s Health “... is also a humble invitation to patients and to clinical and policy partners to collaborate in making family medicine even more effective.”2 Teams will develop initiatives in 6 areas—technology, practice, payment, workforce education, research, and engagement—to bring family medicine to the center stage of health care reform.
To quote the famous American philosopher Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Although we have clearly made significant progress over the past half century, family medicine has a long way to go. The landscape of health care in the United States has changed markedly, but the principles of family medicine remain the same. The implementation of these principles, however, is what is so difficult for us today.
That is why each of us needs to step up to the plate and work with our family medicine organizations to improve primary care delivery in the United States. Doing so will ensure that it is not “déjà vu all over again” 50 years from now.
What brought this report to mind was the October launch of the “Family Medicine for America’s Health” initiative at the American Academy of Family Physicians Assembly. The initiative, led by a collaboration of 8 family medicine organizations, seeks to organize and reinvigorate family medicine to respond to today’s health care challenges.
As detailed in an article in Annals of Family Medicine,2 the goals of Family Medicine for America’s Health are “... to strategically align work to improve practice models, payment, technology, workforce and education, and research to support the Triple Aim.”2 The Triple Aim is an effort to create better health, better health care, and lower cost for patients and communities. Family Medicine for America’s Health “... is also a humble invitation to patients and to clinical and policy partners to collaborate in making family medicine even more effective.”2 Teams will develop initiatives in 6 areas—technology, practice, payment, workforce education, research, and engagement—to bring family medicine to the center stage of health care reform.
To quote the famous American philosopher Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Although we have clearly made significant progress over the past half century, family medicine has a long way to go. The landscape of health care in the United States has changed markedly, but the principles of family medicine remain the same. The implementation of these principles, however, is what is so difficult for us today.
That is why each of us needs to step up to the plate and work with our family medicine organizations to improve primary care delivery in the United States. Doing so will ensure that it is not “déjà vu all over again” 50 years from now.
1. Meeting the Challenge of Family Practice: The Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Education for Family Practice of the Council on Medical Education. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1966.
2. Phillips RL Jr, Pugno PA, Saultz JW, et al. Health is primary: Family Medicine for America’s Health. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12 suppl 1:S1-S12.
1. Meeting the Challenge of Family Practice: The Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Education for Family Practice of the Council on Medical Education. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1966.
2. Phillips RL Jr, Pugno PA, Saultz JW, et al. Health is primary: Family Medicine for America’s Health. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12 suppl 1:S1-S12.
EDITORIAL: ’Tis the Season
Would you be able to diagnose the first case of Ebola in a febrile patient who has no travel history and presents to an ED during flu season? Could you distinguish the lesion of cutaneous anthrax early in a bioterrorist attack from that of a brown recluse spider bite? Could you recognize the initial signs of botulism compared to those of stroke, myasthenia gravis, or Bell’s palsy?
In the 1940s, University of Maryland Professor Theodore Woodward advised his medical house staff that “when you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Though directed at internists who are also trained to think of rare or esoteric illnesses in their patients’ differential diagnoses, the zebra aphorism is also applicable in a variety of medical settings including the emergency department and ED triage. In a busy ED, ruling out zebras every time hoofbeats are heard would waste an enormous amount of diagnostic resources while causing extensive delays in caring for all who come to the ED.
On the other hand, focusing exclusively on the most common or obvious explanations for patients’ presenting complaints risks missing serious, potentially fatal illnesses at a time when lifesaving interventions may still be possible. Even worse, not considering unexpected or atypical illnesses in patients when they first present may result in exposing others to danger and potential health care disasters. For example, a patient who has meningococcal meningitis requires prompt diagnosis, effective treatment, and isolation, along with the identification, evaluation, and prophylactic treatment of everyone who came into close contact with the patient.
Sometimes the first patient or “index” case presenting to an ED is a victim of a source of illness that may also affect many others. Common sources include food and drink, drugs and poisons, and the air we breathe. It is more difficult to identify the true source of a patient’s illness that may affect many when there are other plausible explanations and when nonspecific ED treatments such as fluids, oxygen, antipyretics, and pain meds alleviate the presenting signs and symptoms allowing the patient to be discharged home with follow-up care.
Determining when hoofbeats are caused by a horse and when they are caused by a zebra is one of the most difficult challenges of emergency medicine.This time of year, I am reminded of a young restaurant kitchen worker who several decades ago had been brought to the ED after being found unconscious on the floor of a restaurant men’s room. The ED “drug screen” revealed the presence of several drugs of abuse, and after a few hours of IV hydration, nasal O², and “psych clearance,” the patient was discharged home. The next day, a middle-aged male customer of the restaurant was found dead on the floor of the same men’s room. Only then was carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty heater identified as the true cause of both illnesses. This time of year, too, home cooking and food preparation for the holidays may become sources of serious foodborne bacterial, viral, and parasitic illnesses affecting large numbers of people.
Determining when hoofbeats are caused by a horse and when they are caused by a zebra is one of the most difficult challenges of emergency medicine. Successfully addressing this dilemma requires scrupulous attention to all of the information obtained at triage—especially initial vital signs—and not trying to force a patient’s presentation into a diagnosis when it is less than a perfect fit. Some illnesses may be more common certain times of the year, but critical thinking is never out of season.
Would you be able to diagnose the first case of Ebola in a febrile patient who has no travel history and presents to an ED during flu season? Could you distinguish the lesion of cutaneous anthrax early in a bioterrorist attack from that of a brown recluse spider bite? Could you recognize the initial signs of botulism compared to those of stroke, myasthenia gravis, or Bell’s palsy?
In the 1940s, University of Maryland Professor Theodore Woodward advised his medical house staff that “when you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Though directed at internists who are also trained to think of rare or esoteric illnesses in their patients’ differential diagnoses, the zebra aphorism is also applicable in a variety of medical settings including the emergency department and ED triage. In a busy ED, ruling out zebras every time hoofbeats are heard would waste an enormous amount of diagnostic resources while causing extensive delays in caring for all who come to the ED.
On the other hand, focusing exclusively on the most common or obvious explanations for patients’ presenting complaints risks missing serious, potentially fatal illnesses at a time when lifesaving interventions may still be possible. Even worse, not considering unexpected or atypical illnesses in patients when they first present may result in exposing others to danger and potential health care disasters. For example, a patient who has meningococcal meningitis requires prompt diagnosis, effective treatment, and isolation, along with the identification, evaluation, and prophylactic treatment of everyone who came into close contact with the patient.
Sometimes the first patient or “index” case presenting to an ED is a victim of a source of illness that may also affect many others. Common sources include food and drink, drugs and poisons, and the air we breathe. It is more difficult to identify the true source of a patient’s illness that may affect many when there are other plausible explanations and when nonspecific ED treatments such as fluids, oxygen, antipyretics, and pain meds alleviate the presenting signs and symptoms allowing the patient to be discharged home with follow-up care.
Determining when hoofbeats are caused by a horse and when they are caused by a zebra is one of the most difficult challenges of emergency medicine.This time of year, I am reminded of a young restaurant kitchen worker who several decades ago had been brought to the ED after being found unconscious on the floor of a restaurant men’s room. The ED “drug screen” revealed the presence of several drugs of abuse, and after a few hours of IV hydration, nasal O², and “psych clearance,” the patient was discharged home. The next day, a middle-aged male customer of the restaurant was found dead on the floor of the same men’s room. Only then was carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty heater identified as the true cause of both illnesses. This time of year, too, home cooking and food preparation for the holidays may become sources of serious foodborne bacterial, viral, and parasitic illnesses affecting large numbers of people.
Determining when hoofbeats are caused by a horse and when they are caused by a zebra is one of the most difficult challenges of emergency medicine. Successfully addressing this dilemma requires scrupulous attention to all of the information obtained at triage—especially initial vital signs—and not trying to force a patient’s presentation into a diagnosis when it is less than a perfect fit. Some illnesses may be more common certain times of the year, but critical thinking is never out of season.
Would you be able to diagnose the first case of Ebola in a febrile patient who has no travel history and presents to an ED during flu season? Could you distinguish the lesion of cutaneous anthrax early in a bioterrorist attack from that of a brown recluse spider bite? Could you recognize the initial signs of botulism compared to those of stroke, myasthenia gravis, or Bell’s palsy?
In the 1940s, University of Maryland Professor Theodore Woodward advised his medical house staff that “when you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Though directed at internists who are also trained to think of rare or esoteric illnesses in their patients’ differential diagnoses, the zebra aphorism is also applicable in a variety of medical settings including the emergency department and ED triage. In a busy ED, ruling out zebras every time hoofbeats are heard would waste an enormous amount of diagnostic resources while causing extensive delays in caring for all who come to the ED.
On the other hand, focusing exclusively on the most common or obvious explanations for patients’ presenting complaints risks missing serious, potentially fatal illnesses at a time when lifesaving interventions may still be possible. Even worse, not considering unexpected or atypical illnesses in patients when they first present may result in exposing others to danger and potential health care disasters. For example, a patient who has meningococcal meningitis requires prompt diagnosis, effective treatment, and isolation, along with the identification, evaluation, and prophylactic treatment of everyone who came into close contact with the patient.
Sometimes the first patient or “index” case presenting to an ED is a victim of a source of illness that may also affect many others. Common sources include food and drink, drugs and poisons, and the air we breathe. It is more difficult to identify the true source of a patient’s illness that may affect many when there are other plausible explanations and when nonspecific ED treatments such as fluids, oxygen, antipyretics, and pain meds alleviate the presenting signs and symptoms allowing the patient to be discharged home with follow-up care.
Determining when hoofbeats are caused by a horse and when they are caused by a zebra is one of the most difficult challenges of emergency medicine.This time of year, I am reminded of a young restaurant kitchen worker who several decades ago had been brought to the ED after being found unconscious on the floor of a restaurant men’s room. The ED “drug screen” revealed the presence of several drugs of abuse, and after a few hours of IV hydration, nasal O², and “psych clearance,” the patient was discharged home. The next day, a middle-aged male customer of the restaurant was found dead on the floor of the same men’s room. Only then was carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty heater identified as the true cause of both illnesses. This time of year, too, home cooking and food preparation for the holidays may become sources of serious foodborne bacterial, viral, and parasitic illnesses affecting large numbers of people.
Determining when hoofbeats are caused by a horse and when they are caused by a zebra is one of the most difficult challenges of emergency medicine. Successfully addressing this dilemma requires scrupulous attention to all of the information obtained at triage—especially initial vital signs—and not trying to force a patient’s presentation into a diagnosis when it is less than a perfect fit. Some illnesses may be more common certain times of the year, but critical thinking is never out of season.
Pearce-ings: Why should dermatologists have all the fun?
Acne vulgaris is a diagnosis common to all primary care physicians, and the No. 1 concern for most adolescents. Referral wait times to a dermatologist can be anywhere from 3 to 6 months; if you’re lucky, dermatologists have a physician assistant or nurse practitioner who can see patients sooner. But the majority of acne cases – even complex ones – can successfully be treated by a primary care physician. Not only would you be improving patient satisfaction because the patient can be treated immediately, you also would increase your revenue.
Acne care is a billion dollar industry. Prescription medications are a $2 billion industry, and nonprescription medications are three to four times that (Semin. Cutan. Med. Surg. 2008;27:170). Yet, the average primary care physician will start treatment, then refer to the dermatologist.
The scope of acne care is not that broad; this should decrease your anxiety about being more aggressive with the treatment. Acne begins when there is follicular hyperproliferation, which leads to the obstruction of the follicle. This is followed by an increase in the sebum, by inflammation, and then by colonization with bacteria. Topical retinoids (tretinoin, adapalene, and tazarotene) normalize the follicular hyperproliferation and decrease inflammation. Antibiotics kill the bacteria. So, with implementation of topical retinoids, antibiotics, and a good home regimen, the vast majority of acne cases can be successfully treated without a referral.
When a patient presents with either concerns about acne or obvious full-blown acne, an assessment of the condition should be done. Realizing that there is gender gap in the treatment of acne is crucial. Males are much less likely to admit that they are bothered by their acne or adhere to treatment because they think it’s “girly” to use products on the face or follow a cleansing regimen. But, it is well documented that acne is associated with lower self-esteem, being bullied, depression, and anxiety. The patient assessment should identify acne type (comedonal, inflammatory, nodular), severity, scarring, menstrual history in girls, and the psychological impact on the patient.
Also review past treatments and what worked, what didn’t work, and why. Most patients upon presentation have used the over-the-counter preparations, which usually consist of benzoyl peroxide and salicylic acid.
Managing patients’ expectations is another key component to successful treatment. Most of the topical treatments have undesirable side effects like drying and reddening and hyperpigmentation of the skin. Informing them that irritations will lessen and will improve over time can aid in adherence to the regimen.
If a patient has dry skin, cream formulations will be less irritating; more oily skin will respond better to gels that tend to be more drying. The percentage of benzoyl peroxide also contributes to the discomfort. One study showed that the 2.5% was as effective as the 10% formulation, but resulted in less irritation (Br. J. Dermatol .2014;170:557). Salicylic acid is a good alternative if benzoyl peroxide is not tolerated.
Antibiotics are an essential part of acne treatment. Topicals such as erythromycin, clindamycin, and dapsone reduce Propionibacterium acnes, which also reduces inflammation. Oral antibiotics have similar efficacy, but are associated with more rapid clinical improvement. Another consideration in using oral antibiotics is the side effects. Photosensitivity and gastrointestinal upset are significant issues that arise with their use. Doxycycline monohydrate tends to have fewer GI side effects and is preferred over doxycycline hyclate. Minocycline has fewer GI effects and less photosensitivity, but tends to be more expensive and is associated with vertigo and serum sickness (Arch. Dermatol. 1982;118:989-92). Prolonged use of either topical or oral antibiotics increases the risk of resistant strains of P. acnes. Other antibiotics are available for use, such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, clindamycin, and erythromycin, but all have either significant side effects associated with them or higher levels of resistance.
Combination therapy is superior to monotherapy. Whether combining benzoyl peroxide with a topical retinoid, antibiotic, or both, improved outcomes have been shown. Studies also confirm that use of benzoyl peroxide with antibiotics lowers the risk of P. acne’s resistance (Dermatol. Clin. 2009;27:25-31).
Now, how do you make acne care work for your business model? It’s easier than you may think. Other highly effective, inexpensive, and efficient treatments can be implemented with little investment.
Establishing and marketing an acne program and dedicating a few hours a week to an acne clinic can add significant revenue to your practice. Educate the patient on cleansing and diet; information can be found at www.acne.com. Beyond using the traditional acne treatments, consider adding peels and a light-based therapy to the regimen. Salicylic acid peels are easy to apply and give great results. Treatments are done monthly for five to six treatments at a cost of $140-$250 per treatment. The application process takes 15-20 minutes.
Light therapy is also easy to implement. With the purchase of a lamp that costs less than $1,000, you can offer this treatment. Patients can come twice a week for 15-minute sessions for a total of eight sessions. The average cost for these treatments is $50-$75 per treatment. Combinations of peels and light therapy have great results with minimal risk and prevent families from having to wait the 3-6 months it takes to get to see the dermatologist.
Lastly, consider cosmeceuticals. There is no great mystery as to what is in the acne medications. You can create your own line using a compounding pharmacy such as MasterPharm or University Compounding Pharmacy . Or use a cosmeceuticals company that will provide you quality products at wholesale prices. Many of them don’t require you to stock the product. SkinMedica and SkinCeuticals ( are popular ones, but there are several more. As opposed to your patient going to the local pharmacy and guessing at which product is best, you can provide a full line of products that will give the best results.
Without compromising care, you can provide complete skin care to your patients and increase your revenue and your patient’s satisfaction.
Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Dr. Pearce had no relevant financial disclosures. E-mail her at [email protected].
Acne vulgaris is a diagnosis common to all primary care physicians, and the No. 1 concern for most adolescents. Referral wait times to a dermatologist can be anywhere from 3 to 6 months; if you’re lucky, dermatologists have a physician assistant or nurse practitioner who can see patients sooner. But the majority of acne cases – even complex ones – can successfully be treated by a primary care physician. Not only would you be improving patient satisfaction because the patient can be treated immediately, you also would increase your revenue.
Acne care is a billion dollar industry. Prescription medications are a $2 billion industry, and nonprescription medications are three to four times that (Semin. Cutan. Med. Surg. 2008;27:170). Yet, the average primary care physician will start treatment, then refer to the dermatologist.
The scope of acne care is not that broad; this should decrease your anxiety about being more aggressive with the treatment. Acne begins when there is follicular hyperproliferation, which leads to the obstruction of the follicle. This is followed by an increase in the sebum, by inflammation, and then by colonization with bacteria. Topical retinoids (tretinoin, adapalene, and tazarotene) normalize the follicular hyperproliferation and decrease inflammation. Antibiotics kill the bacteria. So, with implementation of topical retinoids, antibiotics, and a good home regimen, the vast majority of acne cases can be successfully treated without a referral.
When a patient presents with either concerns about acne or obvious full-blown acne, an assessment of the condition should be done. Realizing that there is gender gap in the treatment of acne is crucial. Males are much less likely to admit that they are bothered by their acne or adhere to treatment because they think it’s “girly” to use products on the face or follow a cleansing regimen. But, it is well documented that acne is associated with lower self-esteem, being bullied, depression, and anxiety. The patient assessment should identify acne type (comedonal, inflammatory, nodular), severity, scarring, menstrual history in girls, and the psychological impact on the patient.
Also review past treatments and what worked, what didn’t work, and why. Most patients upon presentation have used the over-the-counter preparations, which usually consist of benzoyl peroxide and salicylic acid.
Managing patients’ expectations is another key component to successful treatment. Most of the topical treatments have undesirable side effects like drying and reddening and hyperpigmentation of the skin. Informing them that irritations will lessen and will improve over time can aid in adherence to the regimen.
If a patient has dry skin, cream formulations will be less irritating; more oily skin will respond better to gels that tend to be more drying. The percentage of benzoyl peroxide also contributes to the discomfort. One study showed that the 2.5% was as effective as the 10% formulation, but resulted in less irritation (Br. J. Dermatol .2014;170:557). Salicylic acid is a good alternative if benzoyl peroxide is not tolerated.
Antibiotics are an essential part of acne treatment. Topicals such as erythromycin, clindamycin, and dapsone reduce Propionibacterium acnes, which also reduces inflammation. Oral antibiotics have similar efficacy, but are associated with more rapid clinical improvement. Another consideration in using oral antibiotics is the side effects. Photosensitivity and gastrointestinal upset are significant issues that arise with their use. Doxycycline monohydrate tends to have fewer GI side effects and is preferred over doxycycline hyclate. Minocycline has fewer GI effects and less photosensitivity, but tends to be more expensive and is associated with vertigo and serum sickness (Arch. Dermatol. 1982;118:989-92). Prolonged use of either topical or oral antibiotics increases the risk of resistant strains of P. acnes. Other antibiotics are available for use, such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, clindamycin, and erythromycin, but all have either significant side effects associated with them or higher levels of resistance.
Combination therapy is superior to monotherapy. Whether combining benzoyl peroxide with a topical retinoid, antibiotic, or both, improved outcomes have been shown. Studies also confirm that use of benzoyl peroxide with antibiotics lowers the risk of P. acne’s resistance (Dermatol. Clin. 2009;27:25-31).
Now, how do you make acne care work for your business model? It’s easier than you may think. Other highly effective, inexpensive, and efficient treatments can be implemented with little investment.
Establishing and marketing an acne program and dedicating a few hours a week to an acne clinic can add significant revenue to your practice. Educate the patient on cleansing and diet; information can be found at www.acne.com. Beyond using the traditional acne treatments, consider adding peels and a light-based therapy to the regimen. Salicylic acid peels are easy to apply and give great results. Treatments are done monthly for five to six treatments at a cost of $140-$250 per treatment. The application process takes 15-20 minutes.
Light therapy is also easy to implement. With the purchase of a lamp that costs less than $1,000, you can offer this treatment. Patients can come twice a week for 15-minute sessions for a total of eight sessions. The average cost for these treatments is $50-$75 per treatment. Combinations of peels and light therapy have great results with minimal risk and prevent families from having to wait the 3-6 months it takes to get to see the dermatologist.
Lastly, consider cosmeceuticals. There is no great mystery as to what is in the acne medications. You can create your own line using a compounding pharmacy such as MasterPharm or University Compounding Pharmacy . Or use a cosmeceuticals company that will provide you quality products at wholesale prices. Many of them don’t require you to stock the product. SkinMedica and SkinCeuticals ( are popular ones, but there are several more. As opposed to your patient going to the local pharmacy and guessing at which product is best, you can provide a full line of products that will give the best results.
Without compromising care, you can provide complete skin care to your patients and increase your revenue and your patient’s satisfaction.
Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Dr. Pearce had no relevant financial disclosures. E-mail her at [email protected].
Acne vulgaris is a diagnosis common to all primary care physicians, and the No. 1 concern for most adolescents. Referral wait times to a dermatologist can be anywhere from 3 to 6 months; if you’re lucky, dermatologists have a physician assistant or nurse practitioner who can see patients sooner. But the majority of acne cases – even complex ones – can successfully be treated by a primary care physician. Not only would you be improving patient satisfaction because the patient can be treated immediately, you also would increase your revenue.
Acne care is a billion dollar industry. Prescription medications are a $2 billion industry, and nonprescription medications are three to four times that (Semin. Cutan. Med. Surg. 2008;27:170). Yet, the average primary care physician will start treatment, then refer to the dermatologist.
The scope of acne care is not that broad; this should decrease your anxiety about being more aggressive with the treatment. Acne begins when there is follicular hyperproliferation, which leads to the obstruction of the follicle. This is followed by an increase in the sebum, by inflammation, and then by colonization with bacteria. Topical retinoids (tretinoin, adapalene, and tazarotene) normalize the follicular hyperproliferation and decrease inflammation. Antibiotics kill the bacteria. So, with implementation of topical retinoids, antibiotics, and a good home regimen, the vast majority of acne cases can be successfully treated without a referral.
When a patient presents with either concerns about acne or obvious full-blown acne, an assessment of the condition should be done. Realizing that there is gender gap in the treatment of acne is crucial. Males are much less likely to admit that they are bothered by their acne or adhere to treatment because they think it’s “girly” to use products on the face or follow a cleansing regimen. But, it is well documented that acne is associated with lower self-esteem, being bullied, depression, and anxiety. The patient assessment should identify acne type (comedonal, inflammatory, nodular), severity, scarring, menstrual history in girls, and the psychological impact on the patient.
Also review past treatments and what worked, what didn’t work, and why. Most patients upon presentation have used the over-the-counter preparations, which usually consist of benzoyl peroxide and salicylic acid.
Managing patients’ expectations is another key component to successful treatment. Most of the topical treatments have undesirable side effects like drying and reddening and hyperpigmentation of the skin. Informing them that irritations will lessen and will improve over time can aid in adherence to the regimen.
If a patient has dry skin, cream formulations will be less irritating; more oily skin will respond better to gels that tend to be more drying. The percentage of benzoyl peroxide also contributes to the discomfort. One study showed that the 2.5% was as effective as the 10% formulation, but resulted in less irritation (Br. J. Dermatol .2014;170:557). Salicylic acid is a good alternative if benzoyl peroxide is not tolerated.
Antibiotics are an essential part of acne treatment. Topicals such as erythromycin, clindamycin, and dapsone reduce Propionibacterium acnes, which also reduces inflammation. Oral antibiotics have similar efficacy, but are associated with more rapid clinical improvement. Another consideration in using oral antibiotics is the side effects. Photosensitivity and gastrointestinal upset are significant issues that arise with their use. Doxycycline monohydrate tends to have fewer GI side effects and is preferred over doxycycline hyclate. Minocycline has fewer GI effects and less photosensitivity, but tends to be more expensive and is associated with vertigo and serum sickness (Arch. Dermatol. 1982;118:989-92). Prolonged use of either topical or oral antibiotics increases the risk of resistant strains of P. acnes. Other antibiotics are available for use, such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, clindamycin, and erythromycin, but all have either significant side effects associated with them or higher levels of resistance.
Combination therapy is superior to monotherapy. Whether combining benzoyl peroxide with a topical retinoid, antibiotic, or both, improved outcomes have been shown. Studies also confirm that use of benzoyl peroxide with antibiotics lowers the risk of P. acne’s resistance (Dermatol. Clin. 2009;27:25-31).
Now, how do you make acne care work for your business model? It’s easier than you may think. Other highly effective, inexpensive, and efficient treatments can be implemented with little investment.
Establishing and marketing an acne program and dedicating a few hours a week to an acne clinic can add significant revenue to your practice. Educate the patient on cleansing and diet; information can be found at www.acne.com. Beyond using the traditional acne treatments, consider adding peels and a light-based therapy to the regimen. Salicylic acid peels are easy to apply and give great results. Treatments are done monthly for five to six treatments at a cost of $140-$250 per treatment. The application process takes 15-20 minutes.
Light therapy is also easy to implement. With the purchase of a lamp that costs less than $1,000, you can offer this treatment. Patients can come twice a week for 15-minute sessions for a total of eight sessions. The average cost for these treatments is $50-$75 per treatment. Combinations of peels and light therapy have great results with minimal risk and prevent families from having to wait the 3-6 months it takes to get to see the dermatologist.
Lastly, consider cosmeceuticals. There is no great mystery as to what is in the acne medications. You can create your own line using a compounding pharmacy such as MasterPharm or University Compounding Pharmacy . Or use a cosmeceuticals company that will provide you quality products at wholesale prices. Many of them don’t require you to stock the product. SkinMedica and SkinCeuticals ( are popular ones, but there are several more. As opposed to your patient going to the local pharmacy and guessing at which product is best, you can provide a full line of products that will give the best results.
Without compromising care, you can provide complete skin care to your patients and increase your revenue and your patient’s satisfaction.
Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. Dr. Pearce had no relevant financial disclosures. E-mail her at [email protected].
Child Psychiatry Consult: Evidence-based therapies
Introduction
Parents sometimes come to clinicians with concerns about their children’s moods and behaviors, hoping for a rapid fix of the problem. Most child psychiatric issues can’t be fixed with just medication and respond better with psychotherapy or a combination of psychotherapy and medication. In the past 30 years, tremendous strides have been made in studying the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions among youth.
Case Summary
Katy is a 10-year-old girl who gets into arguments with her mother every day after school because she wants to walk to her grandmother’s house not far away. She was exposed to severe domestic violence by her father against her mother when she was 5 years old, and she has nightmares that cause her to wake up often at night, a fear of men, and rapid mood shifts into sudden rage as well as oppositional behavior with her mother. Her mother also has significant fears and views the world as a very unsafe place. She is worried that Katy has bipolar disorder because of her daughter’s rapid mood changes.
Discussion
While Katy has angry outbursts at times, she does not present with clear-cut episodes of elevated mood along with other symptoms of bipolar disorder, particularly grandiosity. Instead her presentation raises the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with nightmares, a fear of men who likely trigger past memories, and sudden mood shifts. Her mother also may have some elements of PTSD, which may be complicating Katy’s presentation. No medication interventions so far have demonstrated significant benefit in youth with PTSD. If further evaluation confirms PTSD, what sort of therapy should be sought for Katy?
A large number of websites now list evidence-based treatments, although many of those require that the creators of the treatment apply for inclusion, and do not address the issue of varying levels of evidence. The American Psychological Association has a website entitled Effective Child Therapy, which discusses psychotherapeutic interventions for various diagnostic areas in youth and the varying levels of evidence for such treatments based on the types and numbers of studies that support them. The website also has an excellent video resource library.
Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy has numerous studies supporting its efficacy for a wide range of traumas and includes work with both the parent and the child to address the ways the trauma can affect their interaction. This would be an excellent choice for Katy and her mother. Other therapies that have supporting research include child-parent psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy, resilient peer treatment, child-centered therapy, and family therapy for PTSD. Treatments have usually been designed for specific ages, so it is important to consider whether the intervention fits the age of the child.
The extent to which evidence-based treatments are available in the community is variable. However, pediatricians can play a significant role in the availability of these interventions by being aware of which ones are most strongly supported, asking the therapists to whom they refer what their experience is with such interventions, and encouraging training in their offices and communities. Therapists should be comfortable describing exactly how much training they have had in a certain area, for instance, extensive training through their professional education or one or several postgraduate trainings, preferably with follow-up consultation with an experienced practitioner while they are seeing their first cases with a particular intervention.
There is controversy about evidence-based treatment among some psychotherapists who argue that the strict requirements of the research setting make the results inapplicable to the complexity of patients seen in typical clinical settings. In fact, many of the treatments, including trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, work very well in complex families. Certainly there is much more to learn about how to help patients who don’t respond to certain types of therapy or how to engage families who are reluctant to participate in treatment, but the treatments that we know work are clearly what we should choose first.
Dr. Hall is an assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Hall said she had no relevant financial disclosures. To comment, e-mail her at [email protected].
Introduction
Parents sometimes come to clinicians with concerns about their children’s moods and behaviors, hoping for a rapid fix of the problem. Most child psychiatric issues can’t be fixed with just medication and respond better with psychotherapy or a combination of psychotherapy and medication. In the past 30 years, tremendous strides have been made in studying the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions among youth.
Case Summary
Katy is a 10-year-old girl who gets into arguments with her mother every day after school because she wants to walk to her grandmother’s house not far away. She was exposed to severe domestic violence by her father against her mother when she was 5 years old, and she has nightmares that cause her to wake up often at night, a fear of men, and rapid mood shifts into sudden rage as well as oppositional behavior with her mother. Her mother also has significant fears and views the world as a very unsafe place. She is worried that Katy has bipolar disorder because of her daughter’s rapid mood changes.
Discussion
While Katy has angry outbursts at times, she does not present with clear-cut episodes of elevated mood along with other symptoms of bipolar disorder, particularly grandiosity. Instead her presentation raises the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with nightmares, a fear of men who likely trigger past memories, and sudden mood shifts. Her mother also may have some elements of PTSD, which may be complicating Katy’s presentation. No medication interventions so far have demonstrated significant benefit in youth with PTSD. If further evaluation confirms PTSD, what sort of therapy should be sought for Katy?
A large number of websites now list evidence-based treatments, although many of those require that the creators of the treatment apply for inclusion, and do not address the issue of varying levels of evidence. The American Psychological Association has a website entitled Effective Child Therapy, which discusses psychotherapeutic interventions for various diagnostic areas in youth and the varying levels of evidence for such treatments based on the types and numbers of studies that support them. The website also has an excellent video resource library.
Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy has numerous studies supporting its efficacy for a wide range of traumas and includes work with both the parent and the child to address the ways the trauma can affect their interaction. This would be an excellent choice for Katy and her mother. Other therapies that have supporting research include child-parent psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy, resilient peer treatment, child-centered therapy, and family therapy for PTSD. Treatments have usually been designed for specific ages, so it is important to consider whether the intervention fits the age of the child.
The extent to which evidence-based treatments are available in the community is variable. However, pediatricians can play a significant role in the availability of these interventions by being aware of which ones are most strongly supported, asking the therapists to whom they refer what their experience is with such interventions, and encouraging training in their offices and communities. Therapists should be comfortable describing exactly how much training they have had in a certain area, for instance, extensive training through their professional education or one or several postgraduate trainings, preferably with follow-up consultation with an experienced practitioner while they are seeing their first cases with a particular intervention.
There is controversy about evidence-based treatment among some psychotherapists who argue that the strict requirements of the research setting make the results inapplicable to the complexity of patients seen in typical clinical settings. In fact, many of the treatments, including trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, work very well in complex families. Certainly there is much more to learn about how to help patients who don’t respond to certain types of therapy or how to engage families who are reluctant to participate in treatment, but the treatments that we know work are clearly what we should choose first.
Dr. Hall is an assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Hall said she had no relevant financial disclosures. To comment, e-mail her at [email protected].
Introduction
Parents sometimes come to clinicians with concerns about their children’s moods and behaviors, hoping for a rapid fix of the problem. Most child psychiatric issues can’t be fixed with just medication and respond better with psychotherapy or a combination of psychotherapy and medication. In the past 30 years, tremendous strides have been made in studying the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions among youth.
Case Summary
Katy is a 10-year-old girl who gets into arguments with her mother every day after school because she wants to walk to her grandmother’s house not far away. She was exposed to severe domestic violence by her father against her mother when she was 5 years old, and she has nightmares that cause her to wake up often at night, a fear of men, and rapid mood shifts into sudden rage as well as oppositional behavior with her mother. Her mother also has significant fears and views the world as a very unsafe place. She is worried that Katy has bipolar disorder because of her daughter’s rapid mood changes.
Discussion
While Katy has angry outbursts at times, she does not present with clear-cut episodes of elevated mood along with other symptoms of bipolar disorder, particularly grandiosity. Instead her presentation raises the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with nightmares, a fear of men who likely trigger past memories, and sudden mood shifts. Her mother also may have some elements of PTSD, which may be complicating Katy’s presentation. No medication interventions so far have demonstrated significant benefit in youth with PTSD. If further evaluation confirms PTSD, what sort of therapy should be sought for Katy?
A large number of websites now list evidence-based treatments, although many of those require that the creators of the treatment apply for inclusion, and do not address the issue of varying levels of evidence. The American Psychological Association has a website entitled Effective Child Therapy, which discusses psychotherapeutic interventions for various diagnostic areas in youth and the varying levels of evidence for such treatments based on the types and numbers of studies that support them. The website also has an excellent video resource library.
Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy has numerous studies supporting its efficacy for a wide range of traumas and includes work with both the parent and the child to address the ways the trauma can affect their interaction. This would be an excellent choice for Katy and her mother. Other therapies that have supporting research include child-parent psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy, resilient peer treatment, child-centered therapy, and family therapy for PTSD. Treatments have usually been designed for specific ages, so it is important to consider whether the intervention fits the age of the child.
The extent to which evidence-based treatments are available in the community is variable. However, pediatricians can play a significant role in the availability of these interventions by being aware of which ones are most strongly supported, asking the therapists to whom they refer what their experience is with such interventions, and encouraging training in their offices and communities. Therapists should be comfortable describing exactly how much training they have had in a certain area, for instance, extensive training through their professional education or one or several postgraduate trainings, preferably with follow-up consultation with an experienced practitioner while they are seeing their first cases with a particular intervention.
There is controversy about evidence-based treatment among some psychotherapists who argue that the strict requirements of the research setting make the results inapplicable to the complexity of patients seen in typical clinical settings. In fact, many of the treatments, including trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, work very well in complex families. Certainly there is much more to learn about how to help patients who don’t respond to certain types of therapy or how to engage families who are reluctant to participate in treatment, but the treatments that we know work are clearly what we should choose first.
Dr. Hall is an assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Hall said she had no relevant financial disclosures. To comment, e-mail her at [email protected].
Language development is the canary in the coal mine
The development of language in children is like the canary in the coal mine – problems of genetics, medical conditions, and environment all can cause it to go awry. Whatever the cause, it is very important to make sure a child with a problem in this area gets prompt assistance, because how speech and language progress also affects many aspects of the child’s success in life and what it is like to parent them.
Some of the factors known to put a child at risk for delays or deviations in speech and language development include prematurity and low birth weight; genetic conditions such as Down syndrome; physical problems such as cerebral palsy or seizure disorders; hearing impairment; and, as usual, being a boy. The most common reason for delayed language is general delay or intellectual disability. A family history of speech and language disorders also adds to the risk, and one single gene defect has even been found for a few of these. Eight percent of young children have been estimated to have a delay in speech or language. The vast majority of them have no specific risk factors.
The “language environment” of the home is critical to language learning. Compared with high-income families, parents on welfare say one-third as many words to their children and working-class parents say one-half as many in the first 3 years. Because over 85% of a child’s words at age 3 years come from words heard from their parents, this is estimated to create a 30-million-word difference between children of high- versus low-income families by age 4 years! In addition, low-income parents provide two discouragements for each one encouragement, in contrast to one correction to six encouragements in high-income homes, with the additional psychological implications.
These sad facts contributed to the creation of the Reach Out and Read program, which I hope you have joined. A free book from the doctor at every checkup visit, some modeling of how to read to the child, and information about the importance of talking with the child are things you can do to emphasize the importance of language stimulation to development and academic success.
Most parents are very motivated by the promise of better school success from better language, but it can seem far away when the child is only 1 year old! A more immediate motivator is the threat of more temper tantrums and noncompliance in children with delayed language. Almost all children with language problems understand more than they can express. When the gap between understanding and speaking is greater, so is the child’s frustration. While a large percentage of children with expressive language problems will “outgrow” them, the pattern of angry reactivity and difficult parent child interactions may continue. This is a good reason to discuss promoting language but to also suggest Baby Signs (www.babysignstoo.com) starting in the first year, especially if communication frustration starts to emerge.
School is where the big impact from language impairments appears. And it is not just the significant association between early language disorders and persistent reading disability and even written language disability that you should worry about and monitor. Children with speech and language disorders, even simply dysarticulation, can be teased, bullied, and rejected socially. As a result, children with speech and language deficits experience lower self-esteem, greater discouragement, and sometimes reactive aggression. In addition to identifying these problems and getting treatment for the issues of language, learning, and socio-emotional adjustment, it is important to find nonverbal strengths in the child such as sports or music to give them a social group where they can find success.
Language problems in older children may be subtle and not noticed or complained about by their parents, who may have the same weakness. Even teachers may not connect the student’s poor academic performance to language difficulties because they seem to have “the basics.” If you notice a schoolaged child unable to understand or answer your questions with some sentence complexity, it is important to refer to a speech pathologist for assessment. Although there should be free evaluation and treatment services at the school, the speech pathologist may not be expert at assessing more complex language disorders. In addition, the child’s difficulties may not measure up as “impairing enough” to receive those services, and private services may be needed.
But if you do not feel like a child language expert, you are not alone! Not only were you lucky if you heard one lecture on language development during training, but the younger the child, the less language you are likely to hear from him or her during brief health supervision visits. The parent is probably dominating the conversation (if you are a good listener) trying to have their agenda addressed, and the child is either excited or terrified by your office environment.
The broadband developmental screening now recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all children at 9, 18, and 30 months includes language milestones or parental concern, but these have not been shown to have adequate sensitivity or specificity and will miss many affected children.
Many young children with language disorders are now or will later be on the autism spectrum. The recommended autism-specific screens at 18 and 24-30 months will detect many, but not all, of these children. It is important to realize that the most common reason for a false positive autism screen is language delay, and it deserves follow-up and treatment even though not representing autism.
What should you do given these gaps between need, tools, and knowledge? Of course, collect the general and autism screens as recommended, but also use them when you or the parent have a concern. For children under 2 years, the parent’s report is generally accurate, as expected language is fairly simple. Infants should have different cries and reactions to caregivers in the first 3 months; babble and laugh by 6 months; and imitate sounds as well as recognize a few words by 1 year. While infants typically have 1-2 words by 12 months and two-word combinations by 18 months, as a cutoff they should show 1-2 words by 18 months and either 50 words or 2 words together by 24 months. Listening to a child’s spontaneous language is the best gauge of articulation. By age 2 years, we – a stranger to the child – can only expect to understand about 25% of what they say, but by 3 years it should be 66%, and by age 4 years almost 100%.
Gestures are an important aspect of communication. Use of gestures such as raising arms to be picked up or waving bye-bye by 1 year are typical. Between 1 and 2 years, children should follow your pointing and share their interests by pointing in addition to indicating named pictures and body parts. Deficits in use of gestures should spur a language evaluation and also are part of diagnosing autism, a much more serious and specific condition defined by communication deficits. Most autism screening tools include tapping gestures as well as spoken language.
After 2 years, language assessment has to include more elements than many parents can report easily or you can observe. There is now no formal additional language screening recommendation beyond surveillance, and the general developmental and autism screens. Every state has free child development services that can assess and provide intervention for children 0-3 years if you or the parent has concerns. But you may want to do more to either reassure or clarify the need for and type of referral by using a language-specific tool. The most accurate and practical tools applicable to children 8-35 months are the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) and the Language Development Survey (LDS), both parent completed. The LDS assesses based on a list of vocabulary words and examples of phrases, and the CDI has three different forms using vocabulary, gestures, and sentences.
After age 3 years, language is so complex that direct testing of the child is needed. A draft report from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in November 2014 presents a review of all available measures.
The good news is that a variety of approaches to therapy for speech and language disorders in young children are effective in reducing impairment. The most effective ones involve the parents in learning what communication skills to observe, stimulate, and reinforce, and have an adequate number of total hours of intervention spread over several months.
As for all children and youth with special health care needs, we have the responsibility to detect, monitor, refer, track, and support families of children with speech and language disorders to assure their best outcomes. Whatever the cause, improving the communication abilities of the child can make a big difference to many aspects of their lives.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to Frontline. E-mail her at [email protected].
The development of language in children is like the canary in the coal mine – problems of genetics, medical conditions, and environment all can cause it to go awry. Whatever the cause, it is very important to make sure a child with a problem in this area gets prompt assistance, because how speech and language progress also affects many aspects of the child’s success in life and what it is like to parent them.
Some of the factors known to put a child at risk for delays or deviations in speech and language development include prematurity and low birth weight; genetic conditions such as Down syndrome; physical problems such as cerebral palsy or seizure disorders; hearing impairment; and, as usual, being a boy. The most common reason for delayed language is general delay or intellectual disability. A family history of speech and language disorders also adds to the risk, and one single gene defect has even been found for a few of these. Eight percent of young children have been estimated to have a delay in speech or language. The vast majority of them have no specific risk factors.
The “language environment” of the home is critical to language learning. Compared with high-income families, parents on welfare say one-third as many words to their children and working-class parents say one-half as many in the first 3 years. Because over 85% of a child’s words at age 3 years come from words heard from their parents, this is estimated to create a 30-million-word difference between children of high- versus low-income families by age 4 years! In addition, low-income parents provide two discouragements for each one encouragement, in contrast to one correction to six encouragements in high-income homes, with the additional psychological implications.
These sad facts contributed to the creation of the Reach Out and Read program, which I hope you have joined. A free book from the doctor at every checkup visit, some modeling of how to read to the child, and information about the importance of talking with the child are things you can do to emphasize the importance of language stimulation to development and academic success.
Most parents are very motivated by the promise of better school success from better language, but it can seem far away when the child is only 1 year old! A more immediate motivator is the threat of more temper tantrums and noncompliance in children with delayed language. Almost all children with language problems understand more than they can express. When the gap between understanding and speaking is greater, so is the child’s frustration. While a large percentage of children with expressive language problems will “outgrow” them, the pattern of angry reactivity and difficult parent child interactions may continue. This is a good reason to discuss promoting language but to also suggest Baby Signs (www.babysignstoo.com) starting in the first year, especially if communication frustration starts to emerge.
School is where the big impact from language impairments appears. And it is not just the significant association between early language disorders and persistent reading disability and even written language disability that you should worry about and monitor. Children with speech and language disorders, even simply dysarticulation, can be teased, bullied, and rejected socially. As a result, children with speech and language deficits experience lower self-esteem, greater discouragement, and sometimes reactive aggression. In addition to identifying these problems and getting treatment for the issues of language, learning, and socio-emotional adjustment, it is important to find nonverbal strengths in the child such as sports or music to give them a social group where they can find success.
Language problems in older children may be subtle and not noticed or complained about by their parents, who may have the same weakness. Even teachers may not connect the student’s poor academic performance to language difficulties because they seem to have “the basics.” If you notice a schoolaged child unable to understand or answer your questions with some sentence complexity, it is important to refer to a speech pathologist for assessment. Although there should be free evaluation and treatment services at the school, the speech pathologist may not be expert at assessing more complex language disorders. In addition, the child’s difficulties may not measure up as “impairing enough” to receive those services, and private services may be needed.
But if you do not feel like a child language expert, you are not alone! Not only were you lucky if you heard one lecture on language development during training, but the younger the child, the less language you are likely to hear from him or her during brief health supervision visits. The parent is probably dominating the conversation (if you are a good listener) trying to have their agenda addressed, and the child is either excited or terrified by your office environment.
The broadband developmental screening now recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all children at 9, 18, and 30 months includes language milestones or parental concern, but these have not been shown to have adequate sensitivity or specificity and will miss many affected children.
Many young children with language disorders are now or will later be on the autism spectrum. The recommended autism-specific screens at 18 and 24-30 months will detect many, but not all, of these children. It is important to realize that the most common reason for a false positive autism screen is language delay, and it deserves follow-up and treatment even though not representing autism.
What should you do given these gaps between need, tools, and knowledge? Of course, collect the general and autism screens as recommended, but also use them when you or the parent have a concern. For children under 2 years, the parent’s report is generally accurate, as expected language is fairly simple. Infants should have different cries and reactions to caregivers in the first 3 months; babble and laugh by 6 months; and imitate sounds as well as recognize a few words by 1 year. While infants typically have 1-2 words by 12 months and two-word combinations by 18 months, as a cutoff they should show 1-2 words by 18 months and either 50 words or 2 words together by 24 months. Listening to a child’s spontaneous language is the best gauge of articulation. By age 2 years, we – a stranger to the child – can only expect to understand about 25% of what they say, but by 3 years it should be 66%, and by age 4 years almost 100%.
Gestures are an important aspect of communication. Use of gestures such as raising arms to be picked up or waving bye-bye by 1 year are typical. Between 1 and 2 years, children should follow your pointing and share their interests by pointing in addition to indicating named pictures and body parts. Deficits in use of gestures should spur a language evaluation and also are part of diagnosing autism, a much more serious and specific condition defined by communication deficits. Most autism screening tools include tapping gestures as well as spoken language.
After 2 years, language assessment has to include more elements than many parents can report easily or you can observe. There is now no formal additional language screening recommendation beyond surveillance, and the general developmental and autism screens. Every state has free child development services that can assess and provide intervention for children 0-3 years if you or the parent has concerns. But you may want to do more to either reassure or clarify the need for and type of referral by using a language-specific tool. The most accurate and practical tools applicable to children 8-35 months are the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) and the Language Development Survey (LDS), both parent completed. The LDS assesses based on a list of vocabulary words and examples of phrases, and the CDI has three different forms using vocabulary, gestures, and sentences.
After age 3 years, language is so complex that direct testing of the child is needed. A draft report from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in November 2014 presents a review of all available measures.
The good news is that a variety of approaches to therapy for speech and language disorders in young children are effective in reducing impairment. The most effective ones involve the parents in learning what communication skills to observe, stimulate, and reinforce, and have an adequate number of total hours of intervention spread over several months.
As for all children and youth with special health care needs, we have the responsibility to detect, monitor, refer, track, and support families of children with speech and language disorders to assure their best outcomes. Whatever the cause, improving the communication abilities of the child can make a big difference to many aspects of their lives.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to Frontline. E-mail her at [email protected].
The development of language in children is like the canary in the coal mine – problems of genetics, medical conditions, and environment all can cause it to go awry. Whatever the cause, it is very important to make sure a child with a problem in this area gets prompt assistance, because how speech and language progress also affects many aspects of the child’s success in life and what it is like to parent them.
Some of the factors known to put a child at risk for delays or deviations in speech and language development include prematurity and low birth weight; genetic conditions such as Down syndrome; physical problems such as cerebral palsy or seizure disorders; hearing impairment; and, as usual, being a boy. The most common reason for delayed language is general delay or intellectual disability. A family history of speech and language disorders also adds to the risk, and one single gene defect has even been found for a few of these. Eight percent of young children have been estimated to have a delay in speech or language. The vast majority of them have no specific risk factors.
The “language environment” of the home is critical to language learning. Compared with high-income families, parents on welfare say one-third as many words to their children and working-class parents say one-half as many in the first 3 years. Because over 85% of a child’s words at age 3 years come from words heard from their parents, this is estimated to create a 30-million-word difference between children of high- versus low-income families by age 4 years! In addition, low-income parents provide two discouragements for each one encouragement, in contrast to one correction to six encouragements in high-income homes, with the additional psychological implications.
These sad facts contributed to the creation of the Reach Out and Read program, which I hope you have joined. A free book from the doctor at every checkup visit, some modeling of how to read to the child, and information about the importance of talking with the child are things you can do to emphasize the importance of language stimulation to development and academic success.
Most parents are very motivated by the promise of better school success from better language, but it can seem far away when the child is only 1 year old! A more immediate motivator is the threat of more temper tantrums and noncompliance in children with delayed language. Almost all children with language problems understand more than they can express. When the gap between understanding and speaking is greater, so is the child’s frustration. While a large percentage of children with expressive language problems will “outgrow” them, the pattern of angry reactivity and difficult parent child interactions may continue. This is a good reason to discuss promoting language but to also suggest Baby Signs (www.babysignstoo.com) starting in the first year, especially if communication frustration starts to emerge.
School is where the big impact from language impairments appears. And it is not just the significant association between early language disorders and persistent reading disability and even written language disability that you should worry about and monitor. Children with speech and language disorders, even simply dysarticulation, can be teased, bullied, and rejected socially. As a result, children with speech and language deficits experience lower self-esteem, greater discouragement, and sometimes reactive aggression. In addition to identifying these problems and getting treatment for the issues of language, learning, and socio-emotional adjustment, it is important to find nonverbal strengths in the child such as sports or music to give them a social group where they can find success.
Language problems in older children may be subtle and not noticed or complained about by their parents, who may have the same weakness. Even teachers may not connect the student’s poor academic performance to language difficulties because they seem to have “the basics.” If you notice a schoolaged child unable to understand or answer your questions with some sentence complexity, it is important to refer to a speech pathologist for assessment. Although there should be free evaluation and treatment services at the school, the speech pathologist may not be expert at assessing more complex language disorders. In addition, the child’s difficulties may not measure up as “impairing enough” to receive those services, and private services may be needed.
But if you do not feel like a child language expert, you are not alone! Not only were you lucky if you heard one lecture on language development during training, but the younger the child, the less language you are likely to hear from him or her during brief health supervision visits. The parent is probably dominating the conversation (if you are a good listener) trying to have their agenda addressed, and the child is either excited or terrified by your office environment.
The broadband developmental screening now recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all children at 9, 18, and 30 months includes language milestones or parental concern, but these have not been shown to have adequate sensitivity or specificity and will miss many affected children.
Many young children with language disorders are now or will later be on the autism spectrum. The recommended autism-specific screens at 18 and 24-30 months will detect many, but not all, of these children. It is important to realize that the most common reason for a false positive autism screen is language delay, and it deserves follow-up and treatment even though not representing autism.
What should you do given these gaps between need, tools, and knowledge? Of course, collect the general and autism screens as recommended, but also use them when you or the parent have a concern. For children under 2 years, the parent’s report is generally accurate, as expected language is fairly simple. Infants should have different cries and reactions to caregivers in the first 3 months; babble and laugh by 6 months; and imitate sounds as well as recognize a few words by 1 year. While infants typically have 1-2 words by 12 months and two-word combinations by 18 months, as a cutoff they should show 1-2 words by 18 months and either 50 words or 2 words together by 24 months. Listening to a child’s spontaneous language is the best gauge of articulation. By age 2 years, we – a stranger to the child – can only expect to understand about 25% of what they say, but by 3 years it should be 66%, and by age 4 years almost 100%.
Gestures are an important aspect of communication. Use of gestures such as raising arms to be picked up or waving bye-bye by 1 year are typical. Between 1 and 2 years, children should follow your pointing and share their interests by pointing in addition to indicating named pictures and body parts. Deficits in use of gestures should spur a language evaluation and also are part of diagnosing autism, a much more serious and specific condition defined by communication deficits. Most autism screening tools include tapping gestures as well as spoken language.
After 2 years, language assessment has to include more elements than many parents can report easily or you can observe. There is now no formal additional language screening recommendation beyond surveillance, and the general developmental and autism screens. Every state has free child development services that can assess and provide intervention for children 0-3 years if you or the parent has concerns. But you may want to do more to either reassure or clarify the need for and type of referral by using a language-specific tool. The most accurate and practical tools applicable to children 8-35 months are the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) and the Language Development Survey (LDS), both parent completed. The LDS assesses based on a list of vocabulary words and examples of phrases, and the CDI has three different forms using vocabulary, gestures, and sentences.
After age 3 years, language is so complex that direct testing of the child is needed. A draft report from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in November 2014 presents a review of all available measures.
The good news is that a variety of approaches to therapy for speech and language disorders in young children are effective in reducing impairment. The most effective ones involve the parents in learning what communication skills to observe, stimulate, and reinforce, and have an adequate number of total hours of intervention spread over several months.
As for all children and youth with special health care needs, we have the responsibility to detect, monitor, refer, track, and support families of children with speech and language disorders to assure their best outcomes. Whatever the cause, improving the communication abilities of the child can make a big difference to many aspects of their lives.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to Frontline. E-mail her at [email protected].
Your son and football?
Imagine that you have finished dinner and have just sat down to watch the last half of the nightly news. Your 9-year-old son whom you have watched play soccer since he was 5 years old hands you a crumpled sheet of paper extracted from his backpack and asks, “Dad, can you sign this permission slip so I can play football?” Will you respond, “Sure, when is the first practice?”
Or will this be the jumping-off point for a dissertation on why you think football is a bad idea? Will you tell him that you are concerned that he will sustain a concussion, or two or three? Will you ask him why he would want a play a sport whose top level players are steroid pumped, inarticulate wife beaters? Or, will you tell him that the football culture tolerates the evils of hazing and fosters aggressive behavior?
Before we go any further, I must offer the disclaimer that I played high school football wearing a leather helmet. And that I played college football for 2 years until the handwriting on the locker room wall said, “Your skill level makes it very unlikely that you will ever get off the bench; maybe you should focus on lacrosse.” Which I did.
Although I had a few “stingers,” I never sustained any serious injuries other than a torn hamstring that still plagues me. My two concussions were unrelated to contact sports. As a team doctor for the local high school, I’m sure I sent several concussed players back onto the field. But in retrospect, I and most other physicians back then were working with a definition of concussion that was far too narrow. The most serious injuries I encountered as a game physician occurred during soccer matches.
I read the same headlines you do about what appear to be late effects in professional athletes of repeated blows to the head. I am repulsed by the off-field behavior of both collegiate and professional football players, and I continue to search unsuccessfully for admirable role models in the ranks of high-profile athletes.
Despite all the unseemly publicity, television revenues from professional football continue to surge unabated. However, I hear an undercurrent of discomfort with football from parents and some pediatricians: “Why would I allow my child to play a dangerous sport with despicable role models?” That’s a good question, and is the same one I asked you in the first line of this letter. I wouldn’t be surprised if some time in the not-too-distant future, the level of discomfort reaches a point that groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics suggest that parents be strongly discouraged from allowing their children to play football.
I hope that this point is never reached because from my personal and professional experience, football can offer enough positives to make its risks acceptable – risks that are on a par with most activities that involve getting off the couch and physically interacting with peers and the environment. Football helped me to learn initiative (some might confuse this with aggression). It allowed me to enjoy the benefits of succeeding and failing as a member of a team. It exposed me to the value of careful preparation and meticulous attention to detail. One could argue that I could have acquired those insights and skills by participating in other activities, athletic or not. But for me it happened to be football. Were there downsides? Yes, because football was the only fall sport at my high school, it had the feel of an exclusive fraternity, a feeling that I have grown to dislike.
Would I sign my son’s permission slip to play football? Yes. Would I worry about him getting hurt? No more than I would when he played soccer and hockey. Because despite his dreams, we live in a town that isn’t football obsessed, and he isn’t going to have a 10-year career in professional sports. The risks of cumulative traumatic brain injury are too small to consider.
The bigger risk is that he might encounter a coach with a win-at-any-cost attitude and the moral character of a doorknob. But that can happen in any sport. Together he and I will continue to search for good role models in other avenues of life.
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.” To comment, e-mail him at [email protected].
Imagine that you have finished dinner and have just sat down to watch the last half of the nightly news. Your 9-year-old son whom you have watched play soccer since he was 5 years old hands you a crumpled sheet of paper extracted from his backpack and asks, “Dad, can you sign this permission slip so I can play football?” Will you respond, “Sure, when is the first practice?”
Or will this be the jumping-off point for a dissertation on why you think football is a bad idea? Will you tell him that you are concerned that he will sustain a concussion, or two or three? Will you ask him why he would want a play a sport whose top level players are steroid pumped, inarticulate wife beaters? Or, will you tell him that the football culture tolerates the evils of hazing and fosters aggressive behavior?
Before we go any further, I must offer the disclaimer that I played high school football wearing a leather helmet. And that I played college football for 2 years until the handwriting on the locker room wall said, “Your skill level makes it very unlikely that you will ever get off the bench; maybe you should focus on lacrosse.” Which I did.
Although I had a few “stingers,” I never sustained any serious injuries other than a torn hamstring that still plagues me. My two concussions were unrelated to contact sports. As a team doctor for the local high school, I’m sure I sent several concussed players back onto the field. But in retrospect, I and most other physicians back then were working with a definition of concussion that was far too narrow. The most serious injuries I encountered as a game physician occurred during soccer matches.
I read the same headlines you do about what appear to be late effects in professional athletes of repeated blows to the head. I am repulsed by the off-field behavior of both collegiate and professional football players, and I continue to search unsuccessfully for admirable role models in the ranks of high-profile athletes.
Despite all the unseemly publicity, television revenues from professional football continue to surge unabated. However, I hear an undercurrent of discomfort with football from parents and some pediatricians: “Why would I allow my child to play a dangerous sport with despicable role models?” That’s a good question, and is the same one I asked you in the first line of this letter. I wouldn’t be surprised if some time in the not-too-distant future, the level of discomfort reaches a point that groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics suggest that parents be strongly discouraged from allowing their children to play football.
I hope that this point is never reached because from my personal and professional experience, football can offer enough positives to make its risks acceptable – risks that are on a par with most activities that involve getting off the couch and physically interacting with peers and the environment. Football helped me to learn initiative (some might confuse this with aggression). It allowed me to enjoy the benefits of succeeding and failing as a member of a team. It exposed me to the value of careful preparation and meticulous attention to detail. One could argue that I could have acquired those insights and skills by participating in other activities, athletic or not. But for me it happened to be football. Were there downsides? Yes, because football was the only fall sport at my high school, it had the feel of an exclusive fraternity, a feeling that I have grown to dislike.
Would I sign my son’s permission slip to play football? Yes. Would I worry about him getting hurt? No more than I would when he played soccer and hockey. Because despite his dreams, we live in a town that isn’t football obsessed, and he isn’t going to have a 10-year career in professional sports. The risks of cumulative traumatic brain injury are too small to consider.
The bigger risk is that he might encounter a coach with a win-at-any-cost attitude and the moral character of a doorknob. But that can happen in any sport. Together he and I will continue to search for good role models in other avenues of life.
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.” To comment, e-mail him at [email protected].
Imagine that you have finished dinner and have just sat down to watch the last half of the nightly news. Your 9-year-old son whom you have watched play soccer since he was 5 years old hands you a crumpled sheet of paper extracted from his backpack and asks, “Dad, can you sign this permission slip so I can play football?” Will you respond, “Sure, when is the first practice?”
Or will this be the jumping-off point for a dissertation on why you think football is a bad idea? Will you tell him that you are concerned that he will sustain a concussion, or two or three? Will you ask him why he would want a play a sport whose top level players are steroid pumped, inarticulate wife beaters? Or, will you tell him that the football culture tolerates the evils of hazing and fosters aggressive behavior?
Before we go any further, I must offer the disclaimer that I played high school football wearing a leather helmet. And that I played college football for 2 years until the handwriting on the locker room wall said, “Your skill level makes it very unlikely that you will ever get off the bench; maybe you should focus on lacrosse.” Which I did.
Although I had a few “stingers,” I never sustained any serious injuries other than a torn hamstring that still plagues me. My two concussions were unrelated to contact sports. As a team doctor for the local high school, I’m sure I sent several concussed players back onto the field. But in retrospect, I and most other physicians back then were working with a definition of concussion that was far too narrow. The most serious injuries I encountered as a game physician occurred during soccer matches.
I read the same headlines you do about what appear to be late effects in professional athletes of repeated blows to the head. I am repulsed by the off-field behavior of both collegiate and professional football players, and I continue to search unsuccessfully for admirable role models in the ranks of high-profile athletes.
Despite all the unseemly publicity, television revenues from professional football continue to surge unabated. However, I hear an undercurrent of discomfort with football from parents and some pediatricians: “Why would I allow my child to play a dangerous sport with despicable role models?” That’s a good question, and is the same one I asked you in the first line of this letter. I wouldn’t be surprised if some time in the not-too-distant future, the level of discomfort reaches a point that groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics suggest that parents be strongly discouraged from allowing their children to play football.
I hope that this point is never reached because from my personal and professional experience, football can offer enough positives to make its risks acceptable – risks that are on a par with most activities that involve getting off the couch and physically interacting with peers and the environment. Football helped me to learn initiative (some might confuse this with aggression). It allowed me to enjoy the benefits of succeeding and failing as a member of a team. It exposed me to the value of careful preparation and meticulous attention to detail. One could argue that I could have acquired those insights and skills by participating in other activities, athletic or not. But for me it happened to be football. Were there downsides? Yes, because football was the only fall sport at my high school, it had the feel of an exclusive fraternity, a feeling that I have grown to dislike.
Would I sign my son’s permission slip to play football? Yes. Would I worry about him getting hurt? No more than I would when he played soccer and hockey. Because despite his dreams, we live in a town that isn’t football obsessed, and he isn’t going to have a 10-year career in professional sports. The risks of cumulative traumatic brain injury are too small to consider.
The bigger risk is that he might encounter a coach with a win-at-any-cost attitude and the moral character of a doorknob. But that can happen in any sport. Together he and I will continue to search for good role models in other avenues of life.
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.” To comment, e-mail him at [email protected].
Commentary: The importance of bias in education
Prestigious medical journals continue to publish one-sided editorial pieces extolling the evils of commercial interests and their relationship and effect on medical education (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366:1069-71; Circulation 2010;121:2228-34; JAMA 2010;304:729-31; JAMA 2014;312:697-8). A comprehensive review was written regarding industry-academic relationships in four high-impact medical journals published between the 1980s and 2008 (Nature Biotechnology 2012;30:320-2). Of the 108 articles that met the reviewers’ strict criteria, only 12 (11%) were published that were either neutral or emphasized some benefit. Of these 12, all addressed the opposing points of view, and 50% critically emphasized and attempted to refute the alternative points of view.
On the other hand, 16 research articles (15%) emphasized the risks of a relationship with industry, and none critically analyzed and attempted to refute the alternative points of view. The majority, 80 (74%) of the articles published were commentary articles that emphasized the risks of a relationship with industry, and only 7 (6%) articles critically analyzed and attempted to refute the opposing points of view.
The authors conclude that a major anti-industry publication bias exists and that a conformity cascade – where policy does not emerge from objective weighing of evidence but from social pressure – may be a factor for this major bias from medical journals that are influential in affecting policy.
Amazingly, a profession that prides itself on using scientific studies to reach conclusions has used little science and relies predominantly on emotion and scare tactics, to conclude that an industry-provider relationship is bad for health care outcomes.
Anti-industry authors mainly focus on “studies” directed at the effect of marketing. Marketing does increase the likelihood that a product will be used. However, data on how this translates into health care outcomes, the important issue, are lacking. Common sense would suggest that using newer, frequently better, products and vaccines is more, not less, likely to improve these outcomes. Further reductions in the relationship between industry and education will certainly lead to fewer, not more, potentially educational interactions. On the other hand, genuine collaboration could lead to opportunities to improve education beyond what CME [continuing medical education] alone offers.
The “Sunshine Act,” renamed the Open Payments Act, may be particularly harmful. Many of the few remaining academics that still have a relationship with industry will sever this relationship for fear of being a “target.” Restrictions imposed on faculty by many academic institutions, reducing the faculty members’ exposure and interactions with pharmaceutical scientists and other faculty, also are not helpful. Past speaker and advisory sessions were attended by an eclectic group of specialists and generalists, and were filled with fertile discussions and debates regarding disease and treatment perspectives. There are no winners when these bright educators are kept away from potential learning and teaching situations.
More than 22 years of chairing the CME Committee of an extremely active American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Chapter and cochairing the CME Committee of an AAP District has given me the privilege of intimate interactions with hundreds of nationally recognized speakers, some with and some without industry affiliation. Myths, frequently perpetuated by those with little or no real-world contact with these programs or by people with anti-industry bias and peppered with words like “perceived” and “potential conflict,” need to be corrected.
Myth:Faculty with a pharmaceutical relationship are inferior to faculty without this relationship. They are privy to much more data, have frequently been involved in the product research, often freely duel with industry scientists and others about the data generated and how the information needs to be disseminated, interact with others researching the topic, and present newer, not-yet-published information (and disclose this) to attendees.
Myth:Education is better off without the pharmaceutical industry. At a time when medical knowledge is rapidly expanding, and it is becoming increasingly more complicated, and greater dissemination of the latest, best information is desperately needed, pharmaceutical financial support can help. Pharmaceutical support allows us to invite – free of charge – all University of California, Irvine-Children’s Hospital of Orange County pediatric residents and U.C. Irvine medical students to every CME program. Industry restrictions already in place are sufficient to promote more educational opportunities and less-expensive attendee costs. No new restrictions are needed.
Myth:Only faculty without industry relationships are unbiased and should be allowed to influence policy regarding education. This nasty, modern-day expression of “McCarthyism” attacks those with industry relationships, dismissing their contributions, intelligence, and sincerity with the “of course they support so-and-so; they are being paid by industry.” A 5-year evaluation of CME programs sponsored by California Chapter 4 AAP from 2009 to 2013 reveals the following data: 23 CME programs, 24 of 55 speakers listed a potential conflict of interest (44%). There were 1,995 attendees and 1,370 returned a response on whether or not a commercial bias was in the presentation; 1,342 responded “No” (98%) and 28 responded “Yes” (2%). Although almost half of the faculty had a potential conflict, only 2% of attendees felt their presentation suggested a commercial conflict. Interestingly, some of the “yes” responses were for faculty with no conflict to disclose.
I received the following comment recently from one of our meeting faculty members, whose name is withheld for fear of being a “target.”
“During my training, we were basically told to avoid interacting with pharma reps, and our interaction with them was highly restricted or, in many cases, forbidden.
“It is only now in my role at the state and doing my Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work that I am realizing how much we need industry to move science and public health forward, and industry needs us for dissemination/implementation and the shaping of the research agenda. I think of how we are down to one class of antibiotics to treat gonorrhea, and we are not going to get a lot of new therapies without industry (certainly not from academia or public health).
“I just returned from the big (company name withheld) meeting and decided to take a different tactic – instead of avoiding (company name withheld) physician advisers, I decided to sit down and actually have a conversation with some of them – and I learned a ton. Different type of inside perspective that one cannot gain from just sitting in sessions.”
Those of us interested in education need to keep an eye on the prize – educating providers so that health care is optimized. This is best done by broadening the dialogue about how to improve and better disseminate both the quality and quantity of health care information being generated. Besides, the industry that has given us medications and vaccines that have improved the quality of life for so many needs to be treated with less contempt and more respect. It is time to build bridges, not walls, and broaden the collaboration needed to better disseminate the vast amount of new information being generated. Improving practitioner education will need fresh ideas, an open mind, validating studies, a gentler dialogue, and the respect, inclusion, and collaboration of all stakeholders.
Dr. Pellman is clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Pellman disclosed he is on the speakers bureau for Medimmune vaccine division. To comment, e-mail him at [email protected].
Prestigious medical journals continue to publish one-sided editorial pieces extolling the evils of commercial interests and their relationship and effect on medical education (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366:1069-71; Circulation 2010;121:2228-34; JAMA 2010;304:729-31; JAMA 2014;312:697-8). A comprehensive review was written regarding industry-academic relationships in four high-impact medical journals published between the 1980s and 2008 (Nature Biotechnology 2012;30:320-2). Of the 108 articles that met the reviewers’ strict criteria, only 12 (11%) were published that were either neutral or emphasized some benefit. Of these 12, all addressed the opposing points of view, and 50% critically emphasized and attempted to refute the alternative points of view.
On the other hand, 16 research articles (15%) emphasized the risks of a relationship with industry, and none critically analyzed and attempted to refute the alternative points of view. The majority, 80 (74%) of the articles published were commentary articles that emphasized the risks of a relationship with industry, and only 7 (6%) articles critically analyzed and attempted to refute the opposing points of view.
The authors conclude that a major anti-industry publication bias exists and that a conformity cascade – where policy does not emerge from objective weighing of evidence but from social pressure – may be a factor for this major bias from medical journals that are influential in affecting policy.
Amazingly, a profession that prides itself on using scientific studies to reach conclusions has used little science and relies predominantly on emotion and scare tactics, to conclude that an industry-provider relationship is bad for health care outcomes.
Anti-industry authors mainly focus on “studies” directed at the effect of marketing. Marketing does increase the likelihood that a product will be used. However, data on how this translates into health care outcomes, the important issue, are lacking. Common sense would suggest that using newer, frequently better, products and vaccines is more, not less, likely to improve these outcomes. Further reductions in the relationship between industry and education will certainly lead to fewer, not more, potentially educational interactions. On the other hand, genuine collaboration could lead to opportunities to improve education beyond what CME [continuing medical education] alone offers.
The “Sunshine Act,” renamed the Open Payments Act, may be particularly harmful. Many of the few remaining academics that still have a relationship with industry will sever this relationship for fear of being a “target.” Restrictions imposed on faculty by many academic institutions, reducing the faculty members’ exposure and interactions with pharmaceutical scientists and other faculty, also are not helpful. Past speaker and advisory sessions were attended by an eclectic group of specialists and generalists, and were filled with fertile discussions and debates regarding disease and treatment perspectives. There are no winners when these bright educators are kept away from potential learning and teaching situations.
More than 22 years of chairing the CME Committee of an extremely active American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Chapter and cochairing the CME Committee of an AAP District has given me the privilege of intimate interactions with hundreds of nationally recognized speakers, some with and some without industry affiliation. Myths, frequently perpetuated by those with little or no real-world contact with these programs or by people with anti-industry bias and peppered with words like “perceived” and “potential conflict,” need to be corrected.
Myth:Faculty with a pharmaceutical relationship are inferior to faculty without this relationship. They are privy to much more data, have frequently been involved in the product research, often freely duel with industry scientists and others about the data generated and how the information needs to be disseminated, interact with others researching the topic, and present newer, not-yet-published information (and disclose this) to attendees.
Myth:Education is better off without the pharmaceutical industry. At a time when medical knowledge is rapidly expanding, and it is becoming increasingly more complicated, and greater dissemination of the latest, best information is desperately needed, pharmaceutical financial support can help. Pharmaceutical support allows us to invite – free of charge – all University of California, Irvine-Children’s Hospital of Orange County pediatric residents and U.C. Irvine medical students to every CME program. Industry restrictions already in place are sufficient to promote more educational opportunities and less-expensive attendee costs. No new restrictions are needed.
Myth:Only faculty without industry relationships are unbiased and should be allowed to influence policy regarding education. This nasty, modern-day expression of “McCarthyism” attacks those with industry relationships, dismissing their contributions, intelligence, and sincerity with the “of course they support so-and-so; they are being paid by industry.” A 5-year evaluation of CME programs sponsored by California Chapter 4 AAP from 2009 to 2013 reveals the following data: 23 CME programs, 24 of 55 speakers listed a potential conflict of interest (44%). There were 1,995 attendees and 1,370 returned a response on whether or not a commercial bias was in the presentation; 1,342 responded “No” (98%) and 28 responded “Yes” (2%). Although almost half of the faculty had a potential conflict, only 2% of attendees felt their presentation suggested a commercial conflict. Interestingly, some of the “yes” responses were for faculty with no conflict to disclose.
I received the following comment recently from one of our meeting faculty members, whose name is withheld for fear of being a “target.”
“During my training, we were basically told to avoid interacting with pharma reps, and our interaction with them was highly restricted or, in many cases, forbidden.
“It is only now in my role at the state and doing my Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work that I am realizing how much we need industry to move science and public health forward, and industry needs us for dissemination/implementation and the shaping of the research agenda. I think of how we are down to one class of antibiotics to treat gonorrhea, and we are not going to get a lot of new therapies without industry (certainly not from academia or public health).
“I just returned from the big (company name withheld) meeting and decided to take a different tactic – instead of avoiding (company name withheld) physician advisers, I decided to sit down and actually have a conversation with some of them – and I learned a ton. Different type of inside perspective that one cannot gain from just sitting in sessions.”
Those of us interested in education need to keep an eye on the prize – educating providers so that health care is optimized. This is best done by broadening the dialogue about how to improve and better disseminate both the quality and quantity of health care information being generated. Besides, the industry that has given us medications and vaccines that have improved the quality of life for so many needs to be treated with less contempt and more respect. It is time to build bridges, not walls, and broaden the collaboration needed to better disseminate the vast amount of new information being generated. Improving practitioner education will need fresh ideas, an open mind, validating studies, a gentler dialogue, and the respect, inclusion, and collaboration of all stakeholders.
Dr. Pellman is clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Pellman disclosed he is on the speakers bureau for Medimmune vaccine division. To comment, e-mail him at [email protected].
Prestigious medical journals continue to publish one-sided editorial pieces extolling the evils of commercial interests and their relationship and effect on medical education (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366:1069-71; Circulation 2010;121:2228-34; JAMA 2010;304:729-31; JAMA 2014;312:697-8). A comprehensive review was written regarding industry-academic relationships in four high-impact medical journals published between the 1980s and 2008 (Nature Biotechnology 2012;30:320-2). Of the 108 articles that met the reviewers’ strict criteria, only 12 (11%) were published that were either neutral or emphasized some benefit. Of these 12, all addressed the opposing points of view, and 50% critically emphasized and attempted to refute the alternative points of view.
On the other hand, 16 research articles (15%) emphasized the risks of a relationship with industry, and none critically analyzed and attempted to refute the alternative points of view. The majority, 80 (74%) of the articles published were commentary articles that emphasized the risks of a relationship with industry, and only 7 (6%) articles critically analyzed and attempted to refute the opposing points of view.
The authors conclude that a major anti-industry publication bias exists and that a conformity cascade – where policy does not emerge from objective weighing of evidence but from social pressure – may be a factor for this major bias from medical journals that are influential in affecting policy.
Amazingly, a profession that prides itself on using scientific studies to reach conclusions has used little science and relies predominantly on emotion and scare tactics, to conclude that an industry-provider relationship is bad for health care outcomes.
Anti-industry authors mainly focus on “studies” directed at the effect of marketing. Marketing does increase the likelihood that a product will be used. However, data on how this translates into health care outcomes, the important issue, are lacking. Common sense would suggest that using newer, frequently better, products and vaccines is more, not less, likely to improve these outcomes. Further reductions in the relationship between industry and education will certainly lead to fewer, not more, potentially educational interactions. On the other hand, genuine collaboration could lead to opportunities to improve education beyond what CME [continuing medical education] alone offers.
The “Sunshine Act,” renamed the Open Payments Act, may be particularly harmful. Many of the few remaining academics that still have a relationship with industry will sever this relationship for fear of being a “target.” Restrictions imposed on faculty by many academic institutions, reducing the faculty members’ exposure and interactions with pharmaceutical scientists and other faculty, also are not helpful. Past speaker and advisory sessions were attended by an eclectic group of specialists and generalists, and were filled with fertile discussions and debates regarding disease and treatment perspectives. There are no winners when these bright educators are kept away from potential learning and teaching situations.
More than 22 years of chairing the CME Committee of an extremely active American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Chapter and cochairing the CME Committee of an AAP District has given me the privilege of intimate interactions with hundreds of nationally recognized speakers, some with and some without industry affiliation. Myths, frequently perpetuated by those with little or no real-world contact with these programs or by people with anti-industry bias and peppered with words like “perceived” and “potential conflict,” need to be corrected.
Myth:Faculty with a pharmaceutical relationship are inferior to faculty without this relationship. They are privy to much more data, have frequently been involved in the product research, often freely duel with industry scientists and others about the data generated and how the information needs to be disseminated, interact with others researching the topic, and present newer, not-yet-published information (and disclose this) to attendees.
Myth:Education is better off without the pharmaceutical industry. At a time when medical knowledge is rapidly expanding, and it is becoming increasingly more complicated, and greater dissemination of the latest, best information is desperately needed, pharmaceutical financial support can help. Pharmaceutical support allows us to invite – free of charge – all University of California, Irvine-Children’s Hospital of Orange County pediatric residents and U.C. Irvine medical students to every CME program. Industry restrictions already in place are sufficient to promote more educational opportunities and less-expensive attendee costs. No new restrictions are needed.
Myth:Only faculty without industry relationships are unbiased and should be allowed to influence policy regarding education. This nasty, modern-day expression of “McCarthyism” attacks those with industry relationships, dismissing their contributions, intelligence, and sincerity with the “of course they support so-and-so; they are being paid by industry.” A 5-year evaluation of CME programs sponsored by California Chapter 4 AAP from 2009 to 2013 reveals the following data: 23 CME programs, 24 of 55 speakers listed a potential conflict of interest (44%). There were 1,995 attendees and 1,370 returned a response on whether or not a commercial bias was in the presentation; 1,342 responded “No” (98%) and 28 responded “Yes” (2%). Although almost half of the faculty had a potential conflict, only 2% of attendees felt their presentation suggested a commercial conflict. Interestingly, some of the “yes” responses were for faculty with no conflict to disclose.
I received the following comment recently from one of our meeting faculty members, whose name is withheld for fear of being a “target.”
“During my training, we were basically told to avoid interacting with pharma reps, and our interaction with them was highly restricted or, in many cases, forbidden.
“It is only now in my role at the state and doing my Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work that I am realizing how much we need industry to move science and public health forward, and industry needs us for dissemination/implementation and the shaping of the research agenda. I think of how we are down to one class of antibiotics to treat gonorrhea, and we are not going to get a lot of new therapies without industry (certainly not from academia or public health).
“I just returned from the big (company name withheld) meeting and decided to take a different tactic – instead of avoiding (company name withheld) physician advisers, I decided to sit down and actually have a conversation with some of them – and I learned a ton. Different type of inside perspective that one cannot gain from just sitting in sessions.”
Those of us interested in education need to keep an eye on the prize – educating providers so that health care is optimized. This is best done by broadening the dialogue about how to improve and better disseminate both the quality and quantity of health care information being generated. Besides, the industry that has given us medications and vaccines that have improved the quality of life for so many needs to be treated with less contempt and more respect. It is time to build bridges, not walls, and broaden the collaboration needed to better disseminate the vast amount of new information being generated. Improving practitioner education will need fresh ideas, an open mind, validating studies, a gentler dialogue, and the respect, inclusion, and collaboration of all stakeholders.
Dr. Pellman is clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Pellman disclosed he is on the speakers bureau for Medimmune vaccine division. To comment, e-mail him at [email protected].
Blognosis: Participatory surveillance needs you!
One of the biggest lessons so far from the West African Ebola outbreak is the importance of early identification of infectious disease outbreaks. That’s the best way to get a quick response, and a quick response can mean the difference between an outbreak’s control or spread.
As reported from the International Meeting on Emerging Diseases and Surveillance (IMED) in early November, the Ebola experience in Africa this past year has been marked by slow responses in Liberia and Sierra Leone, followed by unprecedented Ebola spread – and quick responses in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by declarations by the World Health Organization that Nigeria and then DRC had become Ebola-free.
Many factors play into early identification of infection outbreaks, but a new approach may be one of the best, especially once it fully catches on. It’s called participatory surveillance, and it means that everyone – or at least as many as can be persuaded – commits to regularly updating (usually weekly) a public health database on their health status.
While participatory surveillance is not being used in Africa, it’s being used elsewhere, including in the United States as the Flu Near You program. As also reported out of the same IMED meeting, Flu Near You is the best U.S. example of participatory surveillance, with a current database of about 100,000 U.S. enrollees. Ideally, the participants reply each week to a short survey that asks if they had any of 10 symptoms that can flag influenza, such as fever, headache, cough, sore throat, or fatigue.
When we first reported on Flu Near You nearly 2 years ago, it was an interesting concept just starting to roll out. Returning to Flu Near You for a second look a few weeks ago revealed that it had become a useful if still immature tool that had caught the notice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Now it’s poised for the next step, which is where you come in: Sign up, and be active by responding to the weekly survey.
A CDC staffer in Atlanta told us that the agency already sees Flu Near You as a valuable adjunct to the flu surveillance it traditionally conducts. If the database is helpful for tracking national influenza trends with 100,000 Americans registered, imagine how much more informative it would be with 1 million, 10 million, or even more participants. The only way participatory surveillance succeeds is if people buy in and become part of the process. If enough people did that, the public health insights would soar.
Numbers are what’s holding Flu Near You back right now. Each of us has the ability to change that a little.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
One of the biggest lessons so far from the West African Ebola outbreak is the importance of early identification of infectious disease outbreaks. That’s the best way to get a quick response, and a quick response can mean the difference between an outbreak’s control or spread.
As reported from the International Meeting on Emerging Diseases and Surveillance (IMED) in early November, the Ebola experience in Africa this past year has been marked by slow responses in Liberia and Sierra Leone, followed by unprecedented Ebola spread – and quick responses in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by declarations by the World Health Organization that Nigeria and then DRC had become Ebola-free.
Many factors play into early identification of infection outbreaks, but a new approach may be one of the best, especially once it fully catches on. It’s called participatory surveillance, and it means that everyone – or at least as many as can be persuaded – commits to regularly updating (usually weekly) a public health database on their health status.
While participatory surveillance is not being used in Africa, it’s being used elsewhere, including in the United States as the Flu Near You program. As also reported out of the same IMED meeting, Flu Near You is the best U.S. example of participatory surveillance, with a current database of about 100,000 U.S. enrollees. Ideally, the participants reply each week to a short survey that asks if they had any of 10 symptoms that can flag influenza, such as fever, headache, cough, sore throat, or fatigue.
When we first reported on Flu Near You nearly 2 years ago, it was an interesting concept just starting to roll out. Returning to Flu Near You for a second look a few weeks ago revealed that it had become a useful if still immature tool that had caught the notice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Now it’s poised for the next step, which is where you come in: Sign up, and be active by responding to the weekly survey.
A CDC staffer in Atlanta told us that the agency already sees Flu Near You as a valuable adjunct to the flu surveillance it traditionally conducts. If the database is helpful for tracking national influenza trends with 100,000 Americans registered, imagine how much more informative it would be with 1 million, 10 million, or even more participants. The only way participatory surveillance succeeds is if people buy in and become part of the process. If enough people did that, the public health insights would soar.
Numbers are what’s holding Flu Near You back right now. Each of us has the ability to change that a little.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
One of the biggest lessons so far from the West African Ebola outbreak is the importance of early identification of infectious disease outbreaks. That’s the best way to get a quick response, and a quick response can mean the difference between an outbreak’s control or spread.
As reported from the International Meeting on Emerging Diseases and Surveillance (IMED) in early November, the Ebola experience in Africa this past year has been marked by slow responses in Liberia and Sierra Leone, followed by unprecedented Ebola spread – and quick responses in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by declarations by the World Health Organization that Nigeria and then DRC had become Ebola-free.
Many factors play into early identification of infection outbreaks, but a new approach may be one of the best, especially once it fully catches on. It’s called participatory surveillance, and it means that everyone – or at least as many as can be persuaded – commits to regularly updating (usually weekly) a public health database on their health status.
While participatory surveillance is not being used in Africa, it’s being used elsewhere, including in the United States as the Flu Near You program. As also reported out of the same IMED meeting, Flu Near You is the best U.S. example of participatory surveillance, with a current database of about 100,000 U.S. enrollees. Ideally, the participants reply each week to a short survey that asks if they had any of 10 symptoms that can flag influenza, such as fever, headache, cough, sore throat, or fatigue.
When we first reported on Flu Near You nearly 2 years ago, it was an interesting concept just starting to roll out. Returning to Flu Near You for a second look a few weeks ago revealed that it had become a useful if still immature tool that had caught the notice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Now it’s poised for the next step, which is where you come in: Sign up, and be active by responding to the weekly survey.
A CDC staffer in Atlanta told us that the agency already sees Flu Near You as a valuable adjunct to the flu surveillance it traditionally conducts. If the database is helpful for tracking national influenza trends with 100,000 Americans registered, imagine how much more informative it would be with 1 million, 10 million, or even more participants. The only way participatory surveillance succeeds is if people buy in and become part of the process. If enough people did that, the public health insights would soar.
Numbers are what’s holding Flu Near You back right now. Each of us has the ability to change that a little.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
What Matters: Salt substitutes to reduce blood pressure
Most of my counseling to patients about lowering blood pressure through self management is heavy on weight loss and light on dietary causes of high blood pressure – other than the obvious ones that make people gain weight.
Denial of the effects of dietary salt on blood pressure is not the issue. Rather, it is a time-hewn lack of confidence in the ability of patients to significantly and consistently modify their diet. Part of this may also relate to our inability to provide useful lifestyle tips on how to do so, other than the obvious referral to a dietitian. Telling them not to eat out does not solve this problem, because they can just as easily add salt at home.
However, a recent meta-analysis evaluating the effect of salt substitutes on blood pressure has reinvigorated my desire to counsel my patients on blood pressure self-management.
In this study, the investigators sought randomized, controlled trials with interventions lasting at least 6 months in duration (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014;100:1448-54). Six cohorts were identified in the literature involving a total of 1,974 participants. Included studies took place in China and the Netherlands. Three studies used 65% NaCl/25% KCl/10% MgSO2, one used 41% NaCl/41% KCl/17% magnesium salt/trace minerals, and one used 65% NaCl/30% KCl/5% calcium salt and folic acid.
Salt substitutes had significant effects on systolic blood pressure with a mean difference of –4.9 mm Hg and on diastolic blood pressure with a mean difference of –1.5 mm Hg.
Overall, one may not be impressed with a 5–mm Hg change in systolic blood pressure. But this is the mean difference – and we presume population heterogeneity in response to salt substitution, such that some patients will respond to a higher degree than this and some to a lower degree. But we do not know which ones are which.
Population interventions aimed at reducing salt intake have been shown to be effective. The Finnish government, for example, collaborated with private industry and was able to achieve reductions in sodium content of food. That initiative resulted in a 33% reduction in the population’s average salt intake, a greater than 10–mm Hg decrease in the population average of both systolic BP and diastolic BP, and a 75%-80% decrease in both stroke and coronary artery disease mortality. Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom were able to do similar things.
Because we are unlikely to ever see such organized political will exercised in the United States, it seems reasonable to recommend salt substitutes to our patients on an individual level. Adverse effects have been noted with salt substitutes in patients with kidney disease, however, which will have to be considered in that specific population of patients.
Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.
Most of my counseling to patients about lowering blood pressure through self management is heavy on weight loss and light on dietary causes of high blood pressure – other than the obvious ones that make people gain weight.
Denial of the effects of dietary salt on blood pressure is not the issue. Rather, it is a time-hewn lack of confidence in the ability of patients to significantly and consistently modify their diet. Part of this may also relate to our inability to provide useful lifestyle tips on how to do so, other than the obvious referral to a dietitian. Telling them not to eat out does not solve this problem, because they can just as easily add salt at home.
However, a recent meta-analysis evaluating the effect of salt substitutes on blood pressure has reinvigorated my desire to counsel my patients on blood pressure self-management.
In this study, the investigators sought randomized, controlled trials with interventions lasting at least 6 months in duration (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014;100:1448-54). Six cohorts were identified in the literature involving a total of 1,974 participants. Included studies took place in China and the Netherlands. Three studies used 65% NaCl/25% KCl/10% MgSO2, one used 41% NaCl/41% KCl/17% magnesium salt/trace minerals, and one used 65% NaCl/30% KCl/5% calcium salt and folic acid.
Salt substitutes had significant effects on systolic blood pressure with a mean difference of –4.9 mm Hg and on diastolic blood pressure with a mean difference of –1.5 mm Hg.
Overall, one may not be impressed with a 5–mm Hg change in systolic blood pressure. But this is the mean difference – and we presume population heterogeneity in response to salt substitution, such that some patients will respond to a higher degree than this and some to a lower degree. But we do not know which ones are which.
Population interventions aimed at reducing salt intake have been shown to be effective. The Finnish government, for example, collaborated with private industry and was able to achieve reductions in sodium content of food. That initiative resulted in a 33% reduction in the population’s average salt intake, a greater than 10–mm Hg decrease in the population average of both systolic BP and diastolic BP, and a 75%-80% decrease in both stroke and coronary artery disease mortality. Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom were able to do similar things.
Because we are unlikely to ever see such organized political will exercised in the United States, it seems reasonable to recommend salt substitutes to our patients on an individual level. Adverse effects have been noted with salt substitutes in patients with kidney disease, however, which will have to be considered in that specific population of patients.
Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.
Most of my counseling to patients about lowering blood pressure through self management is heavy on weight loss and light on dietary causes of high blood pressure – other than the obvious ones that make people gain weight.
Denial of the effects of dietary salt on blood pressure is not the issue. Rather, it is a time-hewn lack of confidence in the ability of patients to significantly and consistently modify their diet. Part of this may also relate to our inability to provide useful lifestyle tips on how to do so, other than the obvious referral to a dietitian. Telling them not to eat out does not solve this problem, because they can just as easily add salt at home.
However, a recent meta-analysis evaluating the effect of salt substitutes on blood pressure has reinvigorated my desire to counsel my patients on blood pressure self-management.
In this study, the investigators sought randomized, controlled trials with interventions lasting at least 6 months in duration (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014;100:1448-54). Six cohorts were identified in the literature involving a total of 1,974 participants. Included studies took place in China and the Netherlands. Three studies used 65% NaCl/25% KCl/10% MgSO2, one used 41% NaCl/41% KCl/17% magnesium salt/trace minerals, and one used 65% NaCl/30% KCl/5% calcium salt and folic acid.
Salt substitutes had significant effects on systolic blood pressure with a mean difference of –4.9 mm Hg and on diastolic blood pressure with a mean difference of –1.5 mm Hg.
Overall, one may not be impressed with a 5–mm Hg change in systolic blood pressure. But this is the mean difference – and we presume population heterogeneity in response to salt substitution, such that some patients will respond to a higher degree than this and some to a lower degree. But we do not know which ones are which.
Population interventions aimed at reducing salt intake have been shown to be effective. The Finnish government, for example, collaborated with private industry and was able to achieve reductions in sodium content of food. That initiative resulted in a 33% reduction in the population’s average salt intake, a greater than 10–mm Hg decrease in the population average of both systolic BP and diastolic BP, and a 75%-80% decrease in both stroke and coronary artery disease mortality. Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom were able to do similar things.
Because we are unlikely to ever see such organized political will exercised in the United States, it seems reasonable to recommend salt substitutes to our patients on an individual level. Adverse effects have been noted with salt substitutes in patients with kidney disease, however, which will have to be considered in that specific population of patients.
Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.