Latest News for HOSP

Clinical question: Does a balanced crystalloid solution lead to better outcomes than does normal saline when used in critically sick adults?

Background: Balanced crystalloids are considered more physiological, with a composition closer to plasma. Observational studies have shown lower rates of hyperchloremic acidosis, renal failure, and death with use of balanced crystalloids. In spite of this, normal saline has been the most commonly used fluid. Differences in effects on important patient-related outcomes of safety and efficacy between these two interventions remain unknown.

Study design: Pragmatic, unblinded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial.

Setting: Vanderbilt University Health Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Synopsis: This study comprised 15,802 adults with mean age of 58 admitted to ICU who were cluster randomized to receive either balanced crystalloid or normal saline. Primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction at 30 days and was observed less frequently in the balanced crystalloid group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.99; P = .04).

Since the trial was cluster randomized, prognostic imbalance between the groups caused by confounding factors was a big risk. Results could not be generalized because the study was done in a university health center. Mean fluid amount received was modest in both groups. Questions still remain about the efficacy and safety of balanced fluids, and hospitalists should weigh their decisions in light of this new information.

Bottom line: Balanced crystalloid solution decreased 30-day composite outcome of death, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction.

Citation: Semler MW et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 1;378(9):829-39.
 

Dr. Parasramka is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Does a balanced crystalloid solution lead to better outcomes than does normal saline when used in critically sick adults?

Background: Balanced crystalloids are considered more physiological, with a composition closer to plasma. Observational studies have shown lower rates of hyperchloremic acidosis, renal failure, and death with use of balanced crystalloids. In spite of this, normal saline has been the most commonly used fluid. Differences in effects on important patient-related outcomes of safety and efficacy between these two interventions remain unknown.

Study design: Pragmatic, unblinded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial.

Setting: Vanderbilt University Health Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Synopsis: This study comprised 15,802 adults with mean age of 58 admitted to ICU who were cluster randomized to receive either balanced crystalloid or normal saline. Primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction at 30 days and was observed less frequently in the balanced crystalloid group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.99; P = .04).

Since the trial was cluster randomized, prognostic imbalance between the groups caused by confounding factors was a big risk. Results could not be generalized because the study was done in a university health center. Mean fluid amount received was modest in both groups. Questions still remain about the efficacy and safety of balanced fluids, and hospitalists should weigh their decisions in light of this new information.

Bottom line: Balanced crystalloid solution decreased 30-day composite outcome of death, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction.

Citation: Semler MW et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 1;378(9):829-39.
 

Dr. Parasramka is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Does a balanced crystalloid solution lead to better outcomes than does normal saline when used in critically sick adults?

Background: Balanced crystalloids are considered more physiological, with a composition closer to plasma. Observational studies have shown lower rates of hyperchloremic acidosis, renal failure, and death with use of balanced crystalloids. In spite of this, normal saline has been the most commonly used fluid. Differences in effects on important patient-related outcomes of safety and efficacy between these two interventions remain unknown.

Study design: Pragmatic, unblinded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial.

Setting: Vanderbilt University Health Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Synopsis: This study comprised 15,802 adults with mean age of 58 admitted to ICU who were cluster randomized to receive either balanced crystalloid or normal saline. Primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction at 30 days and was observed less frequently in the balanced crystalloid group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.99; P = .04).

Since the trial was cluster randomized, prognostic imbalance between the groups caused by confounding factors was a big risk. Results could not be generalized because the study was done in a university health center. Mean fluid amount received was modest in both groups. Questions still remain about the efficacy and safety of balanced fluids, and hospitalists should weigh their decisions in light of this new information.

Bottom line: Balanced crystalloid solution decreased 30-day composite outcome of death, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction.

Citation: Semler MW et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 1;378(9):829-39.
 

Dr. Parasramka is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Pain is a very common cause for emergency room visits. Nonpharmacologic pain management is not well studied for adult patients visiting the ED.

Dr. Hasanein is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Pain is a very common cause for emergency room visits. Nonpharmacologic pain management is not well studied for adult patients visiting the ED.

Dr. Hasanein is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Pain is a very common cause for emergency room visits. Nonpharmacologic pain management is not well studied for adult patients visiting the ED.

Dr. Hasanein is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Does prophylactic use of haloperidol increase survival in critically ill adults with high risk of delirium?

Background: Delirium is common and associated with high mortality. Studies evaluating prophylactic use of haloperidol have been inconclusive.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, investigator-driven study.

Setting: ICUs at university hospitals and teaching and nonteaching hospitals in the Netherlands.

Synopsis: 1,789 adults with mean age 66.6 years were randomized to receive either 1 or 2 mg of haloperidol or placebo. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility.

There was no difference in the primary outcome of survival days within a 28-day period between the 2-mg haloperidol group and the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.003; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.30; P = .93).

Secondary outcome of survival was also the same at 90 days. No significant difference was seen in the delirium incidence, delirium- and coma-free days, and the delirium-related outcome measures.

Patients were already undergoing nonpharmacologic interventions for delirium prevention, and this likely attenuated the effects of haloperidol. The dose and duration of haloperidol used might have also been too low and short to have an effect on the outcomes considering the severity of patient illness.

Bottom line: Haloperidol has no role in prophylactic use to increase survival among critically ill patients with a high risk of delirium.

Citation: van den Boogaard M et al. Effect of haloperidol on survival among critically ill adults with a high risk of delirium: The REDUCE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):680-90.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Does prophylactic use of haloperidol increase survival in critically ill adults with high risk of delirium?

Background: Delirium is common and associated with high mortality. Studies evaluating prophylactic use of haloperidol have been inconclusive.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, investigator-driven study.

Setting: ICUs at university hospitals and teaching and nonteaching hospitals in the Netherlands.

Synopsis: 1,789 adults with mean age 66.6 years were randomized to receive either 1 or 2 mg of haloperidol or placebo. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility.

There was no difference in the primary outcome of survival days within a 28-day period between the 2-mg haloperidol group and the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.003; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.30; P = .93).

Secondary outcome of survival was also the same at 90 days. No significant difference was seen in the delirium incidence, delirium- and coma-free days, and the delirium-related outcome measures.

Patients were already undergoing nonpharmacologic interventions for delirium prevention, and this likely attenuated the effects of haloperidol. The dose and duration of haloperidol used might have also been too low and short to have an effect on the outcomes considering the severity of patient illness.

Bottom line: Haloperidol has no role in prophylactic use to increase survival among critically ill patients with a high risk of delirium.

Citation: van den Boogaard M et al. Effect of haloperidol on survival among critically ill adults with a high risk of delirium: The REDUCE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):680-90.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Does prophylactic use of haloperidol increase survival in critically ill adults with high risk of delirium?

Background: Delirium is common and associated with high mortality. Studies evaluating prophylactic use of haloperidol have been inconclusive.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, investigator-driven study.

Setting: ICUs at university hospitals and teaching and nonteaching hospitals in the Netherlands.

Synopsis: 1,789 adults with mean age 66.6 years were randomized to receive either 1 or 2 mg of haloperidol or placebo. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility.

There was no difference in the primary outcome of survival days within a 28-day period between the 2-mg haloperidol group and the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.003; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.30; P = .93).

Secondary outcome of survival was also the same at 90 days. No significant difference was seen in the delirium incidence, delirium- and coma-free days, and the delirium-related outcome measures.

Patients were already undergoing nonpharmacologic interventions for delirium prevention, and this likely attenuated the effects of haloperidol. The dose and duration of haloperidol used might have also been too low and short to have an effect on the outcomes considering the severity of patient illness.

Bottom line: Haloperidol has no role in prophylactic use to increase survival among critically ill patients with a high risk of delirium.

Citation: van den Boogaard M et al. Effect of haloperidol on survival among critically ill adults with a high risk of delirium: The REDUCE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):680-90.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Delivery of high-quality, safe care is key to earning the trust and confidence of patients. Patients can be a valuable asset in determining and evaluating the quality and safety of the care they receive. Collectively analyzing patient perceptions remains a challenge.

One in 10 patients identified a PSI. There was variability in classifying incidents as PSIs in some categories. Of the concerns expressed by patients, 65% were not classified as PSI. Limitations included a focus on patient’s concerns rather than safety, PSI estimates based on patient’s feedback without clinical information, and lack of inter-rater reliability estimates.

Bottom line: Effective translation of patient experience can provide valuable insights about safety and quality of care in hospital.

Citation: O’Hara JK et al. What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar 15. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006974.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Delivery of high-quality, safe care is key to earning the trust and confidence of patients. Patients can be a valuable asset in determining and evaluating the quality and safety of the care they receive. Collectively analyzing patient perceptions remains a challenge.

One in 10 patients identified a PSI. There was variability in classifying incidents as PSIs in some categories. Of the concerns expressed by patients, 65% were not classified as PSI. Limitations included a focus on patient’s concerns rather than safety, PSI estimates based on patient’s feedback without clinical information, and lack of inter-rater reliability estimates.

Bottom line: Effective translation of patient experience can provide valuable insights about safety and quality of care in hospital.

Citation: O’Hara JK et al. What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar 15. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006974.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Delivery of high-quality, safe care is key to earning the trust and confidence of patients. Patients can be a valuable asset in determining and evaluating the quality and safety of the care they receive. Collectively analyzing patient perceptions remains a challenge.

One in 10 patients identified a PSI. There was variability in classifying incidents as PSIs in some categories. Of the concerns expressed by patients, 65% were not classified as PSI. Limitations included a focus on patient’s concerns rather than safety, PSI estimates based on patient’s feedback without clinical information, and lack of inter-rater reliability estimates.

Bottom line: Effective translation of patient experience can provide valuable insights about safety and quality of care in hospital.

Citation: O’Hara JK et al. What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar 15. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006974.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Should patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism be anticoagulated?

Background: A recent CHEST clinical guideline suggests it is reasonable to withhold anticoagulation for subsegmental pulmonary embolism. This has been a topic of controversy given the lack of a systematic review.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: A comprehensive literature search was performed by a medical librarian in Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar.

Synopsis: After 1,512 papers were screened, 14 studies were included in the review and analysis. Primary outcomes were frequency of bleeding, venous thromboembolism recurrence, and death for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without treatment. Because of a lack of precision in pooled data and high heterogeneity of outcomes, no inferences could be made about benefit or harm with either approach.

The conclusions were limited because of the small numbers, imprecision, and lack of controlled trials. There is a need for a randomized controlled trial regarding subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

Bottom line: The decision to treat or not treat a patient with subsegmental pulmonary embolism should be done based on clinical judgment and a shared decision-making model with the patient.

Citation: Bariteau A et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without anticoagulation treatment. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1111/acem.13399.
 

Dr. Chadha is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Should patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism be anticoagulated?

Background: A recent CHEST clinical guideline suggests it is reasonable to withhold anticoagulation for subsegmental pulmonary embolism. This has been a topic of controversy given the lack of a systematic review.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: A comprehensive literature search was performed by a medical librarian in Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar.

Synopsis: After 1,512 papers were screened, 14 studies were included in the review and analysis. Primary outcomes were frequency of bleeding, venous thromboembolism recurrence, and death for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without treatment. Because of a lack of precision in pooled data and high heterogeneity of outcomes, no inferences could be made about benefit or harm with either approach.

The conclusions were limited because of the small numbers, imprecision, and lack of controlled trials. There is a need for a randomized controlled trial regarding subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

Bottom line: The decision to treat or not treat a patient with subsegmental pulmonary embolism should be done based on clinical judgment and a shared decision-making model with the patient.

Citation: Bariteau A et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without anticoagulation treatment. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1111/acem.13399.
 

Dr. Chadha is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Should patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism be anticoagulated?

Background: A recent CHEST clinical guideline suggests it is reasonable to withhold anticoagulation for subsegmental pulmonary embolism. This has been a topic of controversy given the lack of a systematic review.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: A comprehensive literature search was performed by a medical librarian in Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar.

Synopsis: After 1,512 papers were screened, 14 studies were included in the review and analysis. Primary outcomes were frequency of bleeding, venous thromboembolism recurrence, and death for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without treatment. Because of a lack of precision in pooled data and high heterogeneity of outcomes, no inferences could be made about benefit or harm with either approach.

The conclusions were limited because of the small numbers, imprecision, and lack of controlled trials. There is a need for a randomized controlled trial regarding subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

Bottom line: The decision to treat or not treat a patient with subsegmental pulmonary embolism should be done based on clinical judgment and a shared decision-making model with the patient.

Citation: Bariteau A et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without anticoagulation treatment. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1111/acem.13399.
 

Dr. Chadha is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: FTR is a quality measure defined as death after a serious, potentially preventable complication. Frailty incorporates different domains including physical performance, gait, mobility, nutritional status, mental health, and cognition. Although there are some studies linking frailty and FTR and postoperative morbidity, the degree and association with low-risk procedures is unclear.

Frailty assessment should be considered a part of the routine perioperative evaluation and should stimulate preoperative interventions aimed at reducing risk for postoperative complications.

Bottom line: This large retrospective study found an association between increasing frailty and both the number of complications and FTR for both low-risk and high-risk surgical procedures.

Citation: Shah R et al. Association of frailty with failure to rescue after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 21;153(5):e180214.

Dr. Canepa is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: FTR is a quality measure defined as death after a serious, potentially preventable complication. Frailty incorporates different domains including physical performance, gait, mobility, nutritional status, mental health, and cognition. Although there are some studies linking frailty and FTR and postoperative morbidity, the degree and association with low-risk procedures is unclear.

Frailty assessment should be considered a part of the routine perioperative evaluation and should stimulate preoperative interventions aimed at reducing risk for postoperative complications.

Bottom line: This large retrospective study found an association between increasing frailty and both the number of complications and FTR for both low-risk and high-risk surgical procedures.

Citation: Shah R et al. Association of frailty with failure to rescue after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 21;153(5):e180214.

Dr. Canepa is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: FTR is a quality measure defined as death after a serious, potentially preventable complication. Frailty incorporates different domains including physical performance, gait, mobility, nutritional status, mental health, and cognition. Although there are some studies linking frailty and FTR and postoperative morbidity, the degree and association with low-risk procedures is unclear.

Frailty assessment should be considered a part of the routine perioperative evaluation and should stimulate preoperative interventions aimed at reducing risk for postoperative complications.

Bottom line: This large retrospective study found an association between increasing frailty and both the number of complications and FTR for both low-risk and high-risk surgical procedures.

Citation: Shah R et al. Association of frailty with failure to rescue after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 21;153(5):e180214.

Dr. Canepa is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Unlike some children who wanted be firefighters or astronauts when they grew up, ever since Raj Sehgal, MD, FHM, was a boy, he dreamed of being a doctor.

Since earning his medical degree, Dr. Sehgal has kept himself involved in a wide variety of projects, driven by the desire to diversify his expertise.

Currently a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and University of Texas Health San Antonio, Dr. Sehgal has found his place as an educator as well as a clinician, earning the Division of Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2016.

As a member of the The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory board, Dr. Sehgal enjoys helping to educate and inform fellow hospitalists. He spoke with The Hospitalist to tell us more about himself.
 

How did you get into medicine?

I don’t know how old I was when I decided I was going to be a doctor, but it was at a very young age and I never really wavered in that desire. I guess I also would have wanted to be a baseball player or a musician, but I never had the talents for those, so it was doctor. That’s always what I was thinking of doing, straight through high school and college, and then after college I took a year off and joined AmeriCorps. I spent a year there and then went to medical school in Dallas at UT Southwestern. After medical school, I thought I should go somewhere as different from Dallas as possible, so I went to Portland, Ore., for my residency and then a fellowship in general internal medicine.

How did you end up in hospital medicine?

When I was doing my residency, I always enjoyed being a generalist. A lot of different areas of medicine interested me, but I like the breadth of things you encounter as a generalist, so I could never picture myself being a subspecialist, doing the same things every day, seeing the same things. I knew I wanted to keep practicing general internal medicine, so I took a fellowship where I was working both inpatient and outpatient, and when I was looking for a job, I sought out things that involved some inpatient and some outpatient work. It turned out hospital medicine was the best fit.

What would you say is your favorite part of hospital medicine?

My favorite part of the job is getting to teach, working with medical students and residents. I also like the variety of what I do as a hospitalist, so I’m about 50% clinical and the rest of the time I perform a variety of tasks, both administrative and educational.

What about your least favorite part of hospitalist work?

Sometimes, particularly if you’re doing clinical, educational, and administrative work, it can be a little overwhelming to try and do a little bit of everything. I think generally that’s a good thing, but sometimes it can feel like a little too much.

What is some of the best advice you have received regarding how to handle the stresses of hospital medicine?

Feel free to say no to things. When hospitalists are starting their careers, and particularly when they are new to a job and trying to express their desire to get involved, sometimes they can have too much thrown at them at once. People can get overloaded very quickly, so I think feeling like you’re able to say no to some requests, or to take some time to think before you accept an additional role. The other piece of advice I remember from my fellowship, is that, when you do something, make it count twice. For example, if you’re involved in a project, you get the practical clinical or educational benefits of whatever the project was. But also think about how you might write about your experience for research purposes, such as for a poster, article, or other presentation.

What is the worst advice you have been given?

I think it’s not necessarily bad advice, but I guess it’s advice that I haven’t really followed. Since I work in academic medicine, I’ve found that the people in academics fall into one of two categories: There are the people who find their niche and remain on that path, and they’re very clear about it and don’t really stray from it; and there are people who don’t find that niche right away. I think the advice I received when starting out was to try to find that niche, and if you’re building an academic career it is very helpful to have these things in which you have become the expert. But I’ve just tried to go where the job takes me. I don’t necessarily have a single academic niche or something that I spend all my time doing, but I do have my hand in a lot of different things. To me, that’s a lot more interesting because it adds to the variety of what you’re doing. Every day is a little different.

What else do you do professionally outside of hospital medicine?

I actually practice a little outpatient medicine. When I first started here, I wanted to keep some outpatient experience, and so I actually created my own clinic. It’s a procedure clinic where I do paracentesis on people who have cirrhosis. Then on the educational side, I sit on the admission committees for the medical school here, so I get to look through the applicants and choose who we interview, and then once we interview candidates, I help choose how we rank students for admission.

Where do you see yourself in the next 10 years?

I’ve never been one who looks at a particular job and says ‘Okay, I want to be the dean or have this position.’ I guess I just hope I’m better at the things I’m currently doing. I hope in 10 years that I’m a better teacher, that I’ll have learned more strategies to help more people, and that I have a better handle on the administrative side of the work. I hope I’ve progressed to a point in my career where I’m doing an even better job than I am now.

What are your goals as a member of the editorial board?

I have an interest not only in medicine but also in writing; I’ve gotten to do some writing both medical and nonmedical in the past. I’ve published a few articles in The Hospitalist, and hopefully, I can do more of that because writing is just another part of education.

Unlike some children who wanted be firefighters or astronauts when they grew up, ever since Raj Sehgal, MD, FHM, was a boy, he dreamed of being a doctor.

Since earning his medical degree, Dr. Sehgal has kept himself involved in a wide variety of projects, driven by the desire to diversify his expertise.

Currently a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and University of Texas Health San Antonio, Dr. Sehgal has found his place as an educator as well as a clinician, earning the Division of Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2016.

As a member of the The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory board, Dr. Sehgal enjoys helping to educate and inform fellow hospitalists. He spoke with The Hospitalist to tell us more about himself.
 

How did you get into medicine?

I don’t know how old I was when I decided I was going to be a doctor, but it was at a very young age and I never really wavered in that desire. I guess I also would have wanted to be a baseball player or a musician, but I never had the talents for those, so it was doctor. That’s always what I was thinking of doing, straight through high school and college, and then after college I took a year off and joined AmeriCorps. I spent a year there and then went to medical school in Dallas at UT Southwestern. After medical school, I thought I should go somewhere as different from Dallas as possible, so I went to Portland, Ore., for my residency and then a fellowship in general internal medicine.

How did you end up in hospital medicine?

When I was doing my residency, I always enjoyed being a generalist. A lot of different areas of medicine interested me, but I like the breadth of things you encounter as a generalist, so I could never picture myself being a subspecialist, doing the same things every day, seeing the same things. I knew I wanted to keep practicing general internal medicine, so I took a fellowship where I was working both inpatient and outpatient, and when I was looking for a job, I sought out things that involved some inpatient and some outpatient work. It turned out hospital medicine was the best fit.

What would you say is your favorite part of hospital medicine?

My favorite part of the job is getting to teach, working with medical students and residents. I also like the variety of what I do as a hospitalist, so I’m about 50% clinical and the rest of the time I perform a variety of tasks, both administrative and educational.

What about your least favorite part of hospitalist work?

Sometimes, particularly if you’re doing clinical, educational, and administrative work, it can be a little overwhelming to try and do a little bit of everything. I think generally that’s a good thing, but sometimes it can feel like a little too much.

What is some of the best advice you have received regarding how to handle the stresses of hospital medicine?

Feel free to say no to things. When hospitalists are starting their careers, and particularly when they are new to a job and trying to express their desire to get involved, sometimes they can have too much thrown at them at once. People can get overloaded very quickly, so I think feeling like you’re able to say no to some requests, or to take some time to think before you accept an additional role. The other piece of advice I remember from my fellowship, is that, when you do something, make it count twice. For example, if you’re involved in a project, you get the practical clinical or educational benefits of whatever the project was. But also think about how you might write about your experience for research purposes, such as for a poster, article, or other presentation.

What is the worst advice you have been given?

I think it’s not necessarily bad advice, but I guess it’s advice that I haven’t really followed. Since I work in academic medicine, I’ve found that the people in academics fall into one of two categories: There are the people who find their niche and remain on that path, and they’re very clear about it and don’t really stray from it; and there are people who don’t find that niche right away. I think the advice I received when starting out was to try to find that niche, and if you’re building an academic career it is very helpful to have these things in which you have become the expert. But I’ve just tried to go where the job takes me. I don’t necessarily have a single academic niche or something that I spend all my time doing, but I do have my hand in a lot of different things. To me, that’s a lot more interesting because it adds to the variety of what you’re doing. Every day is a little different.

What else do you do professionally outside of hospital medicine?

I actually practice a little outpatient medicine. When I first started here, I wanted to keep some outpatient experience, and so I actually created my own clinic. It’s a procedure clinic where I do paracentesis on people who have cirrhosis. Then on the educational side, I sit on the admission committees for the medical school here, so I get to look through the applicants and choose who we interview, and then once we interview candidates, I help choose how we rank students for admission.

Where do you see yourself in the next 10 years?

I’ve never been one who looks at a particular job and says ‘Okay, I want to be the dean or have this position.’ I guess I just hope I’m better at the things I’m currently doing. I hope in 10 years that I’m a better teacher, that I’ll have learned more strategies to help more people, and that I have a better handle on the administrative side of the work. I hope I’ve progressed to a point in my career where I’m doing an even better job than I am now.

What are your goals as a member of the editorial board?

I have an interest not only in medicine but also in writing; I’ve gotten to do some writing both medical and nonmedical in the past. I’ve published a few articles in The Hospitalist, and hopefully, I can do more of that because writing is just another part of education.

Unlike some children who wanted be firefighters or astronauts when they grew up, ever since Raj Sehgal, MD, FHM, was a boy, he dreamed of being a doctor.

Since earning his medical degree, Dr. Sehgal has kept himself involved in a wide variety of projects, driven by the desire to diversify his expertise.

Currently a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and University of Texas Health San Antonio, Dr. Sehgal has found his place as an educator as well as a clinician, earning the Division of Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2016.

As a member of the The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory board, Dr. Sehgal enjoys helping to educate and inform fellow hospitalists. He spoke with The Hospitalist to tell us more about himself.
 

How did you get into medicine?

I don’t know how old I was when I decided I was going to be a doctor, but it was at a very young age and I never really wavered in that desire. I guess I also would have wanted to be a baseball player or a musician, but I never had the talents for those, so it was doctor. That’s always what I was thinking of doing, straight through high school and college, and then after college I took a year off and joined AmeriCorps. I spent a year there and then went to medical school in Dallas at UT Southwestern. After medical school, I thought I should go somewhere as different from Dallas as possible, so I went to Portland, Ore., for my residency and then a fellowship in general internal medicine.

How did you end up in hospital medicine?

When I was doing my residency, I always enjoyed being a generalist. A lot of different areas of medicine interested me, but I like the breadth of things you encounter as a generalist, so I could never picture myself being a subspecialist, doing the same things every day, seeing the same things. I knew I wanted to keep practicing general internal medicine, so I took a fellowship where I was working both inpatient and outpatient, and when I was looking for a job, I sought out things that involved some inpatient and some outpatient work. It turned out hospital medicine was the best fit.

What would you say is your favorite part of hospital medicine?

My favorite part of the job is getting to teach, working with medical students and residents. I also like the variety of what I do as a hospitalist, so I’m about 50% clinical and the rest of the time I perform a variety of tasks, both administrative and educational.

What about your least favorite part of hospitalist work?

Sometimes, particularly if you’re doing clinical, educational, and administrative work, it can be a little overwhelming to try and do a little bit of everything. I think generally that’s a good thing, but sometimes it can feel like a little too much.

What is some of the best advice you have received regarding how to handle the stresses of hospital medicine?

Feel free to say no to things. When hospitalists are starting their careers, and particularly when they are new to a job and trying to express their desire to get involved, sometimes they can have too much thrown at them at once. People can get overloaded very quickly, so I think feeling like you’re able to say no to some requests, or to take some time to think before you accept an additional role. The other piece of advice I remember from my fellowship, is that, when you do something, make it count twice. For example, if you’re involved in a project, you get the practical clinical or educational benefits of whatever the project was. But also think about how you might write about your experience for research purposes, such as for a poster, article, or other presentation.

What is the worst advice you have been given?

I think it’s not necessarily bad advice, but I guess it’s advice that I haven’t really followed. Since I work in academic medicine, I’ve found that the people in academics fall into one of two categories: There are the people who find their niche and remain on that path, and they’re very clear about it and don’t really stray from it; and there are people who don’t find that niche right away. I think the advice I received when starting out was to try to find that niche, and if you’re building an academic career it is very helpful to have these things in which you have become the expert. But I’ve just tried to go where the job takes me. I don’t necessarily have a single academic niche or something that I spend all my time doing, but I do have my hand in a lot of different things. To me, that’s a lot more interesting because it adds to the variety of what you’re doing. Every day is a little different.

What else do you do professionally outside of hospital medicine?

I actually practice a little outpatient medicine. When I first started here, I wanted to keep some outpatient experience, and so I actually created my own clinic. It’s a procedure clinic where I do paracentesis on people who have cirrhosis. Then on the educational side, I sit on the admission committees for the medical school here, so I get to look through the applicants and choose who we interview, and then once we interview candidates, I help choose how we rank students for admission.

Where do you see yourself in the next 10 years?

I’ve never been one who looks at a particular job and says ‘Okay, I want to be the dean or have this position.’ I guess I just hope I’m better at the things I’m currently doing. I hope in 10 years that I’m a better teacher, that I’ll have learned more strategies to help more people, and that I have a better handle on the administrative side of the work. I hope I’ve progressed to a point in my career where I’m doing an even better job than I am now.

What are your goals as a member of the editorial board?

I have an interest not only in medicine but also in writing; I’ve gotten to do some writing both medical and nonmedical in the past. I’ve published a few articles in The Hospitalist, and hopefully, I can do more of that because writing is just another part of education.

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced the appointment of Eric Howell, MD, MHM, to the position of chief operating officer (COO).

“Having been involved with SHM in many capacities since first joining, I am honored to now transition to chief operating officer,” Dr. Howell said. “I always tell everyone that my goal is to make the world a better place, and I know that SHM’s staff will be able to do just that through the development and deployment of a variety of products, tools, and services to help hospitalists improve patient care.”

In his new role as COO at SHM, Dr. Howell will lead senior management’s strategic planning as well as define organizational goals to drive extensive, sustainable growth. In addition to serving as SHM’s COO, Dr. Howell will continue his role as director of the hospital medicine division of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also in Baltimore. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and now oversees more than 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals.

“Eric has the perfect background to take SHM, its staff, and its membership to the next level,” said Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “His foundational leadership in the hospital medicine movement makes him the ideal person to lead SHM forward in its quest to provide hospitalists with the tools necessary to make a noteworthy difference in their institutions and in the lives of their patients.”

Dr. Howell is also a past president of SHM, the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies, and most recently, served as the senior physician advisor to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, which conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. He received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, which he said has served as an instrumental piece of his background for managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput, and patient outcomes.




 

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced the appointment of Eric Howell, MD, MHM, to the position of chief operating officer (COO).

“Having been involved with SHM in many capacities since first joining, I am honored to now transition to chief operating officer,” Dr. Howell said. “I always tell everyone that my goal is to make the world a better place, and I know that SHM’s staff will be able to do just that through the development and deployment of a variety of products, tools, and services to help hospitalists improve patient care.”

In his new role as COO at SHM, Dr. Howell will lead senior management’s strategic planning as well as define organizational goals to drive extensive, sustainable growth. In addition to serving as SHM’s COO, Dr. Howell will continue his role as director of the hospital medicine division of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also in Baltimore. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and now oversees more than 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals.

“Eric has the perfect background to take SHM, its staff, and its membership to the next level,” said Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “His foundational leadership in the hospital medicine movement makes him the ideal person to lead SHM forward in its quest to provide hospitalists with the tools necessary to make a noteworthy difference in their institutions and in the lives of their patients.”

Dr. Howell is also a past president of SHM, the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies, and most recently, served as the senior physician advisor to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, which conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. He received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, which he said has served as an instrumental piece of his background for managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput, and patient outcomes.




 

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced the appointment of Eric Howell, MD, MHM, to the position of chief operating officer (COO).

“Having been involved with SHM in many capacities since first joining, I am honored to now transition to chief operating officer,” Dr. Howell said. “I always tell everyone that my goal is to make the world a better place, and I know that SHM’s staff will be able to do just that through the development and deployment of a variety of products, tools, and services to help hospitalists improve patient care.”

In his new role as COO at SHM, Dr. Howell will lead senior management’s strategic planning as well as define organizational goals to drive extensive, sustainable growth. In addition to serving as SHM’s COO, Dr. Howell will continue his role as director of the hospital medicine division of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also in Baltimore. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and now oversees more than 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals.

“Eric has the perfect background to take SHM, its staff, and its membership to the next level,” said Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “His foundational leadership in the hospital medicine movement makes him the ideal person to lead SHM forward in its quest to provide hospitalists with the tools necessary to make a noteworthy difference in their institutions and in the lives of their patients.”

Dr. Howell is also a past president of SHM, the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies, and most recently, served as the senior physician advisor to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, which conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. He received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, which he said has served as an instrumental piece of his background for managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput, and patient outcomes.




 

“You can teach a canary in a coal mine to meditate, but it is still going to die.”

I have seen the canary sentiment above – used as a metaphor for health care and burnout – pop up a few times on Twitter, attributed to a few different thoughtful doctors, including Jenny Ramsey, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic (at Hospital Medicine 2018); Lucy Kalanithi, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and widow of Paul Kalanithi, MD, of “When Breath Becomes Air” fame; and Stuart Slavin, MD, associate dean for curriculum and a professor of pediatrics at Saint Louis University.

To be honest, I am rather burned out on reading about physician burnout at this point. Nevertheless, I love the canary idea; it is such a perfect visual of the current problem facing physicians.

I was thinking about the meditating canary when I read the new “Charter on Physician Well-Being,” published in JAMA and already endorsed by most major medical organizations/acronyms, including SHM, ACP, SGIM, AMA, AAMC, AAIM, ABIM, ACCME, APA, and the IHI. This physician well-being charter was created by the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine, a group that includes leading medical centers and organizations.

What makes this different from previous attempts at addressing burnout? The charter takes a systems-based approach to physician well-being. Aha, of course! As the patient safety movement realized more than 2 decades ago, real progress would only be made when we stopped focusing our attention, blame, and interventions on individuals and instead looked at systems; now, the physician well-being movement has officially made the same bold proclamation.

It is not the fault of the burned-out physician who apparently just needs to be hammered over the head with better coping skills – just as the majority of medical errors would not be fixed by continuing to tell physicians that they screwed up and should figure out how not to do that again!

We need to make real changes to the system. For example, one of the charter’s authors, Colin P. West, MD, PhD, highlighted why it is important that organizations commit to optimizing highly functioning interprofessional teams: “Can you imagine @KingJames [LeBron James] or @Oprah applying their unique skills AND personally seating the crowd, collecting stats, assessing satisfaction, etc.? So why do we?”

The authors also call for organizations to commit to reducing time spent on documentation and administration. Hallelujah!

Now the question is whether this charter will actually have any teeth or whether it will have the same fate as our canary, slowly fading away, never to be heard from again?

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.

Dr. Moriates is the assistant dean for health care value and an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas, Austin.
 

Also in The Hospital Leader

“What’s a Cost, Charge, and Price?” by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM

“There Is a ‘You’ in Team,” by Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM

“‘Harper’s Index’ of Hospital Medicine 2018,” by Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

“You can teach a canary in a coal mine to meditate, but it is still going to die.”

I have seen the canary sentiment above – used as a metaphor for health care and burnout – pop up a few times on Twitter, attributed to a few different thoughtful doctors, including Jenny Ramsey, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic (at Hospital Medicine 2018); Lucy Kalanithi, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and widow of Paul Kalanithi, MD, of “When Breath Becomes Air” fame; and Stuart Slavin, MD, associate dean for curriculum and a professor of pediatrics at Saint Louis University.

To be honest, I am rather burned out on reading about physician burnout at this point. Nevertheless, I love the canary idea; it is such a perfect visual of the current problem facing physicians.

I was thinking about the meditating canary when I read the new “Charter on Physician Well-Being,” published in JAMA and already endorsed by most major medical organizations/acronyms, including SHM, ACP, SGIM, AMA, AAMC, AAIM, ABIM, ACCME, APA, and the IHI. This physician well-being charter was created by the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine, a group that includes leading medical centers and organizations.

What makes this different from previous attempts at addressing burnout? The charter takes a systems-based approach to physician well-being. Aha, of course! As the patient safety movement realized more than 2 decades ago, real progress would only be made when we stopped focusing our attention, blame, and interventions on individuals and instead looked at systems; now, the physician well-being movement has officially made the same bold proclamation.

It is not the fault of the burned-out physician who apparently just needs to be hammered over the head with better coping skills – just as the majority of medical errors would not be fixed by continuing to tell physicians that they screwed up and should figure out how not to do that again!

We need to make real changes to the system. For example, one of the charter’s authors, Colin P. West, MD, PhD, highlighted why it is important that organizations commit to optimizing highly functioning interprofessional teams: “Can you imagine @KingJames [LeBron James] or @Oprah applying their unique skills AND personally seating the crowd, collecting stats, assessing satisfaction, etc.? So why do we?”

The authors also call for organizations to commit to reducing time spent on documentation and administration. Hallelujah!

Now the question is whether this charter will actually have any teeth or whether it will have the same fate as our canary, slowly fading away, never to be heard from again?

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.

Dr. Moriates is the assistant dean for health care value and an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas, Austin.
 

Also in The Hospital Leader

“What’s a Cost, Charge, and Price?” by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM

“There Is a ‘You’ in Team,” by Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM

“‘Harper’s Index’ of Hospital Medicine 2018,” by Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

“You can teach a canary in a coal mine to meditate, but it is still going to die.”

I have seen the canary sentiment above – used as a metaphor for health care and burnout – pop up a few times on Twitter, attributed to a few different thoughtful doctors, including Jenny Ramsey, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic (at Hospital Medicine 2018); Lucy Kalanithi, MD, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and widow of Paul Kalanithi, MD, of “When Breath Becomes Air” fame; and Stuart Slavin, MD, associate dean for curriculum and a professor of pediatrics at Saint Louis University.

To be honest, I am rather burned out on reading about physician burnout at this point. Nevertheless, I love the canary idea; it is such a perfect visual of the current problem facing physicians.

I was thinking about the meditating canary when I read the new “Charter on Physician Well-Being,” published in JAMA and already endorsed by most major medical organizations/acronyms, including SHM, ACP, SGIM, AMA, AAMC, AAIM, ABIM, ACCME, APA, and the IHI. This physician well-being charter was created by the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine, a group that includes leading medical centers and organizations.

What makes this different from previous attempts at addressing burnout? The charter takes a systems-based approach to physician well-being. Aha, of course! As the patient safety movement realized more than 2 decades ago, real progress would only be made when we stopped focusing our attention, blame, and interventions on individuals and instead looked at systems; now, the physician well-being movement has officially made the same bold proclamation.

It is not the fault of the burned-out physician who apparently just needs to be hammered over the head with better coping skills – just as the majority of medical errors would not be fixed by continuing to tell physicians that they screwed up and should figure out how not to do that again!

We need to make real changes to the system. For example, one of the charter’s authors, Colin P. West, MD, PhD, highlighted why it is important that organizations commit to optimizing highly functioning interprofessional teams: “Can you imagine @KingJames [LeBron James] or @Oprah applying their unique skills AND personally seating the crowd, collecting stats, assessing satisfaction, etc.? So why do we?”

The authors also call for organizations to commit to reducing time spent on documentation and administration. Hallelujah!

Now the question is whether this charter will actually have any teeth or whether it will have the same fate as our canary, slowly fading away, never to be heard from again?

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.

Dr. Moriates is the assistant dean for health care value and an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas, Austin.
 

Also in The Hospital Leader

“What’s a Cost, Charge, and Price?” by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM

“There Is a ‘You’ in Team,” by Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM

“‘Harper’s Index’ of Hospital Medicine 2018,” by Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Clinical question

What is the optimal way to manage analgesia during neonatal circumcision?

Background

Neonatal circumcision is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012 noted that the health benefits outweigh the minor risks of the procedure, but that parents should make the decision to circumcise based on their own cultural, ethical, and religious beliefs.

One of the primary risks of neonatal circumcision is pain during and after the procedure. Multiple methods for managing analgesia exist, but it is unknown what combination of methods is optimal. Usual analgesia techniques include: local anesthetic cream composed of lidocaine and prilocaine (EMLA) applied to the skin prior to the procedure; oral sucrose solution given throughout the procedure; dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB); and penile ring block (RB).
 

Study design

Single-center, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting

Multispecialty freestanding hospital.

Synopsis

Parents of infant boys born at 36-41 weeks’ gestation who chose to have their children circumcised were offered participation in the study. Of 83 eligible participants, 70 were randomized, with 10 in the control group (EMLA only) and 20 in each intervention (EMLA + sucrose, EMLA + sucrose + RB, EMLA + sucrose + DPNB). A single pediatric urologist performed all circumcisions using the Gomco clamp technique.

A video camera recorded the infant’s face and upper torso during the procedure. Two researchers, who were blinded to the analgesia plan, scored these videos using a modified Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS). The NIPS used ranged from 0 to 6, with 6 considered severe pain. For rating purposes, the procedure was divided into 6 stages with a NIPS score assigned at each stage. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the groups; no significant differences in the duration of the procedure by intervention; and there were no complications. Interrater reliability for the NIPS was good (kappa, 0.84). All interventions were superior to EMLA alone, with significantly decreased NIPS for all stages of the procedure. No significant differences in NIPS were found among the following:

EMLA + sucrose.

EMLA + sucrose + RB.

EMLA + sucrose + DPNB (for any stage of the procedure).



The one exception was that following lysis of foreskin adhesions, EMLA + sucrose + RB was superior (NIPS 2.25 for EMLA + sucrose + RB vs. NIPS 4.4 for EMLA + sucrose + DPNB vs. NIPS 4.3 for EMLA + sucrose vs. NIPS 5.8 for EMLA alone). In terms of crying time during the procedure, all interventions were significantly superior to EMLA alone. Of the interventions, crying time was statistically and clinically significantly shorter with EMLA + sucrose + RB (5.78 seconds vs. 11.5 for EMLA + sucrose + DPNB vs. 16.5 for EMLA + sucrose vs. 45.4 for EMLA alone). This was a single-center study and the procedures were performed by a pediatric urologist rather than by a general pediatrician, which potentially limits applicability.
 

Bottom line

All tested analgesia modalities for neonatal circumcision were superior to EMLA alone. The most effective analgesia of those tested was EMLA + sucrose + penile ring block.

Citation

Sharara-Chami R et al. Combination analgesia for neonatal circumcision: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2017. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1935.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Clinical question

What is the optimal way to manage analgesia during neonatal circumcision?

Background

Neonatal circumcision is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012 noted that the health benefits outweigh the minor risks of the procedure, but that parents should make the decision to circumcise based on their own cultural, ethical, and religious beliefs.

One of the primary risks of neonatal circumcision is pain during and after the procedure. Multiple methods for managing analgesia exist, but it is unknown what combination of methods is optimal. Usual analgesia techniques include: local anesthetic cream composed of lidocaine and prilocaine (EMLA) applied to the skin prior to the procedure; oral sucrose solution given throughout the procedure; dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB); and penile ring block (RB).
 

Study design

Single-center, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting

Multispecialty freestanding hospital.

Synopsis

Parents of infant boys born at 36-41 weeks’ gestation who chose to have their children circumcised were offered participation in the study. Of 83 eligible participants, 70 were randomized, with 10 in the control group (EMLA only) and 20 in each intervention (EMLA + sucrose, EMLA + sucrose + RB, EMLA + sucrose + DPNB). A single pediatric urologist performed all circumcisions using the Gomco clamp technique.

A video camera recorded the infant’s face and upper torso during the procedure. Two researchers, who were blinded to the analgesia plan, scored these videos using a modified Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS). The NIPS used ranged from 0 to 6, with 6 considered severe pain. For rating purposes, the procedure was divided into 6 stages with a NIPS score assigned at each stage. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the groups; no significant differences in the duration of the procedure by intervention; and there were no complications. Interrater reliability for the NIPS was good (kappa, 0.84). All interventions were superior to EMLA alone, with significantly decreased NIPS for all stages of the procedure. No significant differences in NIPS were found among the following:

EMLA + sucrose.

EMLA + sucrose + RB.

EMLA + sucrose + DPNB (for any stage of the procedure).



The one exception was that following lysis of foreskin adhesions, EMLA + sucrose + RB was superior (NIPS 2.25 for EMLA + sucrose + RB vs. NIPS 4.4 for EMLA + sucrose + DPNB vs. NIPS 4.3 for EMLA + sucrose vs. NIPS 5.8 for EMLA alone). In terms of crying time during the procedure, all interventions were significantly superior to EMLA alone. Of the interventions, crying time was statistically and clinically significantly shorter with EMLA + sucrose + RB (5.78 seconds vs. 11.5 for EMLA + sucrose + DPNB vs. 16.5 for EMLA + sucrose vs. 45.4 for EMLA alone). This was a single-center study and the procedures were performed by a pediatric urologist rather than by a general pediatrician, which potentially limits applicability.
 

Bottom line

All tested analgesia modalities for neonatal circumcision were superior to EMLA alone. The most effective analgesia of those tested was EMLA + sucrose + penile ring block.

Citation

Sharara-Chami R et al. Combination analgesia for neonatal circumcision: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2017. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1935.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Clinical question

What is the optimal way to manage analgesia during neonatal circumcision?

Background

Neonatal circumcision is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012 noted that the health benefits outweigh the minor risks of the procedure, but that parents should make the decision to circumcise based on their own cultural, ethical, and religious beliefs.

One of the primary risks of neonatal circumcision is pain during and after the procedure. Multiple methods for managing analgesia exist, but it is unknown what combination of methods is optimal. Usual analgesia techniques include: local anesthetic cream composed of lidocaine and prilocaine (EMLA) applied to the skin prior to the procedure; oral sucrose solution given throughout the procedure; dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB); and penile ring block (RB).
 

Study design

Single-center, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting

Multispecialty freestanding hospital.

Synopsis

Parents of infant boys born at 36-41 weeks’ gestation who chose to have their children circumcised were offered participation in the study. Of 83 eligible participants, 70 were randomized, with 10 in the control group (EMLA only) and 20 in each intervention (EMLA + sucrose, EMLA + sucrose + RB, EMLA + sucrose + DPNB). A single pediatric urologist performed all circumcisions using the Gomco clamp technique.

A video camera recorded the infant’s face and upper torso during the procedure. Two researchers, who were blinded to the analgesia plan, scored these videos using a modified Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS). The NIPS used ranged from 0 to 6, with 6 considered severe pain. For rating purposes, the procedure was divided into 6 stages with a NIPS score assigned at each stage. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the groups; no significant differences in the duration of the procedure by intervention; and there were no complications. Interrater reliability for the NIPS was good (kappa, 0.84). All interventions were superior to EMLA alone, with significantly decreased NIPS for all stages of the procedure. No significant differences in NIPS were found among the following:

EMLA + sucrose.

EMLA + sucrose + RB.

EMLA + sucrose + DPNB (for any stage of the procedure).



The one exception was that following lysis of foreskin adhesions, EMLA + sucrose + RB was superior (NIPS 2.25 for EMLA + sucrose + RB vs. NIPS 4.4 for EMLA + sucrose + DPNB vs. NIPS 4.3 for EMLA + sucrose vs. NIPS 5.8 for EMLA alone). In terms of crying time during the procedure, all interventions were significantly superior to EMLA alone. Of the interventions, crying time was statistically and clinically significantly shorter with EMLA + sucrose + RB (5.78 seconds vs. 11.5 for EMLA + sucrose + DPNB vs. 16.5 for EMLA + sucrose vs. 45.4 for EMLA alone). This was a single-center study and the procedures were performed by a pediatric urologist rather than by a general pediatrician, which potentially limits applicability.
 

Bottom line

All tested analgesia modalities for neonatal circumcision were superior to EMLA alone. The most effective analgesia of those tested was EMLA + sucrose + penile ring block.

Citation

Sharara-Chami R et al. Combination analgesia for neonatal circumcision: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2017. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1935.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.