User login
The ADA and hearing-impaired patients
A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.
It is a good reminder for the rest of us: This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”
When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.
The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”
She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.
But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.
The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.
In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.
If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.
Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.
If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”
The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.
It is a good reminder for the rest of us: This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”
When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.
The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”
She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.
But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.
The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.
In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.
If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.
Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.
If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”
The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
A recent claim against a New Jersey physician attracted considerable attention in both the medical and legal communities, not only because it resulted in a substantial jury award, but because that award was not covered by malpractice insurance.
It is a good reminder for the rest of us: This case involved a charge of discrimination against a hearing-impaired patient – which meant the physician not only had to fund his own defense, but was personally responsible for the $400,000 award against him.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect individuals with various disabilities against discrimination in various public situations – including, specifically, “the professional office of a health care professional.”
When the disability is impaired hearing, the law requires physicians to provide any “auxiliary aids and services” that might be necessary to insure clear communication between doctor and patient. In the vast majority of such situations, a pad and pencil will satisfy that requirement. But occasionally it does not, particularly when complex medical concepts are involved; and in such cases, as the New Jersey trial demonstrated, failure to make the necessary extra effort can be very expensive.
The claim involved a hearing-impaired patient with lupus erythematosus under treatment by a rheumatologist. For almost 2 years the patient’s partner and her daughter provided translation; but that arrangement was inadequate, she testified, because her partner and daughter were unfamiliar with medical terminology and she was “unable to understand and participate in her care,” which left her “unaware of risks and available alternatives.”
She repeatedly requested that the rheumatologist provide an American Sign Language interpreter for her office visits. He refused on grounds that the cost of an interpreter would exceed the payment he would receive for the visits, which made it an “undue financial burden,” and therefore exempt from ADA requirements.
But the undue-burden exemption is not automatic; it must be demonstrated in court. And the jury decided the rheumatologist’s annual income of $425,000 rendered the cost of an interpreter quite affordable.
The lessons are clear: Physicians must take antidiscrimination laws seriously, particularly when uninsurable issues are involved; and we must be constantly aware of the needs of disabled patients, to be sure their care is not substantially different from that of any other patient.
In the case of hearing-impaired or deaf patients, it is important to remember that forms of communication that are quite adequate for most are not appropriate for some. Lip reading, written notes, and the use of family members as interpreters may be perfectly acceptable to one patient and unsuitable for another.
If the patient agrees to written notes and lip reading, as most do, you need to remember to speak slowly, and to write down critical information to avoid any miscommunications. And as always, it is crucial to document all communication, as well as the methods used for that communication – specifically including the fact that the patient agreed to those forms of communication. Documentation, as I’ve often said, is like garlic: There is no such thing as too much of it.
Should a patient not agree that written notes are sufficient, other alternatives can be offered: computer transcription, assistive listening devices, videotext displays (often available in hospitals), and telecommunication devices such as TTY and TDD. But if the patient rejects all of those options and continues to insist on a professional interpreter, the precedent set by the New Jersey case suggests that you need to acquiesce, even if the interpreter’s fee exceeds the visit reimbursement – and the ADA prohibits you from passing your cost along to the patient. But any such cost will be far less than a noninsured judgment against you.
If you must go that route, make sure the interpreter you hire is familiar with medical terminology, and is not acquainted or related to the patient (for HIPAA reasons). Your state may have an online registry of available interpreters, or your hospital may have a sign language interpreter on its staff that they might allow you to “borrow.”
The good news is several states have responded to this issue by introducing legislation that would require health insurance carriers to pay for the cost of interpreters, although none, as of this writing, have yet become law.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Focus on cancer risk
Hereditary cancer risk assessment is the key to identifying patients and families who are at increased risk for developing cancer. The knowledge generated by cancer risk assessment impacts clinical decisions that obstetricians and gynecologists and their patients make every day. Previvors—patients predisposed to developing cancer, because of their family history or a pathogenic gene variant, who have not had cancer—benefit from counseling, heightened surveillance, and medical and surgical options.
For the last 25 years, this field has been growing dramatically, and although the scientific advances are present, only 15.3% of patients with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer who meet hereditary cancer testing criteria have been tested.1 As many as 1 in 4 women who present for a gynecologic examination may have a personal history or a family history that qualifies them for genetic testing.2
Cancer risk app considerations
The ability to leverage mobile device applications can provide clinicians and patients with a useful screening tool to identify women who are at increased cancer risk. Only a handful of apps are available today and most are geared to patients. Such apps explore the different testing modalities, including genetic testing, as well as treatment options. When evaluating the best app for patients, using the ACOG-recommended rubric shown on page 35, the qualities to keep in mind and that should score 4 out of 4 include design, authority, usefulness, and accuracy.
A few apps provide reminders for appointments, such as mammograms, magnetic resonance imaging, or breast self-exams, and allow patients to track treatment plans. To date, no app addresses prevention and treatment opportunities that are specific to patients who have a hereditary predisposition. At least one app lists hereditary cancer testing guidelines. Many more apps are geared toward individuals with cancer rather than toward previvors.
As ObGyns, we have an opportunity to educate and identify women and, subsequently, better counsel women identified as at increased risk for developing cancer. We can utilize medical apps to efficiently incorporate this screening into clinical practice. ●
- Childers P, Childers KK, Maggard-Gibbons M, et al. National estimates of genetic testing in women with a history of breast or ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3800-3806.
- DeFrancesco M, Waldman RN, Pearlstone MM, et al. Hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in a community practice setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:1121-1129.
Richard Waldman, MD
Dr. Waldman is Past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Past President of Associates for Women’s Medicine, and Immediate Past Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Syracuse, New York.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Richard Waldman, MD
Dr. Waldman is Past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Past President of Associates for Women’s Medicine, and Immediate Past Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Syracuse, New York.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Richard Waldman, MD
Dr. Waldman is Past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Past President of Associates for Women’s Medicine, and Immediate Past Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Syracuse, New York.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Hereditary cancer risk assessment is the key to identifying patients and families who are at increased risk for developing cancer. The knowledge generated by cancer risk assessment impacts clinical decisions that obstetricians and gynecologists and their patients make every day. Previvors—patients predisposed to developing cancer, because of their family history or a pathogenic gene variant, who have not had cancer—benefit from counseling, heightened surveillance, and medical and surgical options.
For the last 25 years, this field has been growing dramatically, and although the scientific advances are present, only 15.3% of patients with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer who meet hereditary cancer testing criteria have been tested.1 As many as 1 in 4 women who present for a gynecologic examination may have a personal history or a family history that qualifies them for genetic testing.2
Cancer risk app considerations
The ability to leverage mobile device applications can provide clinicians and patients with a useful screening tool to identify women who are at increased cancer risk. Only a handful of apps are available today and most are geared to patients. Such apps explore the different testing modalities, including genetic testing, as well as treatment options. When evaluating the best app for patients, using the ACOG-recommended rubric shown on page 35, the qualities to keep in mind and that should score 4 out of 4 include design, authority, usefulness, and accuracy.
A few apps provide reminders for appointments, such as mammograms, magnetic resonance imaging, or breast self-exams, and allow patients to track treatment plans. To date, no app addresses prevention and treatment opportunities that are specific to patients who have a hereditary predisposition. At least one app lists hereditary cancer testing guidelines. Many more apps are geared toward individuals with cancer rather than toward previvors.
As ObGyns, we have an opportunity to educate and identify women and, subsequently, better counsel women identified as at increased risk for developing cancer. We can utilize medical apps to efficiently incorporate this screening into clinical practice. ●
Hereditary cancer risk assessment is the key to identifying patients and families who are at increased risk for developing cancer. The knowledge generated by cancer risk assessment impacts clinical decisions that obstetricians and gynecologists and their patients make every day. Previvors—patients predisposed to developing cancer, because of their family history or a pathogenic gene variant, who have not had cancer—benefit from counseling, heightened surveillance, and medical and surgical options.
For the last 25 years, this field has been growing dramatically, and although the scientific advances are present, only 15.3% of patients with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer who meet hereditary cancer testing criteria have been tested.1 As many as 1 in 4 women who present for a gynecologic examination may have a personal history or a family history that qualifies them for genetic testing.2
Cancer risk app considerations
The ability to leverage mobile device applications can provide clinicians and patients with a useful screening tool to identify women who are at increased cancer risk. Only a handful of apps are available today and most are geared to patients. Such apps explore the different testing modalities, including genetic testing, as well as treatment options. When evaluating the best app for patients, using the ACOG-recommended rubric shown on page 35, the qualities to keep in mind and that should score 4 out of 4 include design, authority, usefulness, and accuracy.
A few apps provide reminders for appointments, such as mammograms, magnetic resonance imaging, or breast self-exams, and allow patients to track treatment plans. To date, no app addresses prevention and treatment opportunities that are specific to patients who have a hereditary predisposition. At least one app lists hereditary cancer testing guidelines. Many more apps are geared toward individuals with cancer rather than toward previvors.
As ObGyns, we have an opportunity to educate and identify women and, subsequently, better counsel women identified as at increased risk for developing cancer. We can utilize medical apps to efficiently incorporate this screening into clinical practice. ●
- Childers P, Childers KK, Maggard-Gibbons M, et al. National estimates of genetic testing in women with a history of breast or ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3800-3806.
- DeFrancesco M, Waldman RN, Pearlstone MM, et al. Hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in a community practice setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:1121-1129.
- Childers P, Childers KK, Maggard-Gibbons M, et al. National estimates of genetic testing in women with a history of breast or ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3800-3806.
- DeFrancesco M, Waldman RN, Pearlstone MM, et al. Hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in a community practice setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:1121-1129.
Mobile apps in ObGyn practice: Tools for enhancing women’s preventive health care
Evolutionary changes in ObGyn
Preventive medicine guidelines have evolved to reflect enhanced cervical cancer screening tests, longer-acting contraceptive options, and better data on the lack of utility of the annual pelvic exam that has changed the focus of the annual visit for both physicians and patients.1 These changes allow us to pivot and leverage the trust we build with our patients to make meaningful impacts in preventing chronic disease, improving prepregnancy health, reducing maternal mortality and morbidity, and improving the quality and longevity of our patients’ lives. New guidelines, coupled with the knowledge of the leading causes of morbidity for women, provide the chance to incorporate areas of screening and intervention that, while we are capable of addressing, we traditionally have not done so for various reasons.
The ACOG Presidential Task Force identified 5 areas of preventive health that significantly influence the long-term morbidity of women: obesity, cardiovascular disease, preconception counseling, diabetes, and cancer risk. ObGyns are uniquely positioned to identify and initiate the conversation and subsequently manage, treat, and address these critical health areas. To make this daunting task more manageable, the Task Force not only published webinars to address the clinical knowledge pertaining to these areas of health but also specifically looked at how to use technology to aid obstetrician-gynecologists in addressing them with patients.
Making use of technology in clinical practice
Technology is emerging as an influential player in health care. Major corporations, such as Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook, are making headlines in health care as they consider strategies (moves) to revolutionize technology and, in turn, patient visits like we have never seen before. Examples include incorporating artificial intelligence in a patient’s care and allowing better access for primary care.
The changes that we will see over the next 10 years, influenced by industry, will be more than those seen in our lifetime. To prepare for these changes, we need to incorporate technology into our daily practice. This encompasses much more than just the electronic medical record. Consequently, the Task Force intentionally looked at mobile medical apps to aid physicians in addressing the 5 specific areas of preventive health identified.
While a small step compared with what is to come, apps are a great resource to leverage in making this transition. However, with hundreds of thousands of medical apps available in app stores and the constant updates and iterations of each, it would be impossible to recommend any single app. There is much value in having a framework to use to efficiently measure the benefit of an app that you or your patient comes across in clinical practice. The objective of this series was to provide clinicians with an effective tool to evaluate a medical app that could be used, for example, when addressing obesity or optimizing prepregnancy health.
Continue to: The recommended rubric for evaluating apps...
The recommended rubric for evaluating apps
To evaluate mobile drug information apps, the Task Force members recommend a user-friendly, convenient rubric developed by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) (see page 35). The rubric can help obstetrician-gynecologists evaluate and compare the value of various medical apps that specifically address obesity, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, improving maternal morbidity with enhanced preconception counseling, and cancer risk assessment.
The authors of this Task Force series have attempted to highlight the key features of an app as it pertains to a particular area of focus. It is important to keep in mind the primary user and the goal when choosing or recommending an app for practice or for patient use. The ASHP’s rubric is a tool meant to aid clinicians in evaluating medical apps, but it is ultimately the user’s decision to determine if the deficiencies of an app should deter its use. Although all the criteria are relevant and important, as medical experts it is incumbent on us to pay careful attention to the accuracy, authority, objectivity, timeliness, and security of any app we consider incorporating into clinical practice.
While integrating the use of medical apps into clinical practice will be novel for some, for others, junior Fellows in particular, it has become part of their practice and education. Dr. Eva Hoffmann, Chief Resident in the NYU Langone Health System, offers this perspective: “As medical trainees we use mobile apps to enhance our patient interaction and guide high-quality, continuous care. In today’s modern technological world, apps help keep us up to date with the ever-changing guidelines in pregnancy and routine gynecologic care as well as communicate directly and discreetly with a patient whenever the need arises. The most significant apps provide guidance on abnormal Pap results, indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks, and the ability to respond to obstetrical emergencies. They also allow for quick society-endorsed references in seconds. Apps have changed the way that we practice by providing evidence-based medicine literally at our fingertips—in a shareable and communicable way—making the practice of medicine even more efficient and effective.”
Opportunity to reaffirm expertise
Dr. Chalas’ initiative was meant to shed light on the opportunity obstetrician-gynecologists have to reassert themselves as women’s health experts, to consider redefining their practice by incorporating new preventive guidelines, and to leverage medical apps for achieving better health outcomes for women across their lifetime. We hope that by opening a dialogue about how ubiquitous medical apps are (for both physicians and patients) in today’s health arena, how many apps are inaccurate and/or misused, and how a simple rubric can be used to assess an app’s value, you are inspired and feel more comfortable to incorporate medical apps into your practice.
Health care will continually undergo advancements, and as a specialty we must evolve to address women’s needs. Obstetrician-gynecologists are well suited to contribute significantly to the well-being of women and mothers. We can leverage technology-based apps to help us redefine our roles and priorities at the patient’s annual visit. We can reaffirm ourselves as the leading women’s health care physicians.
An additional resource
To enhance your understanding of apps and how to evaluate them, Dr. Katherine Chen’s App Review series in
In appreciation
The members of this Task Force want to thank the Editorial Board and staff of
- Women’s Preventive Services Initiative website. Recommendations for well-woman care: a well-woman chart. https:// www.womenspreventivehealth.org/wellwomanchart/. Accessed June 11, 2021.
- Chyjek K, Farag S, Chen KT. Rating pregnancy wheel applications using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1478-1483.
Hartaj K. Powell, MD, MPH
Dr. Powell is OB Hospitalist, Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Matthew Wells, MD, MBA
Dr. Wells is Attending Physician, Women and Children’s Services, NYU Langone Health Hospital, and Unified Women’s Healthcare, Mineola, New York
Eva Hoffmann, MD
Dr. Hoffmann is Resident Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Langone Hospital–Long Island, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Hartaj K. Powell, MD, MPH
Dr. Powell is OB Hospitalist, Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Matthew Wells, MD, MBA
Dr. Wells is Attending Physician, Women and Children’s Services, NYU Langone Health Hospital, and Unified Women’s Healthcare, Mineola, New York
Eva Hoffmann, MD
Dr. Hoffmann is Resident Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Langone Hospital–Long Island, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Hartaj K. Powell, MD, MPH
Dr. Powell is OB Hospitalist, Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Matthew Wells, MD, MBA
Dr. Wells is Attending Physician, Women and Children’s Services, NYU Langone Health Hospital, and Unified Women’s Healthcare, Mineola, New York
Eva Hoffmann, MD
Dr. Hoffmann is Resident Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Langone Hospital–Long Island, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Evolutionary changes in ObGyn
Preventive medicine guidelines have evolved to reflect enhanced cervical cancer screening tests, longer-acting contraceptive options, and better data on the lack of utility of the annual pelvic exam that has changed the focus of the annual visit for both physicians and patients.1 These changes allow us to pivot and leverage the trust we build with our patients to make meaningful impacts in preventing chronic disease, improving prepregnancy health, reducing maternal mortality and morbidity, and improving the quality and longevity of our patients’ lives. New guidelines, coupled with the knowledge of the leading causes of morbidity for women, provide the chance to incorporate areas of screening and intervention that, while we are capable of addressing, we traditionally have not done so for various reasons.
The ACOG Presidential Task Force identified 5 areas of preventive health that significantly influence the long-term morbidity of women: obesity, cardiovascular disease, preconception counseling, diabetes, and cancer risk. ObGyns are uniquely positioned to identify and initiate the conversation and subsequently manage, treat, and address these critical health areas. To make this daunting task more manageable, the Task Force not only published webinars to address the clinical knowledge pertaining to these areas of health but also specifically looked at how to use technology to aid obstetrician-gynecologists in addressing them with patients.
Making use of technology in clinical practice
Technology is emerging as an influential player in health care. Major corporations, such as Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook, are making headlines in health care as they consider strategies (moves) to revolutionize technology and, in turn, patient visits like we have never seen before. Examples include incorporating artificial intelligence in a patient’s care and allowing better access for primary care.
The changes that we will see over the next 10 years, influenced by industry, will be more than those seen in our lifetime. To prepare for these changes, we need to incorporate technology into our daily practice. This encompasses much more than just the electronic medical record. Consequently, the Task Force intentionally looked at mobile medical apps to aid physicians in addressing the 5 specific areas of preventive health identified.
While a small step compared with what is to come, apps are a great resource to leverage in making this transition. However, with hundreds of thousands of medical apps available in app stores and the constant updates and iterations of each, it would be impossible to recommend any single app. There is much value in having a framework to use to efficiently measure the benefit of an app that you or your patient comes across in clinical practice. The objective of this series was to provide clinicians with an effective tool to evaluate a medical app that could be used, for example, when addressing obesity or optimizing prepregnancy health.
Continue to: The recommended rubric for evaluating apps...
The recommended rubric for evaluating apps
To evaluate mobile drug information apps, the Task Force members recommend a user-friendly, convenient rubric developed by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) (see page 35). The rubric can help obstetrician-gynecologists evaluate and compare the value of various medical apps that specifically address obesity, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, improving maternal morbidity with enhanced preconception counseling, and cancer risk assessment.
The authors of this Task Force series have attempted to highlight the key features of an app as it pertains to a particular area of focus. It is important to keep in mind the primary user and the goal when choosing or recommending an app for practice or for patient use. The ASHP’s rubric is a tool meant to aid clinicians in evaluating medical apps, but it is ultimately the user’s decision to determine if the deficiencies of an app should deter its use. Although all the criteria are relevant and important, as medical experts it is incumbent on us to pay careful attention to the accuracy, authority, objectivity, timeliness, and security of any app we consider incorporating into clinical practice.
While integrating the use of medical apps into clinical practice will be novel for some, for others, junior Fellows in particular, it has become part of their practice and education. Dr. Eva Hoffmann, Chief Resident in the NYU Langone Health System, offers this perspective: “As medical trainees we use mobile apps to enhance our patient interaction and guide high-quality, continuous care. In today’s modern technological world, apps help keep us up to date with the ever-changing guidelines in pregnancy and routine gynecologic care as well as communicate directly and discreetly with a patient whenever the need arises. The most significant apps provide guidance on abnormal Pap results, indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks, and the ability to respond to obstetrical emergencies. They also allow for quick society-endorsed references in seconds. Apps have changed the way that we practice by providing evidence-based medicine literally at our fingertips—in a shareable and communicable way—making the practice of medicine even more efficient and effective.”
Opportunity to reaffirm expertise
Dr. Chalas’ initiative was meant to shed light on the opportunity obstetrician-gynecologists have to reassert themselves as women’s health experts, to consider redefining their practice by incorporating new preventive guidelines, and to leverage medical apps for achieving better health outcomes for women across their lifetime. We hope that by opening a dialogue about how ubiquitous medical apps are (for both physicians and patients) in today’s health arena, how many apps are inaccurate and/or misused, and how a simple rubric can be used to assess an app’s value, you are inspired and feel more comfortable to incorporate medical apps into your practice.
Health care will continually undergo advancements, and as a specialty we must evolve to address women’s needs. Obstetrician-gynecologists are well suited to contribute significantly to the well-being of women and mothers. We can leverage technology-based apps to help us redefine our roles and priorities at the patient’s annual visit. We can reaffirm ourselves as the leading women’s health care physicians.
An additional resource
To enhance your understanding of apps and how to evaluate them, Dr. Katherine Chen’s App Review series in
In appreciation
The members of this Task Force want to thank the Editorial Board and staff of
Evolutionary changes in ObGyn
Preventive medicine guidelines have evolved to reflect enhanced cervical cancer screening tests, longer-acting contraceptive options, and better data on the lack of utility of the annual pelvic exam that has changed the focus of the annual visit for both physicians and patients.1 These changes allow us to pivot and leverage the trust we build with our patients to make meaningful impacts in preventing chronic disease, improving prepregnancy health, reducing maternal mortality and morbidity, and improving the quality and longevity of our patients’ lives. New guidelines, coupled with the knowledge of the leading causes of morbidity for women, provide the chance to incorporate areas of screening and intervention that, while we are capable of addressing, we traditionally have not done so for various reasons.
The ACOG Presidential Task Force identified 5 areas of preventive health that significantly influence the long-term morbidity of women: obesity, cardiovascular disease, preconception counseling, diabetes, and cancer risk. ObGyns are uniquely positioned to identify and initiate the conversation and subsequently manage, treat, and address these critical health areas. To make this daunting task more manageable, the Task Force not only published webinars to address the clinical knowledge pertaining to these areas of health but also specifically looked at how to use technology to aid obstetrician-gynecologists in addressing them with patients.
Making use of technology in clinical practice
Technology is emerging as an influential player in health care. Major corporations, such as Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook, are making headlines in health care as they consider strategies (moves) to revolutionize technology and, in turn, patient visits like we have never seen before. Examples include incorporating artificial intelligence in a patient’s care and allowing better access for primary care.
The changes that we will see over the next 10 years, influenced by industry, will be more than those seen in our lifetime. To prepare for these changes, we need to incorporate technology into our daily practice. This encompasses much more than just the electronic medical record. Consequently, the Task Force intentionally looked at mobile medical apps to aid physicians in addressing the 5 specific areas of preventive health identified.
While a small step compared with what is to come, apps are a great resource to leverage in making this transition. However, with hundreds of thousands of medical apps available in app stores and the constant updates and iterations of each, it would be impossible to recommend any single app. There is much value in having a framework to use to efficiently measure the benefit of an app that you or your patient comes across in clinical practice. The objective of this series was to provide clinicians with an effective tool to evaluate a medical app that could be used, for example, when addressing obesity or optimizing prepregnancy health.
Continue to: The recommended rubric for evaluating apps...
The recommended rubric for evaluating apps
To evaluate mobile drug information apps, the Task Force members recommend a user-friendly, convenient rubric developed by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) (see page 35). The rubric can help obstetrician-gynecologists evaluate and compare the value of various medical apps that specifically address obesity, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, improving maternal morbidity with enhanced preconception counseling, and cancer risk assessment.
The authors of this Task Force series have attempted to highlight the key features of an app as it pertains to a particular area of focus. It is important to keep in mind the primary user and the goal when choosing or recommending an app for practice or for patient use. The ASHP’s rubric is a tool meant to aid clinicians in evaluating medical apps, but it is ultimately the user’s decision to determine if the deficiencies of an app should deter its use. Although all the criteria are relevant and important, as medical experts it is incumbent on us to pay careful attention to the accuracy, authority, objectivity, timeliness, and security of any app we consider incorporating into clinical practice.
While integrating the use of medical apps into clinical practice will be novel for some, for others, junior Fellows in particular, it has become part of their practice and education. Dr. Eva Hoffmann, Chief Resident in the NYU Langone Health System, offers this perspective: “As medical trainees we use mobile apps to enhance our patient interaction and guide high-quality, continuous care. In today’s modern technological world, apps help keep us up to date with the ever-changing guidelines in pregnancy and routine gynecologic care as well as communicate directly and discreetly with a patient whenever the need arises. The most significant apps provide guidance on abnormal Pap results, indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks, and the ability to respond to obstetrical emergencies. They also allow for quick society-endorsed references in seconds. Apps have changed the way that we practice by providing evidence-based medicine literally at our fingertips—in a shareable and communicable way—making the practice of medicine even more efficient and effective.”
Opportunity to reaffirm expertise
Dr. Chalas’ initiative was meant to shed light on the opportunity obstetrician-gynecologists have to reassert themselves as women’s health experts, to consider redefining their practice by incorporating new preventive guidelines, and to leverage medical apps for achieving better health outcomes for women across their lifetime. We hope that by opening a dialogue about how ubiquitous medical apps are (for both physicians and patients) in today’s health arena, how many apps are inaccurate and/or misused, and how a simple rubric can be used to assess an app’s value, you are inspired and feel more comfortable to incorporate medical apps into your practice.
Health care will continually undergo advancements, and as a specialty we must evolve to address women’s needs. Obstetrician-gynecologists are well suited to contribute significantly to the well-being of women and mothers. We can leverage technology-based apps to help us redefine our roles and priorities at the patient’s annual visit. We can reaffirm ourselves as the leading women’s health care physicians.
An additional resource
To enhance your understanding of apps and how to evaluate them, Dr. Katherine Chen’s App Review series in
In appreciation
The members of this Task Force want to thank the Editorial Board and staff of
- Women’s Preventive Services Initiative website. Recommendations for well-woman care: a well-woman chart. https:// www.womenspreventivehealth.org/wellwomanchart/. Accessed June 11, 2021.
- Chyjek K, Farag S, Chen KT. Rating pregnancy wheel applications using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1478-1483.
- Women’s Preventive Services Initiative website. Recommendations for well-woman care: a well-woman chart. https:// www.womenspreventivehealth.org/wellwomanchart/. Accessed June 11, 2021.
- Chyjek K, Farag S, Chen KT. Rating pregnancy wheel applications using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1478-1483.
Complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act
. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.
ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.
A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.
The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:
- The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
- There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
- An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.
This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.
Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:
- Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
- For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
- “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.
A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.
Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.
Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
- Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
- Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
- Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).
Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.
ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.
A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.
The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:
- The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
- There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
- An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.
This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.
Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:
- Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
- For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
- “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.
A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.
Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.
Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
- Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
- Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
- Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).
Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.
ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.
A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.
The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:
- The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
- There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
- An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.
This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.
Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:
- Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
- For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
- “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.
A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.
Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.
Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
- Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
- Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
- Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).
Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Focus on cardiovascular disease
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of women’s death in the United States, accounting for 1 in every 5 female deaths per year according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most risk factors for cardiovascular disease are modifiable. With a disease so prevalent in women’s health, obstetricians and gynecologists can assist patients in modifying these risk factors. This, however, is easier said than done.
One of the rate-limiting steps in assisting patients is the process of identifying an individual’s risk factors. This can be a time-consuming task in a women’s health appointment that is already busy with ObGyn-specific concerns, but technology can assist us.
Cardiovascular health app considerations
Many smartphone applications and websites are available that can alleviate the time constraints for identifying these individual modifiable risk factors. When evaluating cardiovascular risk factor apps for patients, keep these qualities (as outlined in the ACOG-recommended rubric) in mind: design, functionality, usefulness, and accuracy.
The patient-centered resources that assist women in identifying cardiovascular risk factors and that provide tools to positively impact these risk factors through lifestyle changes can help women achieve improved cardiovascular health. Recommendations include 1) manage blood pressure, 2) control cholesterol, 3) reduce blood sugar, 4) get active, 5) eat better, 6) lose weight, and 7) stop smoking.
National organizations’ smartphone apps guide the patient through a handful of questions about their current lifestyle, gender, age, and basic laboratory values. Their individual “heart health” results of these questions distribute the 7 risk factors to 3 categories based on the need to focus, improve, or celebrate. Through nonthreatening videos, patients can improve their scores themselves and bring the areas they need to focus, or improve, to their ObGyn’s attention for further assistance.
While adding one more task to an already busy practice can seem daunting, there are great technology resources that can be leveraged to successfully address this important health metric. By using the ACOG-recommended rubric and focusing on the app characteristics identified above, you can find one that works best for you and your patients and incorporate it into your practice today. ●
Matthew Wells, MD, MBA
Dr. Wells is Attending Physician, Women and Children’s Services, NYU Langone Health Hospital, and Unified Women’s Healthcare, Mineola, New York.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Matthew Wells, MD, MBA
Dr. Wells is Attending Physician, Women and Children’s Services, NYU Langone Health Hospital, and Unified Women’s Healthcare, Mineola, New York.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Matthew Wells, MD, MBA
Dr. Wells is Attending Physician, Women and Children’s Services, NYU Langone Health Hospital, and Unified Women’s Healthcare, Mineola, New York.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of women’s death in the United States, accounting for 1 in every 5 female deaths per year according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most risk factors for cardiovascular disease are modifiable. With a disease so prevalent in women’s health, obstetricians and gynecologists can assist patients in modifying these risk factors. This, however, is easier said than done.
One of the rate-limiting steps in assisting patients is the process of identifying an individual’s risk factors. This can be a time-consuming task in a women’s health appointment that is already busy with ObGyn-specific concerns, but technology can assist us.
Cardiovascular health app considerations
Many smartphone applications and websites are available that can alleviate the time constraints for identifying these individual modifiable risk factors. When evaluating cardiovascular risk factor apps for patients, keep these qualities (as outlined in the ACOG-recommended rubric) in mind: design, functionality, usefulness, and accuracy.
The patient-centered resources that assist women in identifying cardiovascular risk factors and that provide tools to positively impact these risk factors through lifestyle changes can help women achieve improved cardiovascular health. Recommendations include 1) manage blood pressure, 2) control cholesterol, 3) reduce blood sugar, 4) get active, 5) eat better, 6) lose weight, and 7) stop smoking.
National organizations’ smartphone apps guide the patient through a handful of questions about their current lifestyle, gender, age, and basic laboratory values. Their individual “heart health” results of these questions distribute the 7 risk factors to 3 categories based on the need to focus, improve, or celebrate. Through nonthreatening videos, patients can improve their scores themselves and bring the areas they need to focus, or improve, to their ObGyn’s attention for further assistance.
While adding one more task to an already busy practice can seem daunting, there are great technology resources that can be leveraged to successfully address this important health metric. By using the ACOG-recommended rubric and focusing on the app characteristics identified above, you can find one that works best for you and your patients and incorporate it into your practice today. ●
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of women’s death in the United States, accounting for 1 in every 5 female deaths per year according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most risk factors for cardiovascular disease are modifiable. With a disease so prevalent in women’s health, obstetricians and gynecologists can assist patients in modifying these risk factors. This, however, is easier said than done.
One of the rate-limiting steps in assisting patients is the process of identifying an individual’s risk factors. This can be a time-consuming task in a women’s health appointment that is already busy with ObGyn-specific concerns, but technology can assist us.
Cardiovascular health app considerations
Many smartphone applications and websites are available that can alleviate the time constraints for identifying these individual modifiable risk factors. When evaluating cardiovascular risk factor apps for patients, keep these qualities (as outlined in the ACOG-recommended rubric) in mind: design, functionality, usefulness, and accuracy.
The patient-centered resources that assist women in identifying cardiovascular risk factors and that provide tools to positively impact these risk factors through lifestyle changes can help women achieve improved cardiovascular health. Recommendations include 1) manage blood pressure, 2) control cholesterol, 3) reduce blood sugar, 4) get active, 5) eat better, 6) lose weight, and 7) stop smoking.
National organizations’ smartphone apps guide the patient through a handful of questions about their current lifestyle, gender, age, and basic laboratory values. Their individual “heart health” results of these questions distribute the 7 risk factors to 3 categories based on the need to focus, improve, or celebrate. Through nonthreatening videos, patients can improve their scores themselves and bring the areas they need to focus, or improve, to their ObGyn’s attention for further assistance.
While adding one more task to an already busy practice can seem daunting, there are great technology resources that can be leveraged to successfully address this important health metric. By using the ACOG-recommended rubric and focusing on the app characteristics identified above, you can find one that works best for you and your patients and incorporate it into your practice today. ●
Focus on diabetes mellitus
Diabetes mellitus affects 10% of the US population, and as many as one-third of US adults have prediabetes, according to the National Diabetes Statistics Report 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While diabetes is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality, with early identification and interventions, lifestyle modifications can significantly improve long-term health.
As with obesity (see “Focus on obesity” in OBG Management, May 2021), it is difficult to address lifestyle modifications with patients who have diabetes. However, many apps can be leveraged to aid physicians in this effort.
Diabetes app considerations
Obstetrician-gynecologists can play a pivotal role in helping to screen women for diabetes. When applying the ACOG-recommended rubric to evaluate the quality of an app that is targeted to address screening and diagnosing diabetes, it’s important to consider the app’s timeliness, authority, usefulness, and design.
There are point-of-care apps that include a few simple questions that can quickly identify which women should be screened. Some apps combine screening questions with testing results to streamline screening and diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes. These apps also provide clinical content to help physicians educate, initiate, and even treat diabetes if they desire.
A wealth of patient-centered apps are available to help patients address a diagnosis of diabetes. Apps that provide real-time feedback, motivational features to engage the user, and links to nutritional, fitness, and diabetic goals provide a woman with a comprehensive and personalized experience that can considerably improve health.
By incorporating apps and engaging with our patients on app technology, ObGyns can successfully partner with women to decrease morbidity with respect to diabetes mellitus and its long-term implications. ●
Hartaj K. Powell, MD, MPH
Dr. Powell is OB Hospitalist, Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Hartaj K. Powell, MD, MPH
Dr. Powell is OB Hospitalist, Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Hartaj K. Powell, MD, MPH
Dr. Powell is OB Hospitalist, Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Diabetes mellitus affects 10% of the US population, and as many as one-third of US adults have prediabetes, according to the National Diabetes Statistics Report 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While diabetes is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality, with early identification and interventions, lifestyle modifications can significantly improve long-term health.
As with obesity (see “Focus on obesity” in OBG Management, May 2021), it is difficult to address lifestyle modifications with patients who have diabetes. However, many apps can be leveraged to aid physicians in this effort.
Diabetes app considerations
Obstetrician-gynecologists can play a pivotal role in helping to screen women for diabetes. When applying the ACOG-recommended rubric to evaluate the quality of an app that is targeted to address screening and diagnosing diabetes, it’s important to consider the app’s timeliness, authority, usefulness, and design.
There are point-of-care apps that include a few simple questions that can quickly identify which women should be screened. Some apps combine screening questions with testing results to streamline screening and diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes. These apps also provide clinical content to help physicians educate, initiate, and even treat diabetes if they desire.
A wealth of patient-centered apps are available to help patients address a diagnosis of diabetes. Apps that provide real-time feedback, motivational features to engage the user, and links to nutritional, fitness, and diabetic goals provide a woman with a comprehensive and personalized experience that can considerably improve health.
By incorporating apps and engaging with our patients on app technology, ObGyns can successfully partner with women to decrease morbidity with respect to diabetes mellitus and its long-term implications. ●
Diabetes mellitus affects 10% of the US population, and as many as one-third of US adults have prediabetes, according to the National Diabetes Statistics Report 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While diabetes is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality, with early identification and interventions, lifestyle modifications can significantly improve long-term health.
As with obesity (see “Focus on obesity” in OBG Management, May 2021), it is difficult to address lifestyle modifications with patients who have diabetes. However, many apps can be leveraged to aid physicians in this effort.
Diabetes app considerations
Obstetrician-gynecologists can play a pivotal role in helping to screen women for diabetes. When applying the ACOG-recommended rubric to evaluate the quality of an app that is targeted to address screening and diagnosing diabetes, it’s important to consider the app’s timeliness, authority, usefulness, and design.
There are point-of-care apps that include a few simple questions that can quickly identify which women should be screened. Some apps combine screening questions with testing results to streamline screening and diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes. These apps also provide clinical content to help physicians educate, initiate, and even treat diabetes if they desire.
A wealth of patient-centered apps are available to help patients address a diagnosis of diabetes. Apps that provide real-time feedback, motivational features to engage the user, and links to nutritional, fitness, and diabetic goals provide a woman with a comprehensive and personalized experience that can considerably improve health.
By incorporating apps and engaging with our patients on app technology, ObGyns can successfully partner with women to decrease morbidity with respect to diabetes mellitus and its long-term implications. ●
Addressing an uncharted front in the war on COVID-19: Vaccination during pregnancy
In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccine presented us with a new tactic in the war against SARS-COV-2—and a new dilemma for obstetricians. What we had learned about COVID-19 infection in pregnancy by that point was alarming. While the vast majority (>90%) of pregnant women who contract COVID-19 recover without requiring hospitalization, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and mechanical ventilation when compared with their nonpregnant counterparts.1 Vertical transmission to the fetus is a rare event, but the increased risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, and preeclampsia makes the fetus a second victim in many cases.2 Moreover, much is still unknown about the long-term impact of severe illness on maternal and fetal health.
Gaining vaccine approval
The COVID-19 vaccine, with its high efficacy rates in the nonpregnant adult population, presents an opportunity to reduce maternal morbidity related to this devastating illness. But unlike other vaccines, such as the flu shot and TDAP, results from prospective studies on COVID-19 vaccination of expectant women are pending. Under the best of circumstances, gaining acceptance of any vaccine during pregnancy faces barriers such as vaccine hesitancy and a general concern from pregnant women about the effect of medical interventions on the fetus. There is no reason to expect that either the mRNA vaccines or the replication-incompetent adenovirus recombinant vector vaccine could cause harm to the developing fetus, but the fact that currently available COVID-19 vaccines use newer technologies complicates the decision for many women.
Nevertheless, what we do know now is much more than we did in December, particularly when it comes to the mRNA vaccines. To date, observational studies of women who received the mRNA vaccine in pregnancy have shown no increased risk of adverse maternal, fetal, or obstetric outcomes.3 Emerging data also indicate that antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the target of all 3 vaccines—is present in cord blood, potentially protecting the infant in the first months of life from contracting COVID-19 if the mother receives the vaccine during pregnancy.4,5
Our approach to counseling
How can we best help our patients navigate the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine? First, by acknowledging the obvious: We are in the midst of a pandemic with high rates of community spread, which makes COVID-19 different from any other vaccine-preventable disease at this time. Providing patients with a structure for making an educated decision is essential, taking into account (1) what we know about COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, (2) what we know about vaccine efficacy and safety to date, and (3) individual factors such as:
- The presence of comorbidities such as obesity, heart disease, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
- Potential exposures—“Do you have children in school or daycare? Do childcare providers or other workers come to your home? What is your occupation?”
- The ability to take precautions (social distancing, wearing a mask, etc)
All things considered, the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or not ultimately belongs to the patient. Given disease prevalence and the latest information on vaccine safety in pregnancy, I have been advising my patients in the second trimester or beyond to receive the vaccine with the caveat that delaying the vaccine until the postpartum period is a completely valid alternative. The most important gift we can offer our patients is to arm them with the necessary information so that they can make the choice best for them and their family as we continue to fight this war on COVID-19.
- Allotey J, Stallings E, Bonet M, et al. Clinical manifestations, risk factors and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3320.
- Soheili M, Moradi G, Baradaran HR, et al. Clinical manifestation and maternal complications and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19: a comprehensive evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. February 18, 2021. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1888923.
- Shimabukuro TT, Kim SY, Myers TR, et al. Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons. N Engl J Med. April 21, 2021. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983.
- Mithal LB, Otero S, Shanes ED, et al. Cord blood antibodies following maternal COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;S0002-9378(21)00215-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.035.
- Rottenstreich A, Zarbiv G, Oiknine-Djian E, et al. Efficient maternofetal transplacental transfer of anti- SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies after antenatal SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;ciab266. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab266.
In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccine presented us with a new tactic in the war against SARS-COV-2—and a new dilemma for obstetricians. What we had learned about COVID-19 infection in pregnancy by that point was alarming. While the vast majority (>90%) of pregnant women who contract COVID-19 recover without requiring hospitalization, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and mechanical ventilation when compared with their nonpregnant counterparts.1 Vertical transmission to the fetus is a rare event, but the increased risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, and preeclampsia makes the fetus a second victim in many cases.2 Moreover, much is still unknown about the long-term impact of severe illness on maternal and fetal health.
Gaining vaccine approval
The COVID-19 vaccine, with its high efficacy rates in the nonpregnant adult population, presents an opportunity to reduce maternal morbidity related to this devastating illness. But unlike other vaccines, such as the flu shot and TDAP, results from prospective studies on COVID-19 vaccination of expectant women are pending. Under the best of circumstances, gaining acceptance of any vaccine during pregnancy faces barriers such as vaccine hesitancy and a general concern from pregnant women about the effect of medical interventions on the fetus. There is no reason to expect that either the mRNA vaccines or the replication-incompetent adenovirus recombinant vector vaccine could cause harm to the developing fetus, but the fact that currently available COVID-19 vaccines use newer technologies complicates the decision for many women.
Nevertheless, what we do know now is much more than we did in December, particularly when it comes to the mRNA vaccines. To date, observational studies of women who received the mRNA vaccine in pregnancy have shown no increased risk of adverse maternal, fetal, or obstetric outcomes.3 Emerging data also indicate that antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the target of all 3 vaccines—is present in cord blood, potentially protecting the infant in the first months of life from contracting COVID-19 if the mother receives the vaccine during pregnancy.4,5
Our approach to counseling
How can we best help our patients navigate the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine? First, by acknowledging the obvious: We are in the midst of a pandemic with high rates of community spread, which makes COVID-19 different from any other vaccine-preventable disease at this time. Providing patients with a structure for making an educated decision is essential, taking into account (1) what we know about COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, (2) what we know about vaccine efficacy and safety to date, and (3) individual factors such as:
- The presence of comorbidities such as obesity, heart disease, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
- Potential exposures—“Do you have children in school or daycare? Do childcare providers or other workers come to your home? What is your occupation?”
- The ability to take precautions (social distancing, wearing a mask, etc)
All things considered, the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or not ultimately belongs to the patient. Given disease prevalence and the latest information on vaccine safety in pregnancy, I have been advising my patients in the second trimester or beyond to receive the vaccine with the caveat that delaying the vaccine until the postpartum period is a completely valid alternative. The most important gift we can offer our patients is to arm them with the necessary information so that they can make the choice best for them and their family as we continue to fight this war on COVID-19.
In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccine presented us with a new tactic in the war against SARS-COV-2—and a new dilemma for obstetricians. What we had learned about COVID-19 infection in pregnancy by that point was alarming. While the vast majority (>90%) of pregnant women who contract COVID-19 recover without requiring hospitalization, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and mechanical ventilation when compared with their nonpregnant counterparts.1 Vertical transmission to the fetus is a rare event, but the increased risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, and preeclampsia makes the fetus a second victim in many cases.2 Moreover, much is still unknown about the long-term impact of severe illness on maternal and fetal health.
Gaining vaccine approval
The COVID-19 vaccine, with its high efficacy rates in the nonpregnant adult population, presents an opportunity to reduce maternal morbidity related to this devastating illness. But unlike other vaccines, such as the flu shot and TDAP, results from prospective studies on COVID-19 vaccination of expectant women are pending. Under the best of circumstances, gaining acceptance of any vaccine during pregnancy faces barriers such as vaccine hesitancy and a general concern from pregnant women about the effect of medical interventions on the fetus. There is no reason to expect that either the mRNA vaccines or the replication-incompetent adenovirus recombinant vector vaccine could cause harm to the developing fetus, but the fact that currently available COVID-19 vaccines use newer technologies complicates the decision for many women.
Nevertheless, what we do know now is much more than we did in December, particularly when it comes to the mRNA vaccines. To date, observational studies of women who received the mRNA vaccine in pregnancy have shown no increased risk of adverse maternal, fetal, or obstetric outcomes.3 Emerging data also indicate that antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the target of all 3 vaccines—is present in cord blood, potentially protecting the infant in the first months of life from contracting COVID-19 if the mother receives the vaccine during pregnancy.4,5
Our approach to counseling
How can we best help our patients navigate the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine? First, by acknowledging the obvious: We are in the midst of a pandemic with high rates of community spread, which makes COVID-19 different from any other vaccine-preventable disease at this time. Providing patients with a structure for making an educated decision is essential, taking into account (1) what we know about COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, (2) what we know about vaccine efficacy and safety to date, and (3) individual factors such as:
- The presence of comorbidities such as obesity, heart disease, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
- Potential exposures—“Do you have children in school or daycare? Do childcare providers or other workers come to your home? What is your occupation?”
- The ability to take precautions (social distancing, wearing a mask, etc)
All things considered, the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or not ultimately belongs to the patient. Given disease prevalence and the latest information on vaccine safety in pregnancy, I have been advising my patients in the second trimester or beyond to receive the vaccine with the caveat that delaying the vaccine until the postpartum period is a completely valid alternative. The most important gift we can offer our patients is to arm them with the necessary information so that they can make the choice best for them and their family as we continue to fight this war on COVID-19.
- Allotey J, Stallings E, Bonet M, et al. Clinical manifestations, risk factors and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3320.
- Soheili M, Moradi G, Baradaran HR, et al. Clinical manifestation and maternal complications and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19: a comprehensive evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. February 18, 2021. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1888923.
- Shimabukuro TT, Kim SY, Myers TR, et al. Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons. N Engl J Med. April 21, 2021. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983.
- Mithal LB, Otero S, Shanes ED, et al. Cord blood antibodies following maternal COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;S0002-9378(21)00215-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.035.
- Rottenstreich A, Zarbiv G, Oiknine-Djian E, et al. Efficient maternofetal transplacental transfer of anti- SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies after antenatal SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;ciab266. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab266.
- Allotey J, Stallings E, Bonet M, et al. Clinical manifestations, risk factors and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3320.
- Soheili M, Moradi G, Baradaran HR, et al. Clinical manifestation and maternal complications and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19: a comprehensive evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. February 18, 2021. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1888923.
- Shimabukuro TT, Kim SY, Myers TR, et al. Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons. N Engl J Med. April 21, 2021. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983.
- Mithal LB, Otero S, Shanes ED, et al. Cord blood antibodies following maternal COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;S0002-9378(21)00215-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.035.
- Rottenstreich A, Zarbiv G, Oiknine-Djian E, et al. Efficient maternofetal transplacental transfer of anti- SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies after antenatal SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;ciab266. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab266.
Focus on prepregnancy care
Improving maternal morbidity and mortality begins prior to conception. Numerous modifiable and nonmodifiable factors—lifestyle behaviors, chronic medical conditions, medications, immunizations, prior pregnancy events—have been shown to improve pregnancy outcomes if they are reviewed, identified, and optimized before conception.
Laying a solid foundation for a healthy pregnancy requires a comprehensive approach to patient counseling. However, the national Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS; a surveillance program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) data from 2014 show that only about 20% of women receive counseling on at least 5 out of 11 healthy lifestyle behaviors and prevention strategies before pregnancy. The ability to leverage technology-enabled smart device applications can provide clinicians with immediate access to information necessary to address with patients at a preconception visit. Apps built specifically for physicians offer a convenient, thorough, and peer-vetted reference that can increase the efficiency and quality of consultation in a busy practice.
Prepregnancy care app considerations
When applying the ACOG-recommended rubric to evaluate the quality of an app targeted to address preconception counseling, the accuracy and objectivity of the content, as well as the app’s ease of use, are vital characteristics to consider, and these criteria should score 4 out of 4 on the rubric.
Several apps offer suggestions on how to address important components of health, including counseling and intervention strategies and evidence-based recommendations. The most efficacious apps offer embedded references to more detailed resources for use when complexities inevitably arise during consultation. Truly comprehensive prepregnancy care requires clinicians to take a step beyond the review of patients’ medications and comorbidities. It is therefore helpful to implement point-of-care apps that prompt evaluation of the often-overlooked aspects of prepregnancy counseling, including risk of interpersonal violence and infectious diseases, occupational exposures, and immunization status.
Physician-focused prepregnancy apps that provide reminders, prompts, and strategies for addressing a comprehensive set of health components prior to conception can be valuable tools to incorporate into both educational environments and busy practices to address maternal morbidity and mortality. ●
Krista Wagoner, MD
Dr. Wagoner is Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Director, Clerkship in Obstetrics and Gynecology, MUSC East Cooper Women’s Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Krista Wagoner, MD
Dr. Wagoner is Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Director, Clerkship in Obstetrics and Gynecology, MUSC East Cooper Women’s Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Krista Wagoner, MD
Dr. Wagoner is Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Director, Clerkship in Obstetrics and Gynecology, MUSC East Cooper Women’s Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Improving maternal morbidity and mortality begins prior to conception. Numerous modifiable and nonmodifiable factors—lifestyle behaviors, chronic medical conditions, medications, immunizations, prior pregnancy events—have been shown to improve pregnancy outcomes if they are reviewed, identified, and optimized before conception.
Laying a solid foundation for a healthy pregnancy requires a comprehensive approach to patient counseling. However, the national Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS; a surveillance program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) data from 2014 show that only about 20% of women receive counseling on at least 5 out of 11 healthy lifestyle behaviors and prevention strategies before pregnancy. The ability to leverage technology-enabled smart device applications can provide clinicians with immediate access to information necessary to address with patients at a preconception visit. Apps built specifically for physicians offer a convenient, thorough, and peer-vetted reference that can increase the efficiency and quality of consultation in a busy practice.
Prepregnancy care app considerations
When applying the ACOG-recommended rubric to evaluate the quality of an app targeted to address preconception counseling, the accuracy and objectivity of the content, as well as the app’s ease of use, are vital characteristics to consider, and these criteria should score 4 out of 4 on the rubric.
Several apps offer suggestions on how to address important components of health, including counseling and intervention strategies and evidence-based recommendations. The most efficacious apps offer embedded references to more detailed resources for use when complexities inevitably arise during consultation. Truly comprehensive prepregnancy care requires clinicians to take a step beyond the review of patients’ medications and comorbidities. It is therefore helpful to implement point-of-care apps that prompt evaluation of the often-overlooked aspects of prepregnancy counseling, including risk of interpersonal violence and infectious diseases, occupational exposures, and immunization status.
Physician-focused prepregnancy apps that provide reminders, prompts, and strategies for addressing a comprehensive set of health components prior to conception can be valuable tools to incorporate into both educational environments and busy practices to address maternal morbidity and mortality. ●
Improving maternal morbidity and mortality begins prior to conception. Numerous modifiable and nonmodifiable factors—lifestyle behaviors, chronic medical conditions, medications, immunizations, prior pregnancy events—have been shown to improve pregnancy outcomes if they are reviewed, identified, and optimized before conception.
Laying a solid foundation for a healthy pregnancy requires a comprehensive approach to patient counseling. However, the national Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS; a surveillance program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) data from 2014 show that only about 20% of women receive counseling on at least 5 out of 11 healthy lifestyle behaviors and prevention strategies before pregnancy. The ability to leverage technology-enabled smart device applications can provide clinicians with immediate access to information necessary to address with patients at a preconception visit. Apps built specifically for physicians offer a convenient, thorough, and peer-vetted reference that can increase the efficiency and quality of consultation in a busy practice.
Prepregnancy care app considerations
When applying the ACOG-recommended rubric to evaluate the quality of an app targeted to address preconception counseling, the accuracy and objectivity of the content, as well as the app’s ease of use, are vital characteristics to consider, and these criteria should score 4 out of 4 on the rubric.
Several apps offer suggestions on how to address important components of health, including counseling and intervention strategies and evidence-based recommendations. The most efficacious apps offer embedded references to more detailed resources for use when complexities inevitably arise during consultation. Truly comprehensive prepregnancy care requires clinicians to take a step beyond the review of patients’ medications and comorbidities. It is therefore helpful to implement point-of-care apps that prompt evaluation of the often-overlooked aspects of prepregnancy counseling, including risk of interpersonal violence and infectious diseases, occupational exposures, and immunization status.
Physician-focused prepregnancy apps that provide reminders, prompts, and strategies for addressing a comprehensive set of health components prior to conception can be valuable tools to incorporate into both educational environments and busy practices to address maternal morbidity and mortality. ●