User login
Inaccuracy plagues mobile blood pressure devices, videos
Separate studies related to hypertension send cautionary messages about smartphone-connected blood pressure cuffs and the quality of videos that patients see online about hypertension.
In one study, readings from three smartphone-connected blood pressure cuffs produced a wide range of measurements in an individual patient, raising questions about the apps’ accuracy even though those brands of devices previously had been validated. A separate survey of videos about hypertension posted on YouTube found lots of misleading information, often in the most popular videos.
Investigators presented the studies at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hypertension in New York.
Dr. Clarence E. Grim, an endocrinologist and former professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, tested three devices that connect to iPhones to enable patients to measure their blood pressure, store the results, and send the readings to others. Quality validation studies have been published for all three using international hypertension protocols, he said, and each passed muster with the Food and Drug Administration.
In multiple sessions over a 3-month period, Dr. Grim took his own blood pressure five times per session after being seated for 5 minutes, using the iHealth BP3 upper arm cuff, the iHealth BP7 wrist cuff, or the Withings upper arm blood pressure monitor. For reference measurements, he used a Tycos TR-2 Home Aneroid with an attached stethoscope for auscultatory measurements, validated against a mercury manometer.
In comparison with a reference systolic pressure of 138 using the auscultatory method, measurements using the iHealth arm device ranged from 127 to 158 mm Hg, with an average error of 8 mm Hg higher than the reference pressure. Measurements using the iHealth wrist device ranged from 123 to 164 mm Hg, with an average error of 13 mm Hg higher than the reference. Measurements using the Withings device ranged from 126 to 159 mm Hg. Although the average pressure with the Withings device did not differ significantly from the reference pressure, when there were errors, they tended to be large, he reported in an interview.
Diastolic pressure readings similarly were "not acceptable" due to wide variation, Dr. Grim said. With a reference diastolic pressure of 88 mm Hg, readings from either the iHealth arm device or the Withings device ranged from 80 to 100 mm Hg. With a reference diastolic pressure of 92 mm Hg, the iHealth wrist device readings ranged from 92 to 110 mm Hg.
No one should rely on a single blood pressure reading whether using a home device or the auscultatory method, Dr. Grim said. He’d prefer that automated devices be set to take three to five readings at a session. Anyone who chooses to use one of the three devices he tested should have a clinician check that the device is accurate on them, but the best way to test this is not clear, he added.
"I still have not found an automatic blood pressure device that is as accurate as auscultatory readings on me," he said.
Dr. Nilay Kumar, a hospitalist for Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance, separately reported at the meeting that he searched the popular video-sharing website YouTube using the terms "hypertension" and "high blood pressure." He and his associates analyzed English-language videos from the first 10 pages of search results for each term, comprising 209 videos of the 361,200 possible search results, and designated each video as useful, misleading, or a video of personal experiences.
While most were deemed useful (63%), 33% were misleading, and 4% represented patients’ personal experiences with hypertension (J. Am. Soc. Hypertens. 2014;8:e14-e15).
Cumulatively, the videos had been viewed more than 5.6 million times. Their usefulness did not correlate with the number of views per day, the number of "likes" or "dislikes" indicated by viewers, or comments left on the sites, he said in an e-mail interview. In fact, misleading videos had the highest numbers of views per day. Misleading videos were more likely to include advertisements for products for sale (52%), and 70% of misleading videos contained coverage of alternative treatments, often for products that are not recommended by American Heart Association guidelines.
The source of the video, however, did predict its usefulness. "Patients should trust videos from authoritative sources such as universities, professional organizations, and health information websites," Dr. Kumar said.
Dr. Grim and Dr. Kumar reported having no financial disclosures.
On Twitter @sherryboschert
Separate studies related to hypertension send cautionary messages about smartphone-connected blood pressure cuffs and the quality of videos that patients see online about hypertension.
In one study, readings from three smartphone-connected blood pressure cuffs produced a wide range of measurements in an individual patient, raising questions about the apps’ accuracy even though those brands of devices previously had been validated. A separate survey of videos about hypertension posted on YouTube found lots of misleading information, often in the most popular videos.
Investigators presented the studies at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hypertension in New York.
Dr. Clarence E. Grim, an endocrinologist and former professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, tested three devices that connect to iPhones to enable patients to measure their blood pressure, store the results, and send the readings to others. Quality validation studies have been published for all three using international hypertension protocols, he said, and each passed muster with the Food and Drug Administration.
In multiple sessions over a 3-month period, Dr. Grim took his own blood pressure five times per session after being seated for 5 minutes, using the iHealth BP3 upper arm cuff, the iHealth BP7 wrist cuff, or the Withings upper arm blood pressure monitor. For reference measurements, he used a Tycos TR-2 Home Aneroid with an attached stethoscope for auscultatory measurements, validated against a mercury manometer.
In comparison with a reference systolic pressure of 138 using the auscultatory method, measurements using the iHealth arm device ranged from 127 to 158 mm Hg, with an average error of 8 mm Hg higher than the reference pressure. Measurements using the iHealth wrist device ranged from 123 to 164 mm Hg, with an average error of 13 mm Hg higher than the reference. Measurements using the Withings device ranged from 126 to 159 mm Hg. Although the average pressure with the Withings device did not differ significantly from the reference pressure, when there were errors, they tended to be large, he reported in an interview.
Diastolic pressure readings similarly were "not acceptable" due to wide variation, Dr. Grim said. With a reference diastolic pressure of 88 mm Hg, readings from either the iHealth arm device or the Withings device ranged from 80 to 100 mm Hg. With a reference diastolic pressure of 92 mm Hg, the iHealth wrist device readings ranged from 92 to 110 mm Hg.
No one should rely on a single blood pressure reading whether using a home device or the auscultatory method, Dr. Grim said. He’d prefer that automated devices be set to take three to five readings at a session. Anyone who chooses to use one of the three devices he tested should have a clinician check that the device is accurate on them, but the best way to test this is not clear, he added.
"I still have not found an automatic blood pressure device that is as accurate as auscultatory readings on me," he said.
Dr. Nilay Kumar, a hospitalist for Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance, separately reported at the meeting that he searched the popular video-sharing website YouTube using the terms "hypertension" and "high blood pressure." He and his associates analyzed English-language videos from the first 10 pages of search results for each term, comprising 209 videos of the 361,200 possible search results, and designated each video as useful, misleading, or a video of personal experiences.
While most were deemed useful (63%), 33% were misleading, and 4% represented patients’ personal experiences with hypertension (J. Am. Soc. Hypertens. 2014;8:e14-e15).
Cumulatively, the videos had been viewed more than 5.6 million times. Their usefulness did not correlate with the number of views per day, the number of "likes" or "dislikes" indicated by viewers, or comments left on the sites, he said in an e-mail interview. In fact, misleading videos had the highest numbers of views per day. Misleading videos were more likely to include advertisements for products for sale (52%), and 70% of misleading videos contained coverage of alternative treatments, often for products that are not recommended by American Heart Association guidelines.
The source of the video, however, did predict its usefulness. "Patients should trust videos from authoritative sources such as universities, professional organizations, and health information websites," Dr. Kumar said.
Dr. Grim and Dr. Kumar reported having no financial disclosures.
On Twitter @sherryboschert
Separate studies related to hypertension send cautionary messages about smartphone-connected blood pressure cuffs and the quality of videos that patients see online about hypertension.
In one study, readings from three smartphone-connected blood pressure cuffs produced a wide range of measurements in an individual patient, raising questions about the apps’ accuracy even though those brands of devices previously had been validated. A separate survey of videos about hypertension posted on YouTube found lots of misleading information, often in the most popular videos.
Investigators presented the studies at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hypertension in New York.
Dr. Clarence E. Grim, an endocrinologist and former professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, tested three devices that connect to iPhones to enable patients to measure their blood pressure, store the results, and send the readings to others. Quality validation studies have been published for all three using international hypertension protocols, he said, and each passed muster with the Food and Drug Administration.
In multiple sessions over a 3-month period, Dr. Grim took his own blood pressure five times per session after being seated for 5 minutes, using the iHealth BP3 upper arm cuff, the iHealth BP7 wrist cuff, or the Withings upper arm blood pressure monitor. For reference measurements, he used a Tycos TR-2 Home Aneroid with an attached stethoscope for auscultatory measurements, validated against a mercury manometer.
In comparison with a reference systolic pressure of 138 using the auscultatory method, measurements using the iHealth arm device ranged from 127 to 158 mm Hg, with an average error of 8 mm Hg higher than the reference pressure. Measurements using the iHealth wrist device ranged from 123 to 164 mm Hg, with an average error of 13 mm Hg higher than the reference. Measurements using the Withings device ranged from 126 to 159 mm Hg. Although the average pressure with the Withings device did not differ significantly from the reference pressure, when there were errors, they tended to be large, he reported in an interview.
Diastolic pressure readings similarly were "not acceptable" due to wide variation, Dr. Grim said. With a reference diastolic pressure of 88 mm Hg, readings from either the iHealth arm device or the Withings device ranged from 80 to 100 mm Hg. With a reference diastolic pressure of 92 mm Hg, the iHealth wrist device readings ranged from 92 to 110 mm Hg.
No one should rely on a single blood pressure reading whether using a home device or the auscultatory method, Dr. Grim said. He’d prefer that automated devices be set to take three to five readings at a session. Anyone who chooses to use one of the three devices he tested should have a clinician check that the device is accurate on them, but the best way to test this is not clear, he added.
"I still have not found an automatic blood pressure device that is as accurate as auscultatory readings on me," he said.
Dr. Nilay Kumar, a hospitalist for Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance, separately reported at the meeting that he searched the popular video-sharing website YouTube using the terms "hypertension" and "high blood pressure." He and his associates analyzed English-language videos from the first 10 pages of search results for each term, comprising 209 videos of the 361,200 possible search results, and designated each video as useful, misleading, or a video of personal experiences.
While most were deemed useful (63%), 33% were misleading, and 4% represented patients’ personal experiences with hypertension (J. Am. Soc. Hypertens. 2014;8:e14-e15).
Cumulatively, the videos had been viewed more than 5.6 million times. Their usefulness did not correlate with the number of views per day, the number of "likes" or "dislikes" indicated by viewers, or comments left on the sites, he said in an e-mail interview. In fact, misleading videos had the highest numbers of views per day. Misleading videos were more likely to include advertisements for products for sale (52%), and 70% of misleading videos contained coverage of alternative treatments, often for products that are not recommended by American Heart Association guidelines.
The source of the video, however, did predict its usefulness. "Patients should trust videos from authoritative sources such as universities, professional organizations, and health information websites," Dr. Kumar said.
Dr. Grim and Dr. Kumar reported having no financial disclosures.
On Twitter @sherryboschert
Daily inhaled corticosteroids marginally suppress children’s growth
Daily use of low- to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids for mild to moderate persistent asthma suppresses growth to a "small" degree in children of all ages, according to a Cochrane review published online July 16 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
This level of use was associated with a mean reduction of 0.48 cm per year in linear growth velocity during the first year of treatment, against a background average growth rate of 6-9 cm per year. The growth suppression was less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment, and the magnitude of growth suppression was more strongly related to the particular drug used than to the dose or delivery device, said Dr. Linjie Zhang of the Federal University of Rio Grande (Brazil) and his associates.
"The evidence we reviewed suggests that children treated daily with inhaled corticosteroids may grow approximately half a centimeter less during the first year of treatment. But this effect is less pronounced in subsequent years, is not cumulative, and seems minor compared with the known benefits of the drugs for controlling asthma and ensuring full lung growth," Dr. Zhang said in a press statement accompanying the report.
The investigators undertook this comprehensive review of the literature and metaanalysis because of persistent concerns about possible adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids on children’s growth and because several recent randomized trials have examined the issue and have assessed newly available agents and modes of delivery. They identified 25 good-quality, parallel-group, randomized clinical trials involving 8,471 children up to age 18, of whom 5,128 were treated with inhaled corticosteroids and 3,343 were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo and served as controls.
Most of the trials were blinded, and most were multicenter. Seventeen of the 25 were funded by pharmaceutical companies.
The participating children used beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone, or mometasone, delivered by any type of inhalation device, and were followed for 3 months to 6 years.
All six inhaled corticosteroids were found to suppress linear growth velocity during 1 year of treatment, which was the primary outcome of interest. They all also suppressed growth as measured by the secondary outcomes of change in height standard deviation score over time and change from baseline in height over time. These effects were less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment, but persisted until patients reached their adult height.
The one study that followed prepubescent participants into adulthood showed that those who used inhaled corticosteroids had a mean reduction of 1.2 cm in adult height, compared with those who did not.
Daily dose, delivery device, and patient age had had no significant impact on the magnitude of growth suppression. A small number of studies that compared the various corticosteroids against each other showed that beclomethasone and budesonide were somewhat more potent growth suppressors, compared with the other four agents. However, a meta-analysis is not the best method for exploring these issues, and data from more head-to-head randomized trials are required to confirm these findings, Dr. Zhang and his associates noted (Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2014 July 16 [doi:10.1002/I4651858.CD009471.pub2]).
Their findings indicate that inhaled corticosteroids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dose. "Moreover, it is prudent to monitor linear growth in children treated with inhaled corticosteroids, given that individual susceptibility to these drugs may vary considerably," the investigators added.
Daily use of low- to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids for mild to moderate persistent asthma suppresses growth to a "small" degree in children of all ages, according to a Cochrane review published online July 16 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
This level of use was associated with a mean reduction of 0.48 cm per year in linear growth velocity during the first year of treatment, against a background average growth rate of 6-9 cm per year. The growth suppression was less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment, and the magnitude of growth suppression was more strongly related to the particular drug used than to the dose or delivery device, said Dr. Linjie Zhang of the Federal University of Rio Grande (Brazil) and his associates.
"The evidence we reviewed suggests that children treated daily with inhaled corticosteroids may grow approximately half a centimeter less during the first year of treatment. But this effect is less pronounced in subsequent years, is not cumulative, and seems minor compared with the known benefits of the drugs for controlling asthma and ensuring full lung growth," Dr. Zhang said in a press statement accompanying the report.
The investigators undertook this comprehensive review of the literature and metaanalysis because of persistent concerns about possible adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids on children’s growth and because several recent randomized trials have examined the issue and have assessed newly available agents and modes of delivery. They identified 25 good-quality, parallel-group, randomized clinical trials involving 8,471 children up to age 18, of whom 5,128 were treated with inhaled corticosteroids and 3,343 were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo and served as controls.
Most of the trials were blinded, and most were multicenter. Seventeen of the 25 were funded by pharmaceutical companies.
The participating children used beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone, or mometasone, delivered by any type of inhalation device, and were followed for 3 months to 6 years.
All six inhaled corticosteroids were found to suppress linear growth velocity during 1 year of treatment, which was the primary outcome of interest. They all also suppressed growth as measured by the secondary outcomes of change in height standard deviation score over time and change from baseline in height over time. These effects were less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment, but persisted until patients reached their adult height.
The one study that followed prepubescent participants into adulthood showed that those who used inhaled corticosteroids had a mean reduction of 1.2 cm in adult height, compared with those who did not.
Daily dose, delivery device, and patient age had had no significant impact on the magnitude of growth suppression. A small number of studies that compared the various corticosteroids against each other showed that beclomethasone and budesonide were somewhat more potent growth suppressors, compared with the other four agents. However, a meta-analysis is not the best method for exploring these issues, and data from more head-to-head randomized trials are required to confirm these findings, Dr. Zhang and his associates noted (Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2014 July 16 [doi:10.1002/I4651858.CD009471.pub2]).
Their findings indicate that inhaled corticosteroids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dose. "Moreover, it is prudent to monitor linear growth in children treated with inhaled corticosteroids, given that individual susceptibility to these drugs may vary considerably," the investigators added.
Daily use of low- to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids for mild to moderate persistent asthma suppresses growth to a "small" degree in children of all ages, according to a Cochrane review published online July 16 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
This level of use was associated with a mean reduction of 0.48 cm per year in linear growth velocity during the first year of treatment, against a background average growth rate of 6-9 cm per year. The growth suppression was less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment, and the magnitude of growth suppression was more strongly related to the particular drug used than to the dose or delivery device, said Dr. Linjie Zhang of the Federal University of Rio Grande (Brazil) and his associates.
"The evidence we reviewed suggests that children treated daily with inhaled corticosteroids may grow approximately half a centimeter less during the first year of treatment. But this effect is less pronounced in subsequent years, is not cumulative, and seems minor compared with the known benefits of the drugs for controlling asthma and ensuring full lung growth," Dr. Zhang said in a press statement accompanying the report.
The investigators undertook this comprehensive review of the literature and metaanalysis because of persistent concerns about possible adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids on children’s growth and because several recent randomized trials have examined the issue and have assessed newly available agents and modes of delivery. They identified 25 good-quality, parallel-group, randomized clinical trials involving 8,471 children up to age 18, of whom 5,128 were treated with inhaled corticosteroids and 3,343 were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo and served as controls.
Most of the trials were blinded, and most were multicenter. Seventeen of the 25 were funded by pharmaceutical companies.
The participating children used beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone, or mometasone, delivered by any type of inhalation device, and were followed for 3 months to 6 years.
All six inhaled corticosteroids were found to suppress linear growth velocity during 1 year of treatment, which was the primary outcome of interest. They all also suppressed growth as measured by the secondary outcomes of change in height standard deviation score over time and change from baseline in height over time. These effects were less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment, but persisted until patients reached their adult height.
The one study that followed prepubescent participants into adulthood showed that those who used inhaled corticosteroids had a mean reduction of 1.2 cm in adult height, compared with those who did not.
Daily dose, delivery device, and patient age had had no significant impact on the magnitude of growth suppression. A small number of studies that compared the various corticosteroids against each other showed that beclomethasone and budesonide were somewhat more potent growth suppressors, compared with the other four agents. However, a meta-analysis is not the best method for exploring these issues, and data from more head-to-head randomized trials are required to confirm these findings, Dr. Zhang and his associates noted (Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2014 July 16 [doi:10.1002/I4651858.CD009471.pub2]).
Their findings indicate that inhaled corticosteroids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dose. "Moreover, it is prudent to monitor linear growth in children treated with inhaled corticosteroids, given that individual susceptibility to these drugs may vary considerably," the investigators added.
FROM THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Major finding: All six inhaled corticosteroids in this review were found to suppress linear growth velocity during 1 year of treatment; they all also suppressed growth as measured by the secondary outcomes of change in height standard deviation score over time and change from baseline in height over time.
Data source: A comprehensive meta-analysis of 25 good-quality, parallel-group, randomized clinical trials involving 8,471 children of all ages with mild to moderate persistent asthma whose growth was assessed for up to 6 years of follow-up.
Disclosures: Dr. Zhang and his associates reported no financial conflicts of interest.
Summer care for atopic skin
Summer months can be dreadful for patients with atopic dermatitis. The chlorine, heat, and humidity can lead to flares. Furthermore, noncompliance with skin care regimens because of changing summer routines, travel, and the use of hotel products can exacerbate even the calmest skin disease.
Share these tips with your patients to help them keep their atopic skin under control in the summer heat, and stop flares before they start.
• Rinse the skin well after swimming. Chlorine and saltwater can dry out the skin. Showers after swimming in chlorinated pools can help retain the skin’s natural oils.
• Avoid hot tubs. Cracks and fissures in atopic skin can become infected in hot tubs with Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas. Advise your atopic patients to avoid hot tubs, even if they claim the tubs have been cleaned.
• Bring your own products. Many soaps and shower gels available in hotels and resorts are extremely drying, and may contain ingredients that could irritate atopic skin.
• Don’t switch from thick creams to thin lotions just because it is summer. Remind your patients that a thin lotion does not provide the same occlusive and humectant properties as thicker creams, although they are not as easy to apply, and can feel thick and sticky on the skin with humidity.
• In case of an active eczema flare, topical steroids should be used and sun exposure should be avoided. Topical steroids are the most effective treatment when used correctly. However, any occurrence of hypopigmentation as a result of their use becomes more evident if the skin tans around the area of treatment.
• Wear physical sunscreen. This seems obvious, but most chemical blockers – even the formulations made for babies – can burn on cracked, inflamed skin. Instead, stress to your patients that they use a physical blocker made of pure titanium dioxide or zinc oxide on inflamed skin.
• Oral steroids and sun do not mix. Oral steroids can be potent photosensitizers. If they are needed, UV exposure should be avoided.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are co-contributors to a monthly Aesthetic Dermatology column in Skin & Allergy News. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice at McLean (Va.) Dermatology Center. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub.
Summer months can be dreadful for patients with atopic dermatitis. The chlorine, heat, and humidity can lead to flares. Furthermore, noncompliance with skin care regimens because of changing summer routines, travel, and the use of hotel products can exacerbate even the calmest skin disease.
Share these tips with your patients to help them keep their atopic skin under control in the summer heat, and stop flares before they start.
• Rinse the skin well after swimming. Chlorine and saltwater can dry out the skin. Showers after swimming in chlorinated pools can help retain the skin’s natural oils.
• Avoid hot tubs. Cracks and fissures in atopic skin can become infected in hot tubs with Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas. Advise your atopic patients to avoid hot tubs, even if they claim the tubs have been cleaned.
• Bring your own products. Many soaps and shower gels available in hotels and resorts are extremely drying, and may contain ingredients that could irritate atopic skin.
• Don’t switch from thick creams to thin lotions just because it is summer. Remind your patients that a thin lotion does not provide the same occlusive and humectant properties as thicker creams, although they are not as easy to apply, and can feel thick and sticky on the skin with humidity.
• In case of an active eczema flare, topical steroids should be used and sun exposure should be avoided. Topical steroids are the most effective treatment when used correctly. However, any occurrence of hypopigmentation as a result of their use becomes more evident if the skin tans around the area of treatment.
• Wear physical sunscreen. This seems obvious, but most chemical blockers – even the formulations made for babies – can burn on cracked, inflamed skin. Instead, stress to your patients that they use a physical blocker made of pure titanium dioxide or zinc oxide on inflamed skin.
• Oral steroids and sun do not mix. Oral steroids can be potent photosensitizers. If they are needed, UV exposure should be avoided.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are co-contributors to a monthly Aesthetic Dermatology column in Skin & Allergy News. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice at McLean (Va.) Dermatology Center. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub.
Summer months can be dreadful for patients with atopic dermatitis. The chlorine, heat, and humidity can lead to flares. Furthermore, noncompliance with skin care regimens because of changing summer routines, travel, and the use of hotel products can exacerbate even the calmest skin disease.
Share these tips with your patients to help them keep their atopic skin under control in the summer heat, and stop flares before they start.
• Rinse the skin well after swimming. Chlorine and saltwater can dry out the skin. Showers after swimming in chlorinated pools can help retain the skin’s natural oils.
• Avoid hot tubs. Cracks and fissures in atopic skin can become infected in hot tubs with Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas. Advise your atopic patients to avoid hot tubs, even if they claim the tubs have been cleaned.
• Bring your own products. Many soaps and shower gels available in hotels and resorts are extremely drying, and may contain ingredients that could irritate atopic skin.
• Don’t switch from thick creams to thin lotions just because it is summer. Remind your patients that a thin lotion does not provide the same occlusive and humectant properties as thicker creams, although they are not as easy to apply, and can feel thick and sticky on the skin with humidity.
• In case of an active eczema flare, topical steroids should be used and sun exposure should be avoided. Topical steroids are the most effective treatment when used correctly. However, any occurrence of hypopigmentation as a result of their use becomes more evident if the skin tans around the area of treatment.
• Wear physical sunscreen. This seems obvious, but most chemical blockers – even the formulations made for babies – can burn on cracked, inflamed skin. Instead, stress to your patients that they use a physical blocker made of pure titanium dioxide or zinc oxide on inflamed skin.
• Oral steroids and sun do not mix. Oral steroids can be potent photosensitizers. If they are needed, UV exposure should be avoided.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are co-contributors to a monthly Aesthetic Dermatology column in Skin & Allergy News. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice at McLean (Va.) Dermatology Center. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub.
Steps to optimizing skin care retail in your practice
I have been writing Cosmeceutical Critique for more than a decade, and over the years I have received many calls and e-mails about the column. The most frequent question is, "I read your column every month and understand the ingredient science, but I still do not know what products to sell in my practice. Can you help?" For this reason, I will begin to add columns that discuss the process of skin care retail, and how to choose which products to sell. I admit that finding effective products and designing the right regimen for each patient are daunting tasks, but I have simplified the process out of necessity in my own Miami practice.
The goal is to achieve good patient outcomes with minimal side effects, which strengthens the physician-patient relationship. In order to achieve this goal, you need to find the most efficacious products and properly match them to your patient’s skin type. In addition, patients must be compliant with the prescribed regimen. If only it were that simple. The difficulty in separating fact (science) from fiction (marketing claims), time constraints with each patient, and the need for staff training can complicate this process.
In my practice, we use the Skin Type Solutions system that I developed to match skin care products for each skin type (
- <cf number="\"2\"">’</cf>
Fitzpatricks Dermatology in General Medicine, 8th Ed., 2012, Ch. 250, p. 1343).This system accurately determines a patient’s Baumann Skin Type (there are 16) and provides a preset regimen designed to address that particular skin type’s needs. The system has been tested in more than 100,000 people worldwide, of all ethnicities and ages, as well as both genders, and has demonstrated accuracy in assessing skin care needs (Dermatol. Clin. 2008;26:359-73; J. Cosmet. Dermatol. Sci. Appl. 2014;4:78-84).
The Baumann Skin Typing System saves my staff time by streamlining the process of designing skin care regimens. It works like this:
• The patient takes the skin type questionnaire and is assigned to one of the 16 Baumann Skin types.
• A staff member matches the skin type to the preset regimen.
• The doctor (or designee) reviews the regimen and makes any necessary changes or additions (including prescription medications).
• The patient is given a step-by-step skin care regimen.
• The patient purchases the correct products.
• The patient is given instruction sheets to increase compliance.
• The patient returns in 4 weeks for follow-up with the staff designee to ensure that the regimen is being properly followed.
Sounds easy, right? The hard part is choosing which products to use for each skin type. In order to ethically sell skin care products to patients, you must ensure that they are getting efficacious products to address their skin concerns (Clin. Dermatol. 2012;30:522-7).
Keep these steps in mind when selecting skin care products:
• Know your ingredient science.
There is so much interesting research on cosmetic ingredients, but there is also plenty of hype and misinformation. One key point is that no one ingredient is right for all skin types. It’s essential to know which ingredients work well together and which do not. The order in which ingredients are placed on the skin is crucial as well, because they can inactivate each other and affect absorption. All of my ingredient columns are available at edermatologynews.com and will be published in my new book, Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients (McGraw-Hill).
It is important to understand which ingredients are worthless (like stem cells and peptides) and which ones are crucial (such as retinoids and antioxidants) so that you can arm your patients with products that work. When products do not work, your patients will have poor outcomes, your physician-patient relationships will be damaged, and patients’ trust in you will decrease.
• Choose ingredients appropriate for the patient’s skin type.
It is important to understand the characteristics of various ingredients and match those to your patient’s skin type. The process of assessing the patient’s skin type can be long because you need to ask numerous historical questions (invariably including, "Do you get irritated from skin care products?" and "What happens if you do not use a moisturizer?"). Looking at a patient’s skin at one point in time is not as accurate as asking a series of questions about how their skin has behaved in the past under varying conditions. I use a validated questionnaire to streamline this process in my practice. The questionnaire takes 3 to 5 minutes, does not require a staff member, and is done on a tablet device in the waiting room or exam room.
• Properly identify the Baumann Skin Type using a validated questionnaire.
To determine a patient’s true skin type, a scientifically validated questionnaire is used to assess skin oiliness, dryness, sensitivity, uneven skin tone, and risk factors for wrinkles. When these parameters are combined, there are 16 possible Baumann Skin Types, which yield an accurate history of the patient’s skin characteristics.
• Choose products for each skin type.
There are many factors to consider in choosing what brands and SKUs (stock keeping units, in industry parlance, but particular products for our purposes) to use for each skin type. I use a brand-agnostic approach to choose the best technologies from various brands from around the world. I believe that brands often have a core competency, such as sunscreen technology, but that not all of the products in a particular line are superior. I select the best products (SKUs) from each brand, and combine and test them on various skin types to see which products and what combinations of products work best.
The following are the factors that I take into account when choosing SKUs for each Baumann Skin Type:
A. Importance of the ingredient recipe
Although the product label lists ingredients, it does not list the formulation’s recipe, which is proprietary and often patented. The "recipe" includes the order that ingredients are added in the process, the pH, the amount of each ingredient, the temperature at which the ingredient is added, and many other important factors that determine the final chemistry. Ingredients like vitamin C, green tea, and argan oil are expensive when formulated properly. Many copycat brands, such as the Walgreens and CVS knockoffs, use the same ingredients. However, they cannot use the patented recipe, and therefore their end product is different.
B. Manufacturing and packaging process
How a product is made and packaged is crucial. For example, retinol breaks down when exposed to light and air. I once visited a manufacturing plant that was stirring its "antiaging" retinol preparation in open vats. The retinol was losing its activity, which is why the product was "less irritating." The process of packaging the completed product is also important. In some cases the product is formulated in one place and shipped to another location for final packaging – and several ingredients can lose their potency during transit. Finally, the container that the product is packaged in is important. Air and light can get into tubes, affecting the efficacy of a product.
C. Ingredient interactions
The order of application and the combination of ingredients affect stability, efficacy, safety, and the chemical structure. Master formulators understand that every ingredient in the formulation matters, and there is really no such thing as an inactive ingredient. Ingredients can affect penetration and render other ingredients more or less effective depending on the order in which the ingredients are used on the skin. For example, olive oil actually increases penetration of other ingredients because it has a high content of oleic acid, while safflower oil can decrease penetration by strengthening the skin barrier.
• Design the regimen and order of application of products.
Once you have determined your patient’s skin type and matched the proper products to their skin type, you must tell them exactly how to apply them. The order in which products are applied makes a difference. Consider ingredient interactions, ingredient penetration times, and cross-reactions, plus skin type factors such as the condition of the skin barrier, sebum production, thickness of the stratum corneum, sun exposure, and bathing habits. I recommend providing a printed regimen with step-by-step instructions for morning and night.
• Educate patients.
Take the time to educate your patients on their skin issues. If you explain why you chose each product and why the particular ingredients are important, they are more likely to be compliant and get better results (and return to you for product recommendations and repurchases). Because we do not have the time to sit and explain all of these issues to each patient, we use educational newsletters that we send to patients based on their Baumann Skin Type. This helps keep them engaged and educates them about new technologies and products that are appropriate for their skin type.
• Encourage compliance.
Schedule a follow-up visit after 1 month to check on their progress and ensure compliance, and emphasize the importance of this visit. If you prescribed a retinoid, patients may experience irritation and stop using it. If you have an imaging system, baseline and follow-up photos help illustrate patients’ progress and keep them vigilant. Four weeks is a good time frame because patients tend to lose interest at that point.
• Sell skin care products in your practice.
I was against selling skin care products for ethical reasons for several years. However, in 2005, I surveyed my patients, and 100% of them wanted me to sell products so that they could feel sure that they were purchasing the right products for their needs. In fact, my patients appreciate expert medical advice on skin care. As a practitioner, you can make more educated choices about skin care products and help them avoid products that don’t work or cause harm.
• Contact me for more information.
In order to improve patient outcomes, you must ensure that you stay current on skin care science so your patients can benefit from your expertise. I recognize that not everyone has the time and inclination to stay current on the various skin care ingredients, products, and brands. Several of my dermatology friends have adopted my skin typing system in their practices and, in the process, observed better patient outcomes and increased profitability, while reducing the burden on their staff. These successes led to the development of an in-office store system utilizing my concept, which I am offering only to dermatologists. Feel free to email me at [email protected], or visit STSFranchise.com, if you want to learn more.
• Look for this column each month.
I will be sharing more advice on in-office skin care retail and will continue my review of new cosmeceutical ingredients. Let’s work together to put skin care back in the hands of dermatologists.
Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in Miami Beach. She founded the cosmetic dermatology center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook "Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice" (McGraw-Hill, April 2002), and a book for consumers, "The Skin Type Solution" (Bantam, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Skin & Allergy News since January 2001. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Galderma, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Stiefel, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.
I have been writing Cosmeceutical Critique for more than a decade, and over the years I have received many calls and e-mails about the column. The most frequent question is, "I read your column every month and understand the ingredient science, but I still do not know what products to sell in my practice. Can you help?" For this reason, I will begin to add columns that discuss the process of skin care retail, and how to choose which products to sell. I admit that finding effective products and designing the right regimen for each patient are daunting tasks, but I have simplified the process out of necessity in my own Miami practice.
The goal is to achieve good patient outcomes with minimal side effects, which strengthens the physician-patient relationship. In order to achieve this goal, you need to find the most efficacious products and properly match them to your patient’s skin type. In addition, patients must be compliant with the prescribed regimen. If only it were that simple. The difficulty in separating fact (science) from fiction (marketing claims), time constraints with each patient, and the need for staff training can complicate this process.
In my practice, we use the Skin Type Solutions system that I developed to match skin care products for each skin type (
- <cf number="\"2\"">’</cf>
Fitzpatricks Dermatology in General Medicine, 8th Ed., 2012, Ch. 250, p. 1343).This system accurately determines a patient’s Baumann Skin Type (there are 16) and provides a preset regimen designed to address that particular skin type’s needs. The system has been tested in more than 100,000 people worldwide, of all ethnicities and ages, as well as both genders, and has demonstrated accuracy in assessing skin care needs (Dermatol. Clin. 2008;26:359-73; J. Cosmet. Dermatol. Sci. Appl. 2014;4:78-84).
The Baumann Skin Typing System saves my staff time by streamlining the process of designing skin care regimens. It works like this:
• The patient takes the skin type questionnaire and is assigned to one of the 16 Baumann Skin types.
• A staff member matches the skin type to the preset regimen.
• The doctor (or designee) reviews the regimen and makes any necessary changes or additions (including prescription medications).
• The patient is given a step-by-step skin care regimen.
• The patient purchases the correct products.
• The patient is given instruction sheets to increase compliance.
• The patient returns in 4 weeks for follow-up with the staff designee to ensure that the regimen is being properly followed.
Sounds easy, right? The hard part is choosing which products to use for each skin type. In order to ethically sell skin care products to patients, you must ensure that they are getting efficacious products to address their skin concerns (Clin. Dermatol. 2012;30:522-7).
Keep these steps in mind when selecting skin care products:
• Know your ingredient science.
There is so much interesting research on cosmetic ingredients, but there is also plenty of hype and misinformation. One key point is that no one ingredient is right for all skin types. It’s essential to know which ingredients work well together and which do not. The order in which ingredients are placed on the skin is crucial as well, because they can inactivate each other and affect absorption. All of my ingredient columns are available at edermatologynews.com and will be published in my new book, Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients (McGraw-Hill).
It is important to understand which ingredients are worthless (like stem cells and peptides) and which ones are crucial (such as retinoids and antioxidants) so that you can arm your patients with products that work. When products do not work, your patients will have poor outcomes, your physician-patient relationships will be damaged, and patients’ trust in you will decrease.
• Choose ingredients appropriate for the patient’s skin type.
It is important to understand the characteristics of various ingredients and match those to your patient’s skin type. The process of assessing the patient’s skin type can be long because you need to ask numerous historical questions (invariably including, "Do you get irritated from skin care products?" and "What happens if you do not use a moisturizer?"). Looking at a patient’s skin at one point in time is not as accurate as asking a series of questions about how their skin has behaved in the past under varying conditions. I use a validated questionnaire to streamline this process in my practice. The questionnaire takes 3 to 5 minutes, does not require a staff member, and is done on a tablet device in the waiting room or exam room.
• Properly identify the Baumann Skin Type using a validated questionnaire.
To determine a patient’s true skin type, a scientifically validated questionnaire is used to assess skin oiliness, dryness, sensitivity, uneven skin tone, and risk factors for wrinkles. When these parameters are combined, there are 16 possible Baumann Skin Types, which yield an accurate history of the patient’s skin characteristics.
• Choose products for each skin type.
There are many factors to consider in choosing what brands and SKUs (stock keeping units, in industry parlance, but particular products for our purposes) to use for each skin type. I use a brand-agnostic approach to choose the best technologies from various brands from around the world. I believe that brands often have a core competency, such as sunscreen technology, but that not all of the products in a particular line are superior. I select the best products (SKUs) from each brand, and combine and test them on various skin types to see which products and what combinations of products work best.
The following are the factors that I take into account when choosing SKUs for each Baumann Skin Type:
A. Importance of the ingredient recipe
Although the product label lists ingredients, it does not list the formulation’s recipe, which is proprietary and often patented. The "recipe" includes the order that ingredients are added in the process, the pH, the amount of each ingredient, the temperature at which the ingredient is added, and many other important factors that determine the final chemistry. Ingredients like vitamin C, green tea, and argan oil are expensive when formulated properly. Many copycat brands, such as the Walgreens and CVS knockoffs, use the same ingredients. However, they cannot use the patented recipe, and therefore their end product is different.
B. Manufacturing and packaging process
How a product is made and packaged is crucial. For example, retinol breaks down when exposed to light and air. I once visited a manufacturing plant that was stirring its "antiaging" retinol preparation in open vats. The retinol was losing its activity, which is why the product was "less irritating." The process of packaging the completed product is also important. In some cases the product is formulated in one place and shipped to another location for final packaging – and several ingredients can lose their potency during transit. Finally, the container that the product is packaged in is important. Air and light can get into tubes, affecting the efficacy of a product.
C. Ingredient interactions
The order of application and the combination of ingredients affect stability, efficacy, safety, and the chemical structure. Master formulators understand that every ingredient in the formulation matters, and there is really no such thing as an inactive ingredient. Ingredients can affect penetration and render other ingredients more or less effective depending on the order in which the ingredients are used on the skin. For example, olive oil actually increases penetration of other ingredients because it has a high content of oleic acid, while safflower oil can decrease penetration by strengthening the skin barrier.
• Design the regimen and order of application of products.
Once you have determined your patient’s skin type and matched the proper products to their skin type, you must tell them exactly how to apply them. The order in which products are applied makes a difference. Consider ingredient interactions, ingredient penetration times, and cross-reactions, plus skin type factors such as the condition of the skin barrier, sebum production, thickness of the stratum corneum, sun exposure, and bathing habits. I recommend providing a printed regimen with step-by-step instructions for morning and night.
• Educate patients.
Take the time to educate your patients on their skin issues. If you explain why you chose each product and why the particular ingredients are important, they are more likely to be compliant and get better results (and return to you for product recommendations and repurchases). Because we do not have the time to sit and explain all of these issues to each patient, we use educational newsletters that we send to patients based on their Baumann Skin Type. This helps keep them engaged and educates them about new technologies and products that are appropriate for their skin type.
• Encourage compliance.
Schedule a follow-up visit after 1 month to check on their progress and ensure compliance, and emphasize the importance of this visit. If you prescribed a retinoid, patients may experience irritation and stop using it. If you have an imaging system, baseline and follow-up photos help illustrate patients’ progress and keep them vigilant. Four weeks is a good time frame because patients tend to lose interest at that point.
• Sell skin care products in your practice.
I was against selling skin care products for ethical reasons for several years. However, in 2005, I surveyed my patients, and 100% of them wanted me to sell products so that they could feel sure that they were purchasing the right products for their needs. In fact, my patients appreciate expert medical advice on skin care. As a practitioner, you can make more educated choices about skin care products and help them avoid products that don’t work or cause harm.
• Contact me for more information.
In order to improve patient outcomes, you must ensure that you stay current on skin care science so your patients can benefit from your expertise. I recognize that not everyone has the time and inclination to stay current on the various skin care ingredients, products, and brands. Several of my dermatology friends have adopted my skin typing system in their practices and, in the process, observed better patient outcomes and increased profitability, while reducing the burden on their staff. These successes led to the development of an in-office store system utilizing my concept, which I am offering only to dermatologists. Feel free to email me at [email protected], or visit STSFranchise.com, if you want to learn more.
• Look for this column each month.
I will be sharing more advice on in-office skin care retail and will continue my review of new cosmeceutical ingredients. Let’s work together to put skin care back in the hands of dermatologists.
Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in Miami Beach. She founded the cosmetic dermatology center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook "Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice" (McGraw-Hill, April 2002), and a book for consumers, "The Skin Type Solution" (Bantam, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Skin & Allergy News since January 2001. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Galderma, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Stiefel, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.
I have been writing Cosmeceutical Critique for more than a decade, and over the years I have received many calls and e-mails about the column. The most frequent question is, "I read your column every month and understand the ingredient science, but I still do not know what products to sell in my practice. Can you help?" For this reason, I will begin to add columns that discuss the process of skin care retail, and how to choose which products to sell. I admit that finding effective products and designing the right regimen for each patient are daunting tasks, but I have simplified the process out of necessity in my own Miami practice.
The goal is to achieve good patient outcomes with minimal side effects, which strengthens the physician-patient relationship. In order to achieve this goal, you need to find the most efficacious products and properly match them to your patient’s skin type. In addition, patients must be compliant with the prescribed regimen. If only it were that simple. The difficulty in separating fact (science) from fiction (marketing claims), time constraints with each patient, and the need for staff training can complicate this process.
In my practice, we use the Skin Type Solutions system that I developed to match skin care products for each skin type (
- <cf number="\"2\"">’</cf>
Fitzpatricks Dermatology in General Medicine, 8th Ed., 2012, Ch. 250, p. 1343).This system accurately determines a patient’s Baumann Skin Type (there are 16) and provides a preset regimen designed to address that particular skin type’s needs. The system has been tested in more than 100,000 people worldwide, of all ethnicities and ages, as well as both genders, and has demonstrated accuracy in assessing skin care needs (Dermatol. Clin. 2008;26:359-73; J. Cosmet. Dermatol. Sci. Appl. 2014;4:78-84).
The Baumann Skin Typing System saves my staff time by streamlining the process of designing skin care regimens. It works like this:
• The patient takes the skin type questionnaire and is assigned to one of the 16 Baumann Skin types.
• A staff member matches the skin type to the preset regimen.
• The doctor (or designee) reviews the regimen and makes any necessary changes or additions (including prescription medications).
• The patient is given a step-by-step skin care regimen.
• The patient purchases the correct products.
• The patient is given instruction sheets to increase compliance.
• The patient returns in 4 weeks for follow-up with the staff designee to ensure that the regimen is being properly followed.
Sounds easy, right? The hard part is choosing which products to use for each skin type. In order to ethically sell skin care products to patients, you must ensure that they are getting efficacious products to address their skin concerns (Clin. Dermatol. 2012;30:522-7).
Keep these steps in mind when selecting skin care products:
• Know your ingredient science.
There is so much interesting research on cosmetic ingredients, but there is also plenty of hype and misinformation. One key point is that no one ingredient is right for all skin types. It’s essential to know which ingredients work well together and which do not. The order in which ingredients are placed on the skin is crucial as well, because they can inactivate each other and affect absorption. All of my ingredient columns are available at edermatologynews.com and will be published in my new book, Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients (McGraw-Hill).
It is important to understand which ingredients are worthless (like stem cells and peptides) and which ones are crucial (such as retinoids and antioxidants) so that you can arm your patients with products that work. When products do not work, your patients will have poor outcomes, your physician-patient relationships will be damaged, and patients’ trust in you will decrease.
• Choose ingredients appropriate for the patient’s skin type.
It is important to understand the characteristics of various ingredients and match those to your patient’s skin type. The process of assessing the patient’s skin type can be long because you need to ask numerous historical questions (invariably including, "Do you get irritated from skin care products?" and "What happens if you do not use a moisturizer?"). Looking at a patient’s skin at one point in time is not as accurate as asking a series of questions about how their skin has behaved in the past under varying conditions. I use a validated questionnaire to streamline this process in my practice. The questionnaire takes 3 to 5 minutes, does not require a staff member, and is done on a tablet device in the waiting room or exam room.
• Properly identify the Baumann Skin Type using a validated questionnaire.
To determine a patient’s true skin type, a scientifically validated questionnaire is used to assess skin oiliness, dryness, sensitivity, uneven skin tone, and risk factors for wrinkles. When these parameters are combined, there are 16 possible Baumann Skin Types, which yield an accurate history of the patient’s skin characteristics.
• Choose products for each skin type.
There are many factors to consider in choosing what brands and SKUs (stock keeping units, in industry parlance, but particular products for our purposes) to use for each skin type. I use a brand-agnostic approach to choose the best technologies from various brands from around the world. I believe that brands often have a core competency, such as sunscreen technology, but that not all of the products in a particular line are superior. I select the best products (SKUs) from each brand, and combine and test them on various skin types to see which products and what combinations of products work best.
The following are the factors that I take into account when choosing SKUs for each Baumann Skin Type:
A. Importance of the ingredient recipe
Although the product label lists ingredients, it does not list the formulation’s recipe, which is proprietary and often patented. The "recipe" includes the order that ingredients are added in the process, the pH, the amount of each ingredient, the temperature at which the ingredient is added, and many other important factors that determine the final chemistry. Ingredients like vitamin C, green tea, and argan oil are expensive when formulated properly. Many copycat brands, such as the Walgreens and CVS knockoffs, use the same ingredients. However, they cannot use the patented recipe, and therefore their end product is different.
B. Manufacturing and packaging process
How a product is made and packaged is crucial. For example, retinol breaks down when exposed to light and air. I once visited a manufacturing plant that was stirring its "antiaging" retinol preparation in open vats. The retinol was losing its activity, which is why the product was "less irritating." The process of packaging the completed product is also important. In some cases the product is formulated in one place and shipped to another location for final packaging – and several ingredients can lose their potency during transit. Finally, the container that the product is packaged in is important. Air and light can get into tubes, affecting the efficacy of a product.
C. Ingredient interactions
The order of application and the combination of ingredients affect stability, efficacy, safety, and the chemical structure. Master formulators understand that every ingredient in the formulation matters, and there is really no such thing as an inactive ingredient. Ingredients can affect penetration and render other ingredients more or less effective depending on the order in which the ingredients are used on the skin. For example, olive oil actually increases penetration of other ingredients because it has a high content of oleic acid, while safflower oil can decrease penetration by strengthening the skin barrier.
• Design the regimen and order of application of products.
Once you have determined your patient’s skin type and matched the proper products to their skin type, you must tell them exactly how to apply them. The order in which products are applied makes a difference. Consider ingredient interactions, ingredient penetration times, and cross-reactions, plus skin type factors such as the condition of the skin barrier, sebum production, thickness of the stratum corneum, sun exposure, and bathing habits. I recommend providing a printed regimen with step-by-step instructions for morning and night.
• Educate patients.
Take the time to educate your patients on their skin issues. If you explain why you chose each product and why the particular ingredients are important, they are more likely to be compliant and get better results (and return to you for product recommendations and repurchases). Because we do not have the time to sit and explain all of these issues to each patient, we use educational newsletters that we send to patients based on their Baumann Skin Type. This helps keep them engaged and educates them about new technologies and products that are appropriate for their skin type.
• Encourage compliance.
Schedule a follow-up visit after 1 month to check on their progress and ensure compliance, and emphasize the importance of this visit. If you prescribed a retinoid, patients may experience irritation and stop using it. If you have an imaging system, baseline and follow-up photos help illustrate patients’ progress and keep them vigilant. Four weeks is a good time frame because patients tend to lose interest at that point.
• Sell skin care products in your practice.
I was against selling skin care products for ethical reasons for several years. However, in 2005, I surveyed my patients, and 100% of them wanted me to sell products so that they could feel sure that they were purchasing the right products for their needs. In fact, my patients appreciate expert medical advice on skin care. As a practitioner, you can make more educated choices about skin care products and help them avoid products that don’t work or cause harm.
• Contact me for more information.
In order to improve patient outcomes, you must ensure that you stay current on skin care science so your patients can benefit from your expertise. I recognize that not everyone has the time and inclination to stay current on the various skin care ingredients, products, and brands. Several of my dermatology friends have adopted my skin typing system in their practices and, in the process, observed better patient outcomes and increased profitability, while reducing the burden on their staff. These successes led to the development of an in-office store system utilizing my concept, which I am offering only to dermatologists. Feel free to email me at [email protected], or visit STSFranchise.com, if you want to learn more.
• Look for this column each month.
I will be sharing more advice on in-office skin care retail and will continue my review of new cosmeceutical ingredients. Let’s work together to put skin care back in the hands of dermatologists.
Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in Miami Beach. She founded the cosmetic dermatology center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook "Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice" (McGraw-Hill, April 2002), and a book for consumers, "The Skin Type Solution" (Bantam, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Skin & Allergy News since January 2001. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Galderma, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Stiefel, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.
Rocker bottom shoes for chronic back pain
Back pain is a primary complaint of many of the patients we see and, seemingly, a secondary complaint of almost all. Exercise training to strengthen spine muscles is effective, but patients either do not attend referrals to therapy or are not compliant with prescribed regimens. An ideal treatment would be involuntary therapy occurring at all times of the day. But does such a magical therapy exist?
Indeed, it does. They are called unstable shoes or, perhaps less disconcertingly, rocker bottom shoes. They are also referred to as round bottom shoes, rounded shoes, or toning shoes.
Unstable shoes incorporate a rounded sole to increase anterior-posterior instability. Masai Barefoot Technology (MBT) has been advocating their use since the 1990s to reduce low back pain. The owners of MBT went out of business, and the future of this particular brand is uncertain, but many other brands offer this design. Studies have shown that they increase activity of ankle muscles and low back muscles and modify posture during standing and walking.
In a recently published clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of unstable shoes, 40 hospital workers with chronic low back pain were randomized to unstable shoes or conventional sports shoes. Participants were instructed to start using the shoes 2 hours per day and increasing use by 1 hour every day. After 1 week, participants were asked to wear the shoes for a minimum of 6 hours a day during their time spent at work.
Unstable shoes were associated with a significant reduction in pain during walking. Satisfaction with pain management and the number of responders was greater in the unstable shoe group. However, the intervention had no effect on functional disability or quality of life.
This was a short trial (6 weeks). But this information will inform the discussion about the efficacy of these shoes, which are neither uniformly embraced nor recommended. Some discretionary caution should be exercised when considering these shoes for patients with hip or knee instability, Achilles tendon or heel problems, and gait unsteadiness as they might increase the risk for falls. But it is yet another arrow in the quiver to help combat chronic low back pain.
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. He reports no disclosures. 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.
Back pain is a primary complaint of many of the patients we see and, seemingly, a secondary complaint of almost all. Exercise training to strengthen spine muscles is effective, but patients either do not attend referrals to therapy or are not compliant with prescribed regimens. An ideal treatment would be involuntary therapy occurring at all times of the day. But does such a magical therapy exist?
Indeed, it does. They are called unstable shoes or, perhaps less disconcertingly, rocker bottom shoes. They are also referred to as round bottom shoes, rounded shoes, or toning shoes.
Unstable shoes incorporate a rounded sole to increase anterior-posterior instability. Masai Barefoot Technology (MBT) has been advocating their use since the 1990s to reduce low back pain. The owners of MBT went out of business, and the future of this particular brand is uncertain, but many other brands offer this design. Studies have shown that they increase activity of ankle muscles and low back muscles and modify posture during standing and walking.
In a recently published clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of unstable shoes, 40 hospital workers with chronic low back pain were randomized to unstable shoes or conventional sports shoes. Participants were instructed to start using the shoes 2 hours per day and increasing use by 1 hour every day. After 1 week, participants were asked to wear the shoes for a minimum of 6 hours a day during their time spent at work.
Unstable shoes were associated with a significant reduction in pain during walking. Satisfaction with pain management and the number of responders was greater in the unstable shoe group. However, the intervention had no effect on functional disability or quality of life.
This was a short trial (6 weeks). But this information will inform the discussion about the efficacy of these shoes, which are neither uniformly embraced nor recommended. Some discretionary caution should be exercised when considering these shoes for patients with hip or knee instability, Achilles tendon or heel problems, and gait unsteadiness as they might increase the risk for falls. But it is yet another arrow in the quiver to help combat chronic low back pain.
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. He reports no disclosures. 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.
Back pain is a primary complaint of many of the patients we see and, seemingly, a secondary complaint of almost all. Exercise training to strengthen spine muscles is effective, but patients either do not attend referrals to therapy or are not compliant with prescribed regimens. An ideal treatment would be involuntary therapy occurring at all times of the day. But does such a magical therapy exist?
Indeed, it does. They are called unstable shoes or, perhaps less disconcertingly, rocker bottom shoes. They are also referred to as round bottom shoes, rounded shoes, or toning shoes.
Unstable shoes incorporate a rounded sole to increase anterior-posterior instability. Masai Barefoot Technology (MBT) has been advocating their use since the 1990s to reduce low back pain. The owners of MBT went out of business, and the future of this particular brand is uncertain, but many other brands offer this design. Studies have shown that they increase activity of ankle muscles and low back muscles and modify posture during standing and walking.
In a recently published clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of unstable shoes, 40 hospital workers with chronic low back pain were randomized to unstable shoes or conventional sports shoes. Participants were instructed to start using the shoes 2 hours per day and increasing use by 1 hour every day. After 1 week, participants were asked to wear the shoes for a minimum of 6 hours a day during their time spent at work.
Unstable shoes were associated with a significant reduction in pain during walking. Satisfaction with pain management and the number of responders was greater in the unstable shoe group. However, the intervention had no effect on functional disability or quality of life.
This was a short trial (6 weeks). But this information will inform the discussion about the efficacy of these shoes, which are neither uniformly embraced nor recommended. Some discretionary caution should be exercised when considering these shoes for patients with hip or knee instability, Achilles tendon or heel problems, and gait unsteadiness as they might increase the risk for falls. But it is yet another arrow in the quiver to help combat chronic low back pain.
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. He reports no disclosures. 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.
HIPAA: One last deadline looms
Last July, I summarized the significant changes in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). With the last of the deadlines mandated by those changes fast approaching, and a significant enforcement action levied against a dermatology group in the interim, an update is warranted.
The deadline is Sept. 23; by then, all of your business associate (BA) agreements must be modified to reflect the new privacy rules. A recent enforcement action involved a Massachusetts dermatology group that was hit with a substantial fine for violating one of those rules, sending a clear signal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and its enforcer, the Office for Civil Rights, that these tighter regulations cannot be taken lightly.
The criteria for identifying BAs remain the same: Nonemployees, performing "functions or activities" on behalf of the "covered entity" (your practice), that involve "creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting" personal health information (PHI).
Typical BAs include answering and billing services, independent transcriptionists, hardware and software companies, and any other vendors involved in creating or maintaining your medical records. Practice management consultants, attorneys, companies that store or microfilm medical records, and record-shredding services are BAs if they must have direct access to PHI in order to do their jobs.
Mail carriers, package delivery people, cleaning services, copier repairmen, bank employees, and the like are not considered BAs, even though they might conceivably come in contact with PHI on occasion. You are required to use "reasonable diligence" in limiting the PHI that these folks may encounter, but you do not need to enter into written BA agreements with them.
Independent contractors who work within your practice – aestheticians and physical therapists, for example – are not considered BAs either, and do not need to sign a BA agreement; just train them, as you do your employees. (More on HIPAA and OSHA training soon.)
What is new is the additional onus placed on physicians for confidentiality breaches committed by their BAs. It’s not enough to simply have a BA contract; you are expected to use "reasonable diligence" in monitoring the work of your BAs. BAs and their subcontractors are directly responsible for their own actions, but the primary responsibility is yours. Furthermore, you must now assume the worst-case scenario. Previously, when PHI was compromised, you would only have to notify affected patients (and the government) if there was a "significant risk of financial or reputational harm," but now, any incident involving patient records is assumed to be a breach, and must be reported.
Failure to report could subject your practice, as well as the contractor, to significant fines. That is where the Massachusetts group had trouble: It lost a thumb drive containing unencrypted PHI, and was forced to pay a $150,000 fine early this year as a result. There is no excuse for not encrypting HIPAA-protected information; encryption software is cheap, readily available, and easy to use. Had the drive lost in Massachusetts been encrypted, according to the CMS, the incident would not have been considered a breach, because its contents would not have been viewable by the finder. Stay tuned for a list of popular encryption programs. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or product that I mention in this column.)
Patients have new rights under the new rules as well; they may now restrict any PHI shared with third-party insurers and health plans, if they pay for the services themselves. They also have the right to request copies of their electronic health records. You can bill the costs of responding to such requests. If you have EHRs, work out a system for doing this, because the response time has been decreased from 90 days to 30 – and is even shorter in some states.
If you haven’t yet revised your Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) to explain your relationships with BAs, and their status under the new rules, do it now. You need to explain the breach notification process, as well as the new patient rights mentioned above. You must post your revised NPP in your office, and make copies available there; but you need not mail a copy to every patient.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News.
Last July, I summarized the significant changes in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). With the last of the deadlines mandated by those changes fast approaching, and a significant enforcement action levied against a dermatology group in the interim, an update is warranted.
The deadline is Sept. 23; by then, all of your business associate (BA) agreements must be modified to reflect the new privacy rules. A recent enforcement action involved a Massachusetts dermatology group that was hit with a substantial fine for violating one of those rules, sending a clear signal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and its enforcer, the Office for Civil Rights, that these tighter regulations cannot be taken lightly.
The criteria for identifying BAs remain the same: Nonemployees, performing "functions or activities" on behalf of the "covered entity" (your practice), that involve "creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting" personal health information (PHI).
Typical BAs include answering and billing services, independent transcriptionists, hardware and software companies, and any other vendors involved in creating or maintaining your medical records. Practice management consultants, attorneys, companies that store or microfilm medical records, and record-shredding services are BAs if they must have direct access to PHI in order to do their jobs.
Mail carriers, package delivery people, cleaning services, copier repairmen, bank employees, and the like are not considered BAs, even though they might conceivably come in contact with PHI on occasion. You are required to use "reasonable diligence" in limiting the PHI that these folks may encounter, but you do not need to enter into written BA agreements with them.
Independent contractors who work within your practice – aestheticians and physical therapists, for example – are not considered BAs either, and do not need to sign a BA agreement; just train them, as you do your employees. (More on HIPAA and OSHA training soon.)
What is new is the additional onus placed on physicians for confidentiality breaches committed by their BAs. It’s not enough to simply have a BA contract; you are expected to use "reasonable diligence" in monitoring the work of your BAs. BAs and their subcontractors are directly responsible for their own actions, but the primary responsibility is yours. Furthermore, you must now assume the worst-case scenario. Previously, when PHI was compromised, you would only have to notify affected patients (and the government) if there was a "significant risk of financial or reputational harm," but now, any incident involving patient records is assumed to be a breach, and must be reported.
Failure to report could subject your practice, as well as the contractor, to significant fines. That is where the Massachusetts group had trouble: It lost a thumb drive containing unencrypted PHI, and was forced to pay a $150,000 fine early this year as a result. There is no excuse for not encrypting HIPAA-protected information; encryption software is cheap, readily available, and easy to use. Had the drive lost in Massachusetts been encrypted, according to the CMS, the incident would not have been considered a breach, because its contents would not have been viewable by the finder. Stay tuned for a list of popular encryption programs. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or product that I mention in this column.)
Patients have new rights under the new rules as well; they may now restrict any PHI shared with third-party insurers and health plans, if they pay for the services themselves. They also have the right to request copies of their electronic health records. You can bill the costs of responding to such requests. If you have EHRs, work out a system for doing this, because the response time has been decreased from 90 days to 30 – and is even shorter in some states.
If you haven’t yet revised your Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) to explain your relationships with BAs, and their status under the new rules, do it now. You need to explain the breach notification process, as well as the new patient rights mentioned above. You must post your revised NPP in your office, and make copies available there; but you need not mail a copy to every patient.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News.
Last July, I summarized the significant changes in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). With the last of the deadlines mandated by those changes fast approaching, and a significant enforcement action levied against a dermatology group in the interim, an update is warranted.
The deadline is Sept. 23; by then, all of your business associate (BA) agreements must be modified to reflect the new privacy rules. A recent enforcement action involved a Massachusetts dermatology group that was hit with a substantial fine for violating one of those rules, sending a clear signal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and its enforcer, the Office for Civil Rights, that these tighter regulations cannot be taken lightly.
The criteria for identifying BAs remain the same: Nonemployees, performing "functions or activities" on behalf of the "covered entity" (your practice), that involve "creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting" personal health information (PHI).
Typical BAs include answering and billing services, independent transcriptionists, hardware and software companies, and any other vendors involved in creating or maintaining your medical records. Practice management consultants, attorneys, companies that store or microfilm medical records, and record-shredding services are BAs if they must have direct access to PHI in order to do their jobs.
Mail carriers, package delivery people, cleaning services, copier repairmen, bank employees, and the like are not considered BAs, even though they might conceivably come in contact with PHI on occasion. You are required to use "reasonable diligence" in limiting the PHI that these folks may encounter, but you do not need to enter into written BA agreements with them.
Independent contractors who work within your practice – aestheticians and physical therapists, for example – are not considered BAs either, and do not need to sign a BA agreement; just train them, as you do your employees. (More on HIPAA and OSHA training soon.)
What is new is the additional onus placed on physicians for confidentiality breaches committed by their BAs. It’s not enough to simply have a BA contract; you are expected to use "reasonable diligence" in monitoring the work of your BAs. BAs and their subcontractors are directly responsible for their own actions, but the primary responsibility is yours. Furthermore, you must now assume the worst-case scenario. Previously, when PHI was compromised, you would only have to notify affected patients (and the government) if there was a "significant risk of financial or reputational harm," but now, any incident involving patient records is assumed to be a breach, and must be reported.
Failure to report could subject your practice, as well as the contractor, to significant fines. That is where the Massachusetts group had trouble: It lost a thumb drive containing unencrypted PHI, and was forced to pay a $150,000 fine early this year as a result. There is no excuse for not encrypting HIPAA-protected information; encryption software is cheap, readily available, and easy to use. Had the drive lost in Massachusetts been encrypted, according to the CMS, the incident would not have been considered a breach, because its contents would not have been viewable by the finder. Stay tuned for a list of popular encryption programs. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or product that I mention in this column.)
Patients have new rights under the new rules as well; they may now restrict any PHI shared with third-party insurers and health plans, if they pay for the services themselves. They also have the right to request copies of their electronic health records. You can bill the costs of responding to such requests. If you have EHRs, work out a system for doing this, because the response time has been decreased from 90 days to 30 – and is even shorter in some states.
If you haven’t yet revised your Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) to explain your relationships with BAs, and their status under the new rules, do it now. You need to explain the breach notification process, as well as the new patient rights mentioned above. You must post your revised NPP in your office, and make copies available there; but you need not mail a copy to every patient.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News.
The quality of discharge summaries has declined
Discharge summaries have become my pet peeve recently.
It’s not uncommon for a patient to be referred to me for outpatient follow-up, or for one of my own patients to be treated where I’m not on staff and then sent back to me afterward. When that occurs, I used to get a copy of the discharge summary to get an idea of what happened. (Note the "used to.") I certainly wouldn’t rely on it entirely, but it was helpful. Not anymore.
The modern discharge summary is worthless and sometimes downright dangerous. It’s often nonspecific and typically full of errors. Not minor errors, either, but big ones. I commonly see patients listed as having had procedures they didn’t undergo, test results that were someone else’s, and diagnoses and medications that aren’t even close.
Here’s a recent example (I’ve removed some information, but this is the basic idea): "The patient was admitted for dizziness. She was seen by neurology and had a brain MRI and labs. Discharge diagnosis is dizziness. Her medications were not changed."
That was it – a few sentences in one paragraph.
How much valuable information did you get from that? Absolutely none. All I see is that I need to get the MRI report and/or films, and possibly the other neurologist’s notes.
In years past, the summary was done by the patient’s own physician, who knew he or she would be referring to it in a few weeks when the patient came in for follow-up. So there was a vested interest in it being thorough and useful.
But today the reports are typically dictated by hospitalists. They may provide good care, but it’s often the case that they just picked up the patient for the first time. They likely have 18 other people to see, five admissions, and three discharge summaries to do and don’t have the time to do more than glance through the H&P and last few scribbled notes. As the day goes on, patients also tend to blur together, causing more errors.
The hospitalists simply don’t know patients as well as do the outpatient physicians who have been seeing them for years, and so fewer errors will be caught. I admit I’m guilty of turning some of my own patients over to inpatient physicians. All of us are busy. And I’m not knocking hospitalists, who do an often difficult part of medicine. But the loss of communication between these two branches of medicine is a sad loss for all of us – especially for our patients.
Perhaps the most irritating part is the generic statement I see at the bottom of many summaries: "This discharge summary may contain errors and omissions. Please refer to the full chart for complete information." This, sadly, is an admission that the document is worthless (which I doubt will stand up in court). I don’t often have access to the full chart, or time to comb through it in detail, when the patient comes in. Although I wouldn’t put all my faith in the summary, it’s nice when it give me a general idea of what I’m dealing with.
Once, a discharge summary was something useful – a succinct statement of events for the next doctor to use for guidance. Today, it’s become the kitchen mess piled up after a party. No one wants to do it, so a hurried, sloppy job is done, making more work for everyone else later.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Discharge summaries have become my pet peeve recently.
It’s not uncommon for a patient to be referred to me for outpatient follow-up, or for one of my own patients to be treated where I’m not on staff and then sent back to me afterward. When that occurs, I used to get a copy of the discharge summary to get an idea of what happened. (Note the "used to.") I certainly wouldn’t rely on it entirely, but it was helpful. Not anymore.
The modern discharge summary is worthless and sometimes downright dangerous. It’s often nonspecific and typically full of errors. Not minor errors, either, but big ones. I commonly see patients listed as having had procedures they didn’t undergo, test results that were someone else’s, and diagnoses and medications that aren’t even close.
Here’s a recent example (I’ve removed some information, but this is the basic idea): "The patient was admitted for dizziness. She was seen by neurology and had a brain MRI and labs. Discharge diagnosis is dizziness. Her medications were not changed."
That was it – a few sentences in one paragraph.
How much valuable information did you get from that? Absolutely none. All I see is that I need to get the MRI report and/or films, and possibly the other neurologist’s notes.
In years past, the summary was done by the patient’s own physician, who knew he or she would be referring to it in a few weeks when the patient came in for follow-up. So there was a vested interest in it being thorough and useful.
But today the reports are typically dictated by hospitalists. They may provide good care, but it’s often the case that they just picked up the patient for the first time. They likely have 18 other people to see, five admissions, and three discharge summaries to do and don’t have the time to do more than glance through the H&P and last few scribbled notes. As the day goes on, patients also tend to blur together, causing more errors.
The hospitalists simply don’t know patients as well as do the outpatient physicians who have been seeing them for years, and so fewer errors will be caught. I admit I’m guilty of turning some of my own patients over to inpatient physicians. All of us are busy. And I’m not knocking hospitalists, who do an often difficult part of medicine. But the loss of communication between these two branches of medicine is a sad loss for all of us – especially for our patients.
Perhaps the most irritating part is the generic statement I see at the bottom of many summaries: "This discharge summary may contain errors and omissions. Please refer to the full chart for complete information." This, sadly, is an admission that the document is worthless (which I doubt will stand up in court). I don’t often have access to the full chart, or time to comb through it in detail, when the patient comes in. Although I wouldn’t put all my faith in the summary, it’s nice when it give me a general idea of what I’m dealing with.
Once, a discharge summary was something useful – a succinct statement of events for the next doctor to use for guidance. Today, it’s become the kitchen mess piled up after a party. No one wants to do it, so a hurried, sloppy job is done, making more work for everyone else later.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Discharge summaries have become my pet peeve recently.
It’s not uncommon for a patient to be referred to me for outpatient follow-up, or for one of my own patients to be treated where I’m not on staff and then sent back to me afterward. When that occurs, I used to get a copy of the discharge summary to get an idea of what happened. (Note the "used to.") I certainly wouldn’t rely on it entirely, but it was helpful. Not anymore.
The modern discharge summary is worthless and sometimes downright dangerous. It’s often nonspecific and typically full of errors. Not minor errors, either, but big ones. I commonly see patients listed as having had procedures they didn’t undergo, test results that were someone else’s, and diagnoses and medications that aren’t even close.
Here’s a recent example (I’ve removed some information, but this is the basic idea): "The patient was admitted for dizziness. She was seen by neurology and had a brain MRI and labs. Discharge diagnosis is dizziness. Her medications were not changed."
That was it – a few sentences in one paragraph.
How much valuable information did you get from that? Absolutely none. All I see is that I need to get the MRI report and/or films, and possibly the other neurologist’s notes.
In years past, the summary was done by the patient’s own physician, who knew he or she would be referring to it in a few weeks when the patient came in for follow-up. So there was a vested interest in it being thorough and useful.
But today the reports are typically dictated by hospitalists. They may provide good care, but it’s often the case that they just picked up the patient for the first time. They likely have 18 other people to see, five admissions, and three discharge summaries to do and don’t have the time to do more than glance through the H&P and last few scribbled notes. As the day goes on, patients also tend to blur together, causing more errors.
The hospitalists simply don’t know patients as well as do the outpatient physicians who have been seeing them for years, and so fewer errors will be caught. I admit I’m guilty of turning some of my own patients over to inpatient physicians. All of us are busy. And I’m not knocking hospitalists, who do an often difficult part of medicine. But the loss of communication between these two branches of medicine is a sad loss for all of us – especially for our patients.
Perhaps the most irritating part is the generic statement I see at the bottom of many summaries: "This discharge summary may contain errors and omissions. Please refer to the full chart for complete information." This, sadly, is an admission that the document is worthless (which I doubt will stand up in court). I don’t often have access to the full chart, or time to comb through it in detail, when the patient comes in. Although I wouldn’t put all my faith in the summary, it’s nice when it give me a general idea of what I’m dealing with.
Once, a discharge summary was something useful – a succinct statement of events for the next doctor to use for guidance. Today, it’s become the kitchen mess piled up after a party. No one wants to do it, so a hurried, sloppy job is done, making more work for everyone else later.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The hospital discharge process: Call for technology’s help
While being discharged from the hospital even after a minor procedure is not simple, the process for a patient with comorbidities after a prolonged stay is daunting.
Physicians from multiple specialties, various nonphysician providers, the social worker, and the case manager all address different discharge-related issues. It is frustrating for both a provider and patient to experience the "I really can’t answer that question" moment. Lack of interdisciplinary communication may lead to medical errors and either premature or delayed discharges.
The date of discharge is estimated soon after admission. Some hospitals have a focus on the clock when planning discharges. If planning occurs too early, it does not account for changes in patient needs and wrong instructions might be given. Transportation and home-aide needs are time sensitive.
In contrast, some planning does need to be considered early in the admission when discharge to a non-acute care facility is obvious due to the diagnosis and/or social situation of the patient.
One study from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital identified seven clinical factors predicting hospital readmission: a hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL on discharge, discharge from an oncology service, low serum sodium level on discharge, a procedure (via ICD-9 standards) during admission, nonelective admission, length of stay greater than 4 days, and number of admissions during the previous year (JAMA Intern. Med. 2013;173:632-8).
Another study examined many predictive models found in the literature.
The researchers found that "of 7,843 citations reviewed, 30 studies of 26 unique models met the inclusion criteria. The most common outcome used was 30-day readmission; only 1 model specifically addressed preventable readmissions. Fourteen models that relied on retrospective administrative data could be potentially used to risk-adjust readmission rates for hospital comparison; of these, 9 were tested in large U.S. populations and had poor discriminative ability. ... Seven models could potentially be used to identify high-risk patients for intervention early during a hospitalization, ... and 5 could be used at hospital discharge" (JAMA 2011;306:1688-98).
The authors concluded that most prediction models perform poorly or require improvement. Perhaps one reason for this result lies in the fact that these models traditionally are either clinical or administrative. I believe a better approach is to combine administrative and clinical predictive models. Better analytics programs applied real-time in the electronic health record (EHR) will facilitate integration of these perspectives.
The topic of transitional care has received attention because a poor discharge process results in higher readmission rates, a new benchmark focus of Medicare (Am. J. Nurs. 2008;108:58-63). Hospitals might be very good at meeting regulatory requirements, but the patient’s understanding of diagnoses and instructions is often unclear. Though required by regulations, the caregiver may not even be included in the process. Technology can help in this situation. Some of possibilities mentioned below might not be available in the context described.
• Durable equipment needs. The care coordinator is generally the point person regarding the patient’s durable equipment needs upon discharge. Ordering the equipment (specifications as well as date, time, and place of delivery) might be the job of someone else, such as a therapist or physician. Digital tools can expedite equipment procurement. Analytics from the EHR (mining diagnoses, equipment in use at the end of the hospitalization, expected place of transition, etc.) might determine the individual’s ambulation, oxygen, bed, or other equipment requirements. This can act as a preliminary checklist for the coordinator, doing away with the need to personally go through the EHR or surveying providers. A digital ordering program can directly interact with the distributor to check product availability and verify delivery. Another useful tool would aggregate equipment distributors, which are stratified according to certification (Medicare bidding approval status), lowest price, and best-rated service.
• Visiting nurses. Often the home-needs assessment for visiting nurses is done once the patient is discharged. This can be expedited with the help of a caregiver, with the assessment completed in the hospital. Consider a tool into which the physician’s orders or recommendations for home nursing are placed and shared with the visiting nurse entity, the patient, and the caregiver. It would include the nursing assessment as well as a video of the home environment (a factor in the assessment itself). This would obviate the need for a dedicated assessment visit. Visiting nurses themselves should be equipped with mobile technology to document their time schedule for billing, to record interventions, and to record and transmit vital signs (measured via digital remote monitors) and orders; the technology also should contain a digital messaging program.
• Scheduling of outpatient provider appointments. Evidence suggests that in a general medical population, early follow-up appointments do not affect readmission rates (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170:955-60). However, some patients, including those with heart failure have been shown to benefit from early follow-up (JAMA 2010;303:1716-22). The success of a growing number of commercially available mobile apps intended to streamline scheduling of physician appointments is testimony to this need in the nonacute setting. Patient portal use is a requirement of Meaningful Use Stage 2. One way of encouraging patient participation in portal use would be activating it by utilizing a discharge planning scheduling application of the portal at the time of discharge. This also fits into an overall strategy of point of engagement implementation of technology.
These are only a few highlights of the complexity of the discharge process. All physicians have dealt with the many questions, complications, and frustration experienced by patients after discharge. A failed process creates unnecessary work, expense, and bad outcomes.
To many physicians, digital health technology is represented by the EHR in its present form, which is not what the doctor ordered. It is not intuitive, it is cumbersome, and it encourages impersonal encounters with patients. I will explore in future posts how digital technologies other than the EHR will change medicine in ways that physicians will appreciate.
Dr. Scher, a practicing cardiac electrophysiologist in Lancaster, Pa., is director at DLS Healthcare Consulting, advising technology companies and health care enterprises on development and adoption of mobile health technologies.
While being discharged from the hospital even after a minor procedure is not simple, the process for a patient with comorbidities after a prolonged stay is daunting.
Physicians from multiple specialties, various nonphysician providers, the social worker, and the case manager all address different discharge-related issues. It is frustrating for both a provider and patient to experience the "I really can’t answer that question" moment. Lack of interdisciplinary communication may lead to medical errors and either premature or delayed discharges.
The date of discharge is estimated soon after admission. Some hospitals have a focus on the clock when planning discharges. If planning occurs too early, it does not account for changes in patient needs and wrong instructions might be given. Transportation and home-aide needs are time sensitive.
In contrast, some planning does need to be considered early in the admission when discharge to a non-acute care facility is obvious due to the diagnosis and/or social situation of the patient.
One study from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital identified seven clinical factors predicting hospital readmission: a hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL on discharge, discharge from an oncology service, low serum sodium level on discharge, a procedure (via ICD-9 standards) during admission, nonelective admission, length of stay greater than 4 days, and number of admissions during the previous year (JAMA Intern. Med. 2013;173:632-8).
Another study examined many predictive models found in the literature.
The researchers found that "of 7,843 citations reviewed, 30 studies of 26 unique models met the inclusion criteria. The most common outcome used was 30-day readmission; only 1 model specifically addressed preventable readmissions. Fourteen models that relied on retrospective administrative data could be potentially used to risk-adjust readmission rates for hospital comparison; of these, 9 were tested in large U.S. populations and had poor discriminative ability. ... Seven models could potentially be used to identify high-risk patients for intervention early during a hospitalization, ... and 5 could be used at hospital discharge" (JAMA 2011;306:1688-98).
The authors concluded that most prediction models perform poorly or require improvement. Perhaps one reason for this result lies in the fact that these models traditionally are either clinical or administrative. I believe a better approach is to combine administrative and clinical predictive models. Better analytics programs applied real-time in the electronic health record (EHR) will facilitate integration of these perspectives.
The topic of transitional care has received attention because a poor discharge process results in higher readmission rates, a new benchmark focus of Medicare (Am. J. Nurs. 2008;108:58-63). Hospitals might be very good at meeting regulatory requirements, but the patient’s understanding of diagnoses and instructions is often unclear. Though required by regulations, the caregiver may not even be included in the process. Technology can help in this situation. Some of possibilities mentioned below might not be available in the context described.
• Durable equipment needs. The care coordinator is generally the point person regarding the patient’s durable equipment needs upon discharge. Ordering the equipment (specifications as well as date, time, and place of delivery) might be the job of someone else, such as a therapist or physician. Digital tools can expedite equipment procurement. Analytics from the EHR (mining diagnoses, equipment in use at the end of the hospitalization, expected place of transition, etc.) might determine the individual’s ambulation, oxygen, bed, or other equipment requirements. This can act as a preliminary checklist for the coordinator, doing away with the need to personally go through the EHR or surveying providers. A digital ordering program can directly interact with the distributor to check product availability and verify delivery. Another useful tool would aggregate equipment distributors, which are stratified according to certification (Medicare bidding approval status), lowest price, and best-rated service.
• Visiting nurses. Often the home-needs assessment for visiting nurses is done once the patient is discharged. This can be expedited with the help of a caregiver, with the assessment completed in the hospital. Consider a tool into which the physician’s orders or recommendations for home nursing are placed and shared with the visiting nurse entity, the patient, and the caregiver. It would include the nursing assessment as well as a video of the home environment (a factor in the assessment itself). This would obviate the need for a dedicated assessment visit. Visiting nurses themselves should be equipped with mobile technology to document their time schedule for billing, to record interventions, and to record and transmit vital signs (measured via digital remote monitors) and orders; the technology also should contain a digital messaging program.
• Scheduling of outpatient provider appointments. Evidence suggests that in a general medical population, early follow-up appointments do not affect readmission rates (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170:955-60). However, some patients, including those with heart failure have been shown to benefit from early follow-up (JAMA 2010;303:1716-22). The success of a growing number of commercially available mobile apps intended to streamline scheduling of physician appointments is testimony to this need in the nonacute setting. Patient portal use is a requirement of Meaningful Use Stage 2. One way of encouraging patient participation in portal use would be activating it by utilizing a discharge planning scheduling application of the portal at the time of discharge. This also fits into an overall strategy of point of engagement implementation of technology.
These are only a few highlights of the complexity of the discharge process. All physicians have dealt with the many questions, complications, and frustration experienced by patients after discharge. A failed process creates unnecessary work, expense, and bad outcomes.
To many physicians, digital health technology is represented by the EHR in its present form, which is not what the doctor ordered. It is not intuitive, it is cumbersome, and it encourages impersonal encounters with patients. I will explore in future posts how digital technologies other than the EHR will change medicine in ways that physicians will appreciate.
Dr. Scher, a practicing cardiac electrophysiologist in Lancaster, Pa., is director at DLS Healthcare Consulting, advising technology companies and health care enterprises on development and adoption of mobile health technologies.
While being discharged from the hospital even after a minor procedure is not simple, the process for a patient with comorbidities after a prolonged stay is daunting.
Physicians from multiple specialties, various nonphysician providers, the social worker, and the case manager all address different discharge-related issues. It is frustrating for both a provider and patient to experience the "I really can’t answer that question" moment. Lack of interdisciplinary communication may lead to medical errors and either premature or delayed discharges.
The date of discharge is estimated soon after admission. Some hospitals have a focus on the clock when planning discharges. If planning occurs too early, it does not account for changes in patient needs and wrong instructions might be given. Transportation and home-aide needs are time sensitive.
In contrast, some planning does need to be considered early in the admission when discharge to a non-acute care facility is obvious due to the diagnosis and/or social situation of the patient.
One study from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital identified seven clinical factors predicting hospital readmission: a hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL on discharge, discharge from an oncology service, low serum sodium level on discharge, a procedure (via ICD-9 standards) during admission, nonelective admission, length of stay greater than 4 days, and number of admissions during the previous year (JAMA Intern. Med. 2013;173:632-8).
Another study examined many predictive models found in the literature.
The researchers found that "of 7,843 citations reviewed, 30 studies of 26 unique models met the inclusion criteria. The most common outcome used was 30-day readmission; only 1 model specifically addressed preventable readmissions. Fourteen models that relied on retrospective administrative data could be potentially used to risk-adjust readmission rates for hospital comparison; of these, 9 were tested in large U.S. populations and had poor discriminative ability. ... Seven models could potentially be used to identify high-risk patients for intervention early during a hospitalization, ... and 5 could be used at hospital discharge" (JAMA 2011;306:1688-98).
The authors concluded that most prediction models perform poorly or require improvement. Perhaps one reason for this result lies in the fact that these models traditionally are either clinical or administrative. I believe a better approach is to combine administrative and clinical predictive models. Better analytics programs applied real-time in the electronic health record (EHR) will facilitate integration of these perspectives.
The topic of transitional care has received attention because a poor discharge process results in higher readmission rates, a new benchmark focus of Medicare (Am. J. Nurs. 2008;108:58-63). Hospitals might be very good at meeting regulatory requirements, but the patient’s understanding of diagnoses and instructions is often unclear. Though required by regulations, the caregiver may not even be included in the process. Technology can help in this situation. Some of possibilities mentioned below might not be available in the context described.
• Durable equipment needs. The care coordinator is generally the point person regarding the patient’s durable equipment needs upon discharge. Ordering the equipment (specifications as well as date, time, and place of delivery) might be the job of someone else, such as a therapist or physician. Digital tools can expedite equipment procurement. Analytics from the EHR (mining diagnoses, equipment in use at the end of the hospitalization, expected place of transition, etc.) might determine the individual’s ambulation, oxygen, bed, or other equipment requirements. This can act as a preliminary checklist for the coordinator, doing away with the need to personally go through the EHR or surveying providers. A digital ordering program can directly interact with the distributor to check product availability and verify delivery. Another useful tool would aggregate equipment distributors, which are stratified according to certification (Medicare bidding approval status), lowest price, and best-rated service.
• Visiting nurses. Often the home-needs assessment for visiting nurses is done once the patient is discharged. This can be expedited with the help of a caregiver, with the assessment completed in the hospital. Consider a tool into which the physician’s orders or recommendations for home nursing are placed and shared with the visiting nurse entity, the patient, and the caregiver. It would include the nursing assessment as well as a video of the home environment (a factor in the assessment itself). This would obviate the need for a dedicated assessment visit. Visiting nurses themselves should be equipped with mobile technology to document their time schedule for billing, to record interventions, and to record and transmit vital signs (measured via digital remote monitors) and orders; the technology also should contain a digital messaging program.
• Scheduling of outpatient provider appointments. Evidence suggests that in a general medical population, early follow-up appointments do not affect readmission rates (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170:955-60). However, some patients, including those with heart failure have been shown to benefit from early follow-up (JAMA 2010;303:1716-22). The success of a growing number of commercially available mobile apps intended to streamline scheduling of physician appointments is testimony to this need in the nonacute setting. Patient portal use is a requirement of Meaningful Use Stage 2. One way of encouraging patient participation in portal use would be activating it by utilizing a discharge planning scheduling application of the portal at the time of discharge. This also fits into an overall strategy of point of engagement implementation of technology.
These are only a few highlights of the complexity of the discharge process. All physicians have dealt with the many questions, complications, and frustration experienced by patients after discharge. A failed process creates unnecessary work, expense, and bad outcomes.
To many physicians, digital health technology is represented by the EHR in its present form, which is not what the doctor ordered. It is not intuitive, it is cumbersome, and it encourages impersonal encounters with patients. I will explore in future posts how digital technologies other than the EHR will change medicine in ways that physicians will appreciate.
Dr. Scher, a practicing cardiac electrophysiologist in Lancaster, Pa., is director at DLS Healthcare Consulting, advising technology companies and health care enterprises on development and adoption of mobile health technologies.
IIb or not IIb?
I must admit that Shakespeare was not one of my favorite subjects at school. However, his words have relevance to some of my thoughts about vascular surgical issues. In a previous editorial I adopted his words to describe how, with the increasing representation of women and minorities, we have matured from a "Band of Brothers" to a "Band of Brothers and Sisters." Now, Shakespeare once again resonates with Hamlet’s inward-looking and existential "To be or not to be?"
For vascular surgeons are in an introspective mood as we re-evaluate our collaboration with other specialties to determine the best treatments for our patients. Increasingly we are developing our own guidelines, white papers, and position papers rather than appending our insights to initiatives originated by the American College of Cardiology. Whereas we were fundamental in the formation of the original "Trans-Atlantic Societal Consensus (TASC)1," SVS as well as the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) and the World Federation of Vascular Societies (WFVS) have declined participation in further TASC iterations.
The fracturing of TASC began with controversy and strong differences of opinions raised by TASC IIb. Fundamental issues of process, governance, conflict of interest (COI), evidence base, and appropriate representation were raised and debated. In the end the SVS and other international vascular societies determined the TASC construct was not workable, and a new Global Vascular Guidelines initiative was born.
Under the co-leadership of Mike Conte (SVS), Andrew Bradbury (WFVS), and Philippe Kolh (ESVS), our surgical societies are developing practice guidelines reflecting the international consensus of vascular surgeons as well as other specialists directly involved in the care of vascular patients. This group is committed to an evidence-based approach and a strong COI policy that will hopefully insulate treatment algorithms from what many believed was the excessive influence of industry and "market forces" reflected in TASC IIb.
The proposed guidelines will no longer simply be lesion based. Rather, they will evaluate the patient and disease process, taking into account the potential benefit of both endo and open vascular procedures. It’s not that vascular surgeons are unsupportive of endo techniques. In fact many endo procedures have emerged from the inventive minds of vascular surgeons from all over the world. But only surgeons who can offer all treatment modalities can fully appreciate when an open procedure is still the best option, or that the disease process may be more benign than the planned treatment.
What we have gained and what have we lost by our withdrawal from communal involvement with other specialists is not altogether clear. Vascular surgeons have pioneered many of the major advances in our understanding and treatment of vascular diseases from the various bypass operations, through vascular lab testing to advances in endovascular therapy.
Nonetheless, we should not discount the contributions of our medical colleagues. Physicians from other disciplines pioneered endovascular therapies that many of our vascular surgeon predecessors claimed would never work. Medical management prevents thrombosis, keeps our patients alive and our bypasses and stents open. We must also acknowledge that there are many highly qualified physicians in other specialties who are equally devoted to improving the care of patients with vascular disease.
At present there are almost 5,000 U.S. vascular surgeons, and even more globally. Almost every developed nation has a vascular surgical society, and some even have a designated specialty of vascular surgery. Yet it seems we still do not have the numbers to be universally recognized for our expertise. However, our comprehensive training and knowledge have given us the self-assurance and confidence to claim that our specialty is uniquely qualified to take the leadership position in the management of vascular conditions.
So, "IIb, unquestionably, will not be" but, unlike Hamlet, we need not despair. TASC may have failed but we will not!
1) Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2007;33 Suppl 1:S1-75.
I must admit that Shakespeare was not one of my favorite subjects at school. However, his words have relevance to some of my thoughts about vascular surgical issues. In a previous editorial I adopted his words to describe how, with the increasing representation of women and minorities, we have matured from a "Band of Brothers" to a "Band of Brothers and Sisters." Now, Shakespeare once again resonates with Hamlet’s inward-looking and existential "To be or not to be?"
For vascular surgeons are in an introspective mood as we re-evaluate our collaboration with other specialties to determine the best treatments for our patients. Increasingly we are developing our own guidelines, white papers, and position papers rather than appending our insights to initiatives originated by the American College of Cardiology. Whereas we were fundamental in the formation of the original "Trans-Atlantic Societal Consensus (TASC)1," SVS as well as the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) and the World Federation of Vascular Societies (WFVS) have declined participation in further TASC iterations.
The fracturing of TASC began with controversy and strong differences of opinions raised by TASC IIb. Fundamental issues of process, governance, conflict of interest (COI), evidence base, and appropriate representation were raised and debated. In the end the SVS and other international vascular societies determined the TASC construct was not workable, and a new Global Vascular Guidelines initiative was born.
Under the co-leadership of Mike Conte (SVS), Andrew Bradbury (WFVS), and Philippe Kolh (ESVS), our surgical societies are developing practice guidelines reflecting the international consensus of vascular surgeons as well as other specialists directly involved in the care of vascular patients. This group is committed to an evidence-based approach and a strong COI policy that will hopefully insulate treatment algorithms from what many believed was the excessive influence of industry and "market forces" reflected in TASC IIb.
The proposed guidelines will no longer simply be lesion based. Rather, they will evaluate the patient and disease process, taking into account the potential benefit of both endo and open vascular procedures. It’s not that vascular surgeons are unsupportive of endo techniques. In fact many endo procedures have emerged from the inventive minds of vascular surgeons from all over the world. But only surgeons who can offer all treatment modalities can fully appreciate when an open procedure is still the best option, or that the disease process may be more benign than the planned treatment.
What we have gained and what have we lost by our withdrawal from communal involvement with other specialists is not altogether clear. Vascular surgeons have pioneered many of the major advances in our understanding and treatment of vascular diseases from the various bypass operations, through vascular lab testing to advances in endovascular therapy.
Nonetheless, we should not discount the contributions of our medical colleagues. Physicians from other disciplines pioneered endovascular therapies that many of our vascular surgeon predecessors claimed would never work. Medical management prevents thrombosis, keeps our patients alive and our bypasses and stents open. We must also acknowledge that there are many highly qualified physicians in other specialties who are equally devoted to improving the care of patients with vascular disease.
At present there are almost 5,000 U.S. vascular surgeons, and even more globally. Almost every developed nation has a vascular surgical society, and some even have a designated specialty of vascular surgery. Yet it seems we still do not have the numbers to be universally recognized for our expertise. However, our comprehensive training and knowledge have given us the self-assurance and confidence to claim that our specialty is uniquely qualified to take the leadership position in the management of vascular conditions.
So, "IIb, unquestionably, will not be" but, unlike Hamlet, we need not despair. TASC may have failed but we will not!
1) Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2007;33 Suppl 1:S1-75.
I must admit that Shakespeare was not one of my favorite subjects at school. However, his words have relevance to some of my thoughts about vascular surgical issues. In a previous editorial I adopted his words to describe how, with the increasing representation of women and minorities, we have matured from a "Band of Brothers" to a "Band of Brothers and Sisters." Now, Shakespeare once again resonates with Hamlet’s inward-looking and existential "To be or not to be?"
For vascular surgeons are in an introspective mood as we re-evaluate our collaboration with other specialties to determine the best treatments for our patients. Increasingly we are developing our own guidelines, white papers, and position papers rather than appending our insights to initiatives originated by the American College of Cardiology. Whereas we were fundamental in the formation of the original "Trans-Atlantic Societal Consensus (TASC)1," SVS as well as the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) and the World Federation of Vascular Societies (WFVS) have declined participation in further TASC iterations.
The fracturing of TASC began with controversy and strong differences of opinions raised by TASC IIb. Fundamental issues of process, governance, conflict of interest (COI), evidence base, and appropriate representation were raised and debated. In the end the SVS and other international vascular societies determined the TASC construct was not workable, and a new Global Vascular Guidelines initiative was born.
Under the co-leadership of Mike Conte (SVS), Andrew Bradbury (WFVS), and Philippe Kolh (ESVS), our surgical societies are developing practice guidelines reflecting the international consensus of vascular surgeons as well as other specialists directly involved in the care of vascular patients. This group is committed to an evidence-based approach and a strong COI policy that will hopefully insulate treatment algorithms from what many believed was the excessive influence of industry and "market forces" reflected in TASC IIb.
The proposed guidelines will no longer simply be lesion based. Rather, they will evaluate the patient and disease process, taking into account the potential benefit of both endo and open vascular procedures. It’s not that vascular surgeons are unsupportive of endo techniques. In fact many endo procedures have emerged from the inventive minds of vascular surgeons from all over the world. But only surgeons who can offer all treatment modalities can fully appreciate when an open procedure is still the best option, or that the disease process may be more benign than the planned treatment.
What we have gained and what have we lost by our withdrawal from communal involvement with other specialists is not altogether clear. Vascular surgeons have pioneered many of the major advances in our understanding and treatment of vascular diseases from the various bypass operations, through vascular lab testing to advances in endovascular therapy.
Nonetheless, we should not discount the contributions of our medical colleagues. Physicians from other disciplines pioneered endovascular therapies that many of our vascular surgeon predecessors claimed would never work. Medical management prevents thrombosis, keeps our patients alive and our bypasses and stents open. We must also acknowledge that there are many highly qualified physicians in other specialties who are equally devoted to improving the care of patients with vascular disease.
At present there are almost 5,000 U.S. vascular surgeons, and even more globally. Almost every developed nation has a vascular surgical society, and some even have a designated specialty of vascular surgery. Yet it seems we still do not have the numbers to be universally recognized for our expertise. However, our comprehensive training and knowledge have given us the self-assurance and confidence to claim that our specialty is uniquely qualified to take the leadership position in the management of vascular conditions.
So, "IIb, unquestionably, will not be" but, unlike Hamlet, we need not despair. TASC may have failed but we will not!
1) Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2007;33 Suppl 1:S1-75.
When death interrupts life
Death is no stranger to me. Like many my age, I have lost all my grandparents, but I also lost my dad early, when I was only 18. In my early 20s I saw death hundreds of times as an assistant to the medical examiner. Now, as part of my job, I routinely help families and patients approach this last and final stage of life.
Despite this familiarity, I somehow forget what the cold, harsh finality of death personally feels like; the incomprehensible irreversibility, the eerie emptiness. Patients often pass during the night, leaving me to find, the next day, their name off my list and their room being cleaned. I sign the death certificate and move on. It is, after all, part of my job.
Now and then death will touch me directly, and I am reminded anew what it is really like, beyond a "goals of care discussion" and a death certificate.
First there is the stunned knot in the stomach when you first hear the news; the pit of lost words and imploded emotions. Then comes the sadness followed by the unexpected and surreal work that has to be done. Emotions are briefly put on hold to "get things in order." Then, when all is said and done, you have to return to the empty nuances of life: work, bills, chores. You walk through the motions, trying to act the same. The world goes on.
Today I woke up to find that my friend and pet of 8 years had died in her sleep. She had been battling infections for a year and a half, had become incontinent, and was losing weight. I knew it was coming, I just didn’t know when. In evenings, I would find myself taking pause to look for respirations when she would rest in the shade. Then today, a day no different from any other, it just happened. Of course I knew instantly; there is such an indescribable difference between a lifeless body and one who still has even shallow breath. I just stood and stared. I told my wife and I watched the same helpless feelings pour over her.
This loyal rabbit, our friend, had been with me since I rescued her during medical school. At the time, I was not keen on owning any animal, let alone a little rabbit. But she needed rescuing and thus I adopted her. Then, through the loneliness of medical school clerkships and residency, she became my friend, often my only friend. She was a faithful companion that ran circles around my feet when I would come in the door after 30-hour shifts, and she would curl up next to me during post-call Netflix naps. When my wife moved to the United States in the middle of my residency, she was often her only companion for days at a time as I worked long hours in the ICU. She was with me through every relentless minute of studying for boards, sleeping quietly at my feet.
After we had a good cry came the cold requisite to "get things in order." We said our final good-byes just 2 hours ago, and we returned to the empty nuances of life: Fix the leaking faucet, eat dinner, do the dishes.
Working with patients who are sick and nearing the end of their lives can be part of our rhythm – monthly, weekly, or even daily. But for the patient and family, there is nothing rhythmic about it; death is a life event, perhaps the life event.
Quality of care can mean creating a temporal space of peace and honor, no matter the loss and however brief, that has a different tone from the rest of our day. It means never suggesting in word or deed that we are too busy to recognize the emptiness that the death will leave behind. It is understanding the initial thud that a palliative care/hospice referral makes on a loved-one’s soul. Even a novice physician or nurse should pause in recognition that though the hospital bed will be refilled and the hospital workload will continue, for families, nothing is ever quite the same.
Dr. Horton completed his residency in internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Utah and Primary Children’s Medical Center, both in Salt Lake City, in July 2013, and joined the faculty there. He is sharing his new-career experiences with Hospitalist News.
Death is no stranger to me. Like many my age, I have lost all my grandparents, but I also lost my dad early, when I was only 18. In my early 20s I saw death hundreds of times as an assistant to the medical examiner. Now, as part of my job, I routinely help families and patients approach this last and final stage of life.
Despite this familiarity, I somehow forget what the cold, harsh finality of death personally feels like; the incomprehensible irreversibility, the eerie emptiness. Patients often pass during the night, leaving me to find, the next day, their name off my list and their room being cleaned. I sign the death certificate and move on. It is, after all, part of my job.
Now and then death will touch me directly, and I am reminded anew what it is really like, beyond a "goals of care discussion" and a death certificate.
First there is the stunned knot in the stomach when you first hear the news; the pit of lost words and imploded emotions. Then comes the sadness followed by the unexpected and surreal work that has to be done. Emotions are briefly put on hold to "get things in order." Then, when all is said and done, you have to return to the empty nuances of life: work, bills, chores. You walk through the motions, trying to act the same. The world goes on.
Today I woke up to find that my friend and pet of 8 years had died in her sleep. She had been battling infections for a year and a half, had become incontinent, and was losing weight. I knew it was coming, I just didn’t know when. In evenings, I would find myself taking pause to look for respirations when she would rest in the shade. Then today, a day no different from any other, it just happened. Of course I knew instantly; there is such an indescribable difference between a lifeless body and one who still has even shallow breath. I just stood and stared. I told my wife and I watched the same helpless feelings pour over her.
This loyal rabbit, our friend, had been with me since I rescued her during medical school. At the time, I was not keen on owning any animal, let alone a little rabbit. But she needed rescuing and thus I adopted her. Then, through the loneliness of medical school clerkships and residency, she became my friend, often my only friend. She was a faithful companion that ran circles around my feet when I would come in the door after 30-hour shifts, and she would curl up next to me during post-call Netflix naps. When my wife moved to the United States in the middle of my residency, she was often her only companion for days at a time as I worked long hours in the ICU. She was with me through every relentless minute of studying for boards, sleeping quietly at my feet.
After we had a good cry came the cold requisite to "get things in order." We said our final good-byes just 2 hours ago, and we returned to the empty nuances of life: Fix the leaking faucet, eat dinner, do the dishes.
Working with patients who are sick and nearing the end of their lives can be part of our rhythm – monthly, weekly, or even daily. But for the patient and family, there is nothing rhythmic about it; death is a life event, perhaps the life event.
Quality of care can mean creating a temporal space of peace and honor, no matter the loss and however brief, that has a different tone from the rest of our day. It means never suggesting in word or deed that we are too busy to recognize the emptiness that the death will leave behind. It is understanding the initial thud that a palliative care/hospice referral makes on a loved-one’s soul. Even a novice physician or nurse should pause in recognition that though the hospital bed will be refilled and the hospital workload will continue, for families, nothing is ever quite the same.
Dr. Horton completed his residency in internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Utah and Primary Children’s Medical Center, both in Salt Lake City, in July 2013, and joined the faculty there. He is sharing his new-career experiences with Hospitalist News.
Death is no stranger to me. Like many my age, I have lost all my grandparents, but I also lost my dad early, when I was only 18. In my early 20s I saw death hundreds of times as an assistant to the medical examiner. Now, as part of my job, I routinely help families and patients approach this last and final stage of life.
Despite this familiarity, I somehow forget what the cold, harsh finality of death personally feels like; the incomprehensible irreversibility, the eerie emptiness. Patients often pass during the night, leaving me to find, the next day, their name off my list and their room being cleaned. I sign the death certificate and move on. It is, after all, part of my job.
Now and then death will touch me directly, and I am reminded anew what it is really like, beyond a "goals of care discussion" and a death certificate.
First there is the stunned knot in the stomach when you first hear the news; the pit of lost words and imploded emotions. Then comes the sadness followed by the unexpected and surreal work that has to be done. Emotions are briefly put on hold to "get things in order." Then, when all is said and done, you have to return to the empty nuances of life: work, bills, chores. You walk through the motions, trying to act the same. The world goes on.
Today I woke up to find that my friend and pet of 8 years had died in her sleep. She had been battling infections for a year and a half, had become incontinent, and was losing weight. I knew it was coming, I just didn’t know when. In evenings, I would find myself taking pause to look for respirations when she would rest in the shade. Then today, a day no different from any other, it just happened. Of course I knew instantly; there is such an indescribable difference between a lifeless body and one who still has even shallow breath. I just stood and stared. I told my wife and I watched the same helpless feelings pour over her.
This loyal rabbit, our friend, had been with me since I rescued her during medical school. At the time, I was not keen on owning any animal, let alone a little rabbit. But she needed rescuing and thus I adopted her. Then, through the loneliness of medical school clerkships and residency, she became my friend, often my only friend. She was a faithful companion that ran circles around my feet when I would come in the door after 30-hour shifts, and she would curl up next to me during post-call Netflix naps. When my wife moved to the United States in the middle of my residency, she was often her only companion for days at a time as I worked long hours in the ICU. She was with me through every relentless minute of studying for boards, sleeping quietly at my feet.
After we had a good cry came the cold requisite to "get things in order." We said our final good-byes just 2 hours ago, and we returned to the empty nuances of life: Fix the leaking faucet, eat dinner, do the dishes.
Working with patients who are sick and nearing the end of their lives can be part of our rhythm – monthly, weekly, or even daily. But for the patient and family, there is nothing rhythmic about it; death is a life event, perhaps the life event.
Quality of care can mean creating a temporal space of peace and honor, no matter the loss and however brief, that has a different tone from the rest of our day. It means never suggesting in word or deed that we are too busy to recognize the emptiness that the death will leave behind. It is understanding the initial thud that a palliative care/hospice referral makes on a loved-one’s soul. Even a novice physician or nurse should pause in recognition that though the hospital bed will be refilled and the hospital workload will continue, for families, nothing is ever quite the same.
Dr. Horton completed his residency in internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Utah and Primary Children’s Medical Center, both in Salt Lake City, in July 2013, and joined the faculty there. He is sharing his new-career experiences with Hospitalist News.