User login
Gastroenterology practice evaluations: Can patients get satisfaction?
Although largely untouched by the first and second industrial revolutions in the 18th and 20th centuries, the practice of medicine in the 21st century is increasingly susceptible to the vast transformative power of the third – and rapidly approaching fourth – industrial revolutions. New technological advances and their associated distribution of knowledge and connectedness have allowed patients unprecedented access to health care information. The salutary effects of this change is manifest in a diversity of areas, including registries that facilitate participation in state of the art research such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the ability to track nascent trends in infectious diseases with Google searches.1
Although the stakes may seem lower when patients go online to choose a practitioner, the reality demonstrates just how important those search results can be. With parallels of similar trends in other sectors, there is an increasing emphasis on ranking health care facilities, practitioners, and medical experiences. This phenomenon extends beyond private Internet sites into government scorecards, which has significant implications. But even with widespread access to information, there is frequently a lack of context for interpreting these data. Consequently, it is worth exploring why measuring satisfaction can be important, how patients can rate practitioners, and what to do with the available information to improve care delivery.
The idea to measure patient satisfaction of delivered health care began in earnest during the 1980s with Irwin Press and Rodney Ganey collaborating to create formal processes for collecting data on the “salient aspects of ... health care experience, [involving] the interaction of expectations, preferences, and satisfaction with medical care.”2,3 The enthusiasm for collecting these data has grown greatly since that time. More recently, the federal government began obtaining data in 2002 when the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) collaborated to develop a standardized questionnaire for hospitalized patients known as the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, or HCAHPS.4 Subsequently, standardized survey instruments have been developed for nearly every phase of care, including outpatient care (CG-CAHPS), emergency care (ED-CAHPS), and ambulatory surgery care (OAS-CAHPS). These instruments are particularly relevant to gastroenterologists, with questions querying patients about preprocedure instructions, surgery center check-in processes, comfort of procedure and waiting rooms, friendliness of providers, and quality of postprocedure information.
The focus on rating satisfaction intensified in 2010 after the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Around this time, patient satisfaction and health outcomes became more deeply integrated concepts in health care quality. As part of a broader emphasis in this area, CMS initiated the hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program, which tied incentive payments for Medicare beneficiaries to hospital-based health care quality and patient satisfaction. Within this schema, 25% of performance, and its associated economic stakes, is measured by HCAHPS scores.5 Other value programs such as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment Program (MIPS) include CAHPS instruments as optional assessments of quality.
Given the financial risks linked to satisfaction rankings and their online visibility, many argue that patient satisfaction is prioritized in organizations above more clinically meaningful metrics. Studies have shown, however, that high levels of patient satisfaction can lead to increased patient loyalty, treatment adherence, patient retention, staff morale, and personal and professional satisfaction.6,7 In fact, not surprisingly, there is an inverse correlation between patient satisfaction and the rates of malpractice lawsuits.7-10
Despite the growing relevance of patient perceptions to clinical practice, measuring satisfaction remains a challenge. While current metrics are particular to an individual patient’s experiences, underlying health conditions influence opinions of these episodes of care. Specifically, patients with depression and anxiety are, in general, less satisfied with the care they receive.11,12 Similarly, patients with chronic diseases on multiple medications and those with more severe symptoms are commonly less satisfied with their care than are patients with acute issues2 and with milder symptoms.3 As gastroenterologists, seeing sicker patients with chronic conditions is not uncommon, and this could serve as a disadvantage when compared with peers in other specialties because scores are not typically adjusted.
Since patient-centered metrics are likely to remain relevant in the future, and with the unique challenges this can present to practicing gastroenterologists, achieving higher degrees of patient satisfaction remains both aspirational and difficult. We will be asked to reconcile and manage not only clinical conundrums but also seemingly conflicting realities of patient preferences. For example, it has been shown that, among patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), more testing led to higher satisfaction only until that testing was performed within the context of a gastroenterologist’s care.13 In contrast, within the endoscopy setting, a preprocedure diagnosis of IBS did not increase the risk for procedure-related dissatisfaction, provided patients were not prescribed chronic psychotropic medication, nervous prior to the procedure, distressed or in pain during the procedure, or had unmet physical or emotional needs during the procedure.14 Furthermore, there is poor correlation between endoscopic quality measures with strong evidence – such as adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate – and patient satisfaction.15
So, when considering these conflicting findings and evidence that patients’ global rating of their health care is not reliably associated with the quality of the care they receive,16 should we emphasize experience over outcome? As clinicians practicing in an increasingly transparent and value-based health care environment, we are subject to many priorities contending for our attention. We strive to provide care that is at once patient centric, evidence based, and low cost; however, achieving these goals often requires different strategies. At the end of the day, our primary aim is to provide consistently excellent patient care. We believe that quality and experience are not competing principles. Patient satisfaction is relevant and important, but it should not preclude adherence to our primary responsibility of providing high-quality care.
When trying to make clinical decisions that may compromise one of these goals for another, it can be helpful to recall the “me and my family” rule: What kind of care would I want for myself or my loved ones in this situation?
Acknowledgement
We thank Dr. Ziad Gellad (Duke University, Durham, N.C.) for his assistance in reviewing and providing feedback on this manuscript.
1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(47):14473-8. 2. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3(4):579-94.
3. Gut. 2004;53(SUPPL. 4):40-4.
4. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(11):982-7.
5. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(5):271-7.
6. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2011;24(4):266-73.
7. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2010;3(3):151-5.
8. Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-33.
9. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2951-7. 10. JAMA. 1994;272(20):1583-7.
11. J Diabetes Metab. 2012;3(7):1000210.
12. Am Heart J. 2000;140(1):105-10.
13. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(7):614-21.
14. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50(10):1860-71.15. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(7):1089-91.
16. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(9):665-72.
Dr. Finn is a gastroenterologist with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Mountain View, Calif.; Dr. Leiman is assistant professor of medicine, director of esophageal research and quality in the division of gastroenterology, Duke University, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chair-elect of the AGA Quality Committee.
Although largely untouched by the first and second industrial revolutions in the 18th and 20th centuries, the practice of medicine in the 21st century is increasingly susceptible to the vast transformative power of the third – and rapidly approaching fourth – industrial revolutions. New technological advances and their associated distribution of knowledge and connectedness have allowed patients unprecedented access to health care information. The salutary effects of this change is manifest in a diversity of areas, including registries that facilitate participation in state of the art research such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the ability to track nascent trends in infectious diseases with Google searches.1
Although the stakes may seem lower when patients go online to choose a practitioner, the reality demonstrates just how important those search results can be. With parallels of similar trends in other sectors, there is an increasing emphasis on ranking health care facilities, practitioners, and medical experiences. This phenomenon extends beyond private Internet sites into government scorecards, which has significant implications. But even with widespread access to information, there is frequently a lack of context for interpreting these data. Consequently, it is worth exploring why measuring satisfaction can be important, how patients can rate practitioners, and what to do with the available information to improve care delivery.
The idea to measure patient satisfaction of delivered health care began in earnest during the 1980s with Irwin Press and Rodney Ganey collaborating to create formal processes for collecting data on the “salient aspects of ... health care experience, [involving] the interaction of expectations, preferences, and satisfaction with medical care.”2,3 The enthusiasm for collecting these data has grown greatly since that time. More recently, the federal government began obtaining data in 2002 when the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) collaborated to develop a standardized questionnaire for hospitalized patients known as the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, or HCAHPS.4 Subsequently, standardized survey instruments have been developed for nearly every phase of care, including outpatient care (CG-CAHPS), emergency care (ED-CAHPS), and ambulatory surgery care (OAS-CAHPS). These instruments are particularly relevant to gastroenterologists, with questions querying patients about preprocedure instructions, surgery center check-in processes, comfort of procedure and waiting rooms, friendliness of providers, and quality of postprocedure information.
The focus on rating satisfaction intensified in 2010 after the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Around this time, patient satisfaction and health outcomes became more deeply integrated concepts in health care quality. As part of a broader emphasis in this area, CMS initiated the hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program, which tied incentive payments for Medicare beneficiaries to hospital-based health care quality and patient satisfaction. Within this schema, 25% of performance, and its associated economic stakes, is measured by HCAHPS scores.5 Other value programs such as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment Program (MIPS) include CAHPS instruments as optional assessments of quality.
Given the financial risks linked to satisfaction rankings and their online visibility, many argue that patient satisfaction is prioritized in organizations above more clinically meaningful metrics. Studies have shown, however, that high levels of patient satisfaction can lead to increased patient loyalty, treatment adherence, patient retention, staff morale, and personal and professional satisfaction.6,7 In fact, not surprisingly, there is an inverse correlation between patient satisfaction and the rates of malpractice lawsuits.7-10
Despite the growing relevance of patient perceptions to clinical practice, measuring satisfaction remains a challenge. While current metrics are particular to an individual patient’s experiences, underlying health conditions influence opinions of these episodes of care. Specifically, patients with depression and anxiety are, in general, less satisfied with the care they receive.11,12 Similarly, patients with chronic diseases on multiple medications and those with more severe symptoms are commonly less satisfied with their care than are patients with acute issues2 and with milder symptoms.3 As gastroenterologists, seeing sicker patients with chronic conditions is not uncommon, and this could serve as a disadvantage when compared with peers in other specialties because scores are not typically adjusted.
Since patient-centered metrics are likely to remain relevant in the future, and with the unique challenges this can present to practicing gastroenterologists, achieving higher degrees of patient satisfaction remains both aspirational and difficult. We will be asked to reconcile and manage not only clinical conundrums but also seemingly conflicting realities of patient preferences. For example, it has been shown that, among patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), more testing led to higher satisfaction only until that testing was performed within the context of a gastroenterologist’s care.13 In contrast, within the endoscopy setting, a preprocedure diagnosis of IBS did not increase the risk for procedure-related dissatisfaction, provided patients were not prescribed chronic psychotropic medication, nervous prior to the procedure, distressed or in pain during the procedure, or had unmet physical or emotional needs during the procedure.14 Furthermore, there is poor correlation between endoscopic quality measures with strong evidence – such as adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate – and patient satisfaction.15
So, when considering these conflicting findings and evidence that patients’ global rating of their health care is not reliably associated with the quality of the care they receive,16 should we emphasize experience over outcome? As clinicians practicing in an increasingly transparent and value-based health care environment, we are subject to many priorities contending for our attention. We strive to provide care that is at once patient centric, evidence based, and low cost; however, achieving these goals often requires different strategies. At the end of the day, our primary aim is to provide consistently excellent patient care. We believe that quality and experience are not competing principles. Patient satisfaction is relevant and important, but it should not preclude adherence to our primary responsibility of providing high-quality care.
When trying to make clinical decisions that may compromise one of these goals for another, it can be helpful to recall the “me and my family” rule: What kind of care would I want for myself or my loved ones in this situation?
Acknowledgement
We thank Dr. Ziad Gellad (Duke University, Durham, N.C.) for his assistance in reviewing and providing feedback on this manuscript.
1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(47):14473-8. 2. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3(4):579-94.
3. Gut. 2004;53(SUPPL. 4):40-4.
4. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(11):982-7.
5. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(5):271-7.
6. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2011;24(4):266-73.
7. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2010;3(3):151-5.
8. Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-33.
9. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2951-7. 10. JAMA. 1994;272(20):1583-7.
11. J Diabetes Metab. 2012;3(7):1000210.
12. Am Heart J. 2000;140(1):105-10.
13. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(7):614-21.
14. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50(10):1860-71.15. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(7):1089-91.
16. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(9):665-72.
Dr. Finn is a gastroenterologist with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Mountain View, Calif.; Dr. Leiman is assistant professor of medicine, director of esophageal research and quality in the division of gastroenterology, Duke University, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chair-elect of the AGA Quality Committee.
Although largely untouched by the first and second industrial revolutions in the 18th and 20th centuries, the practice of medicine in the 21st century is increasingly susceptible to the vast transformative power of the third – and rapidly approaching fourth – industrial revolutions. New technological advances and their associated distribution of knowledge and connectedness have allowed patients unprecedented access to health care information. The salutary effects of this change is manifest in a diversity of areas, including registries that facilitate participation in state of the art research such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the ability to track nascent trends in infectious diseases with Google searches.1
Although the stakes may seem lower when patients go online to choose a practitioner, the reality demonstrates just how important those search results can be. With parallels of similar trends in other sectors, there is an increasing emphasis on ranking health care facilities, practitioners, and medical experiences. This phenomenon extends beyond private Internet sites into government scorecards, which has significant implications. But even with widespread access to information, there is frequently a lack of context for interpreting these data. Consequently, it is worth exploring why measuring satisfaction can be important, how patients can rate practitioners, and what to do with the available information to improve care delivery.
The idea to measure patient satisfaction of delivered health care began in earnest during the 1980s with Irwin Press and Rodney Ganey collaborating to create formal processes for collecting data on the “salient aspects of ... health care experience, [involving] the interaction of expectations, preferences, and satisfaction with medical care.”2,3 The enthusiasm for collecting these data has grown greatly since that time. More recently, the federal government began obtaining data in 2002 when the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) collaborated to develop a standardized questionnaire for hospitalized patients known as the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, or HCAHPS.4 Subsequently, standardized survey instruments have been developed for nearly every phase of care, including outpatient care (CG-CAHPS), emergency care (ED-CAHPS), and ambulatory surgery care (OAS-CAHPS). These instruments are particularly relevant to gastroenterologists, with questions querying patients about preprocedure instructions, surgery center check-in processes, comfort of procedure and waiting rooms, friendliness of providers, and quality of postprocedure information.
The focus on rating satisfaction intensified in 2010 after the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Around this time, patient satisfaction and health outcomes became more deeply integrated concepts in health care quality. As part of a broader emphasis in this area, CMS initiated the hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program, which tied incentive payments for Medicare beneficiaries to hospital-based health care quality and patient satisfaction. Within this schema, 25% of performance, and its associated economic stakes, is measured by HCAHPS scores.5 Other value programs such as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment Program (MIPS) include CAHPS instruments as optional assessments of quality.
Given the financial risks linked to satisfaction rankings and their online visibility, many argue that patient satisfaction is prioritized in organizations above more clinically meaningful metrics. Studies have shown, however, that high levels of patient satisfaction can lead to increased patient loyalty, treatment adherence, patient retention, staff morale, and personal and professional satisfaction.6,7 In fact, not surprisingly, there is an inverse correlation between patient satisfaction and the rates of malpractice lawsuits.7-10
Despite the growing relevance of patient perceptions to clinical practice, measuring satisfaction remains a challenge. While current metrics are particular to an individual patient’s experiences, underlying health conditions influence opinions of these episodes of care. Specifically, patients with depression and anxiety are, in general, less satisfied with the care they receive.11,12 Similarly, patients with chronic diseases on multiple medications and those with more severe symptoms are commonly less satisfied with their care than are patients with acute issues2 and with milder symptoms.3 As gastroenterologists, seeing sicker patients with chronic conditions is not uncommon, and this could serve as a disadvantage when compared with peers in other specialties because scores are not typically adjusted.
Since patient-centered metrics are likely to remain relevant in the future, and with the unique challenges this can present to practicing gastroenterologists, achieving higher degrees of patient satisfaction remains both aspirational and difficult. We will be asked to reconcile and manage not only clinical conundrums but also seemingly conflicting realities of patient preferences. For example, it has been shown that, among patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), more testing led to higher satisfaction only until that testing was performed within the context of a gastroenterologist’s care.13 In contrast, within the endoscopy setting, a preprocedure diagnosis of IBS did not increase the risk for procedure-related dissatisfaction, provided patients were not prescribed chronic psychotropic medication, nervous prior to the procedure, distressed or in pain during the procedure, or had unmet physical or emotional needs during the procedure.14 Furthermore, there is poor correlation between endoscopic quality measures with strong evidence – such as adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate – and patient satisfaction.15
So, when considering these conflicting findings and evidence that patients’ global rating of their health care is not reliably associated with the quality of the care they receive,16 should we emphasize experience over outcome? As clinicians practicing in an increasingly transparent and value-based health care environment, we are subject to many priorities contending for our attention. We strive to provide care that is at once patient centric, evidence based, and low cost; however, achieving these goals often requires different strategies. At the end of the day, our primary aim is to provide consistently excellent patient care. We believe that quality and experience are not competing principles. Patient satisfaction is relevant and important, but it should not preclude adherence to our primary responsibility of providing high-quality care.
When trying to make clinical decisions that may compromise one of these goals for another, it can be helpful to recall the “me and my family” rule: What kind of care would I want for myself or my loved ones in this situation?
Acknowledgement
We thank Dr. Ziad Gellad (Duke University, Durham, N.C.) for his assistance in reviewing and providing feedback on this manuscript.
1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(47):14473-8. 2. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3(4):579-94.
3. Gut. 2004;53(SUPPL. 4):40-4.
4. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(11):982-7.
5. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(5):271-7.
6. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2011;24(4):266-73.
7. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2010;3(3):151-5.
8. Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-33.
9. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2951-7. 10. JAMA. 1994;272(20):1583-7.
11. J Diabetes Metab. 2012;3(7):1000210.
12. Am Heart J. 2000;140(1):105-10.
13. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(7):614-21.
14. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50(10):1860-71.15. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(7):1089-91.
16. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(9):665-72.
Dr. Finn is a gastroenterologist with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Mountain View, Calif.; Dr. Leiman is assistant professor of medicine, director of esophageal research and quality in the division of gastroenterology, Duke University, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chair-elect of the AGA Quality Committee.
Taking the editorial torch
Dear colleagues,
I am excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – which is also my first issue as the new Editor in Chief! First, I am incredibly grateful for this opportunity to be a part of the only existing publication tailored toward trainees and early-career gastroenterologists. Bryson Katona has done a remarkable job for the last 5 years as the publication’s inaugural EIC, as he has laid a great deal of groundwork and really set the standard going forward. Each issue has been a multifaceted compilation of salient clinical topics paired with brief but high-yield articles to help guide personal and professional growth; I hope to continue to do the same and maintain a high level of interest in our newsletter.
In this issue, the In Focus article, brought to you by Adeeti Chiplunker and Christina Ha (Cedars Sinai), discusses inpatient management of acute severe ulcerative colitis. It is an excellent review of the diagnostic workup and therapeutic options, and an important one, as therapies are quickly evolving in inflammatory bowel disease. We also have Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) help us navigate the daunting world of statistics, specifically focusing on the interpretation of the P value.
For those interested in or already pursuing careers in private practice but would not like to relinquish their research interests, Chris Fourment (Texas Digestive Disease Consultants) provides a series of helpful tips on how to be effective in conducting clinical research endeavors. In the realm of basic science, Melinda Engevik (Baylor College of Medicine) gives an informative breakdown on how to choose a lab that is the right fit for you.
Also in this issue, Sadeea Abbasi (Cedars Sinai) provides an array of tangible ways for gastroenterologists to become involved in health policy advocacy. Byron Cryer (UT Southwestern), Jesus Rivera-Nieves (UCSD), and Celena NuQuay (AGA) describe how the AGA has been promoting workforce diversity in academic gastroenterology via the FORWARD (Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity) program.
Finally, as the submission deadline for DDW® 2020 approaches, abstract reviewers for the fellow-directed quality improvement (QI) projects from this past year share helpful tips on crafting memorable QI abstracts (Mohammad Bilal, UT-Galveston; Chung Sang Tse, Brown University; Manol Jovani, Johns Hopkins; and Mer Mietzelfeld, AGA).
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Sincerely,
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
Dr. Rao is assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition.
Dear colleagues,
I am excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – which is also my first issue as the new Editor in Chief! First, I am incredibly grateful for this opportunity to be a part of the only existing publication tailored toward trainees and early-career gastroenterologists. Bryson Katona has done a remarkable job for the last 5 years as the publication’s inaugural EIC, as he has laid a great deal of groundwork and really set the standard going forward. Each issue has been a multifaceted compilation of salient clinical topics paired with brief but high-yield articles to help guide personal and professional growth; I hope to continue to do the same and maintain a high level of interest in our newsletter.
In this issue, the In Focus article, brought to you by Adeeti Chiplunker and Christina Ha (Cedars Sinai), discusses inpatient management of acute severe ulcerative colitis. It is an excellent review of the diagnostic workup and therapeutic options, and an important one, as therapies are quickly evolving in inflammatory bowel disease. We also have Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) help us navigate the daunting world of statistics, specifically focusing on the interpretation of the P value.
For those interested in or already pursuing careers in private practice but would not like to relinquish their research interests, Chris Fourment (Texas Digestive Disease Consultants) provides a series of helpful tips on how to be effective in conducting clinical research endeavors. In the realm of basic science, Melinda Engevik (Baylor College of Medicine) gives an informative breakdown on how to choose a lab that is the right fit for you.
Also in this issue, Sadeea Abbasi (Cedars Sinai) provides an array of tangible ways for gastroenterologists to become involved in health policy advocacy. Byron Cryer (UT Southwestern), Jesus Rivera-Nieves (UCSD), and Celena NuQuay (AGA) describe how the AGA has been promoting workforce diversity in academic gastroenterology via the FORWARD (Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity) program.
Finally, as the submission deadline for DDW® 2020 approaches, abstract reviewers for the fellow-directed quality improvement (QI) projects from this past year share helpful tips on crafting memorable QI abstracts (Mohammad Bilal, UT-Galveston; Chung Sang Tse, Brown University; Manol Jovani, Johns Hopkins; and Mer Mietzelfeld, AGA).
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Sincerely,
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
Dr. Rao is assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition.
Dear colleagues,
I am excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – which is also my first issue as the new Editor in Chief! First, I am incredibly grateful for this opportunity to be a part of the only existing publication tailored toward trainees and early-career gastroenterologists. Bryson Katona has done a remarkable job for the last 5 years as the publication’s inaugural EIC, as he has laid a great deal of groundwork and really set the standard going forward. Each issue has been a multifaceted compilation of salient clinical topics paired with brief but high-yield articles to help guide personal and professional growth; I hope to continue to do the same and maintain a high level of interest in our newsletter.
In this issue, the In Focus article, brought to you by Adeeti Chiplunker and Christina Ha (Cedars Sinai), discusses inpatient management of acute severe ulcerative colitis. It is an excellent review of the diagnostic workup and therapeutic options, and an important one, as therapies are quickly evolving in inflammatory bowel disease. We also have Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) help us navigate the daunting world of statistics, specifically focusing on the interpretation of the P value.
For those interested in or already pursuing careers in private practice but would not like to relinquish their research interests, Chris Fourment (Texas Digestive Disease Consultants) provides a series of helpful tips on how to be effective in conducting clinical research endeavors. In the realm of basic science, Melinda Engevik (Baylor College of Medicine) gives an informative breakdown on how to choose a lab that is the right fit for you.
Also in this issue, Sadeea Abbasi (Cedars Sinai) provides an array of tangible ways for gastroenterologists to become involved in health policy advocacy. Byron Cryer (UT Southwestern), Jesus Rivera-Nieves (UCSD), and Celena NuQuay (AGA) describe how the AGA has been promoting workforce diversity in academic gastroenterology via the FORWARD (Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity) program.
Finally, as the submission deadline for DDW® 2020 approaches, abstract reviewers for the fellow-directed quality improvement (QI) projects from this past year share helpful tips on crafting memorable QI abstracts (Mohammad Bilal, UT-Galveston; Chung Sang Tse, Brown University; Manol Jovani, Johns Hopkins; and Mer Mietzelfeld, AGA).
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Sincerely,
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
Dr. Rao is assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition.
Management of the hospitalized ulcerative colitis patient: A primer for the initial approach to care for the practicing gastroenterologist
Introduction
Inpatient management of acute ulcerative colitis (UC) flares can be challenging because of the multiple patient and disease-related factors influencing therapeutic decision making. The clinical course during the first 24-72 hours of the hospitalization will likely guide the decision between rescue medical and surgical therapy. Using available evidence from clinical practice guidelines, we present a day-by-day guide to managing most hospitalized UC patients.
Day 0 – The emergency department (ED)
When an UC patient presents to the ED for evaluation, the initial assessments should focus on the acuity and severity of the flare. Key clinical features of disease severity include the presence of fever, tachycardia, hypotension, or weight loss in addition to worsened gastrointestinal symptoms of stool frequency relative to baseline, rectal bleeding, and abdominal pain. Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is often defined using the modified Truelove and Witts criteria.1 A patient meets criteria for ASUC if they have at least six bloody stools per day and at least one sign of systemic toxicity, such as heart rate greater than 90 bpm, temperature at or above 37.8° C, hemoglobin level below 10.5 g/dL, or elevated inflammatory markers.
Initial laboratory assessments should include complete blood counts to identify anemia, potential superimposed infection, or toxicity and a comprehensive metabolic profile to evaluate for dehydration, electrolyte abnormalities, hepatic injury or hypoalbuminemia (an important predictor of surgery), as well as assessment of response to treatment and readmission.2,3 An evaluation at admission of C-reactive protein (CRP) is crucial because changes from the initial value will determine steroid response and predict need for surgical intervention or rescue therapy. A baseline fecal calprotectin can serve as a noninvasive marker that can be followed after discharge to monitor response to therapy.
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) must be ruled out in all patients presenting with ASUC regardless of history of antibiotic use or prior negative testing. Concomitant UC and CDI are associated with a four- to sixfold increased risk of in-hospital mortality and a two- to sixfold increased risk of bowel surgery.4-6 Immunoassay testing is inexpensive and fast with a high specificity but has low sensitivity; nucleic acid amplification testing with polymerase chain reaction has a high sensitivity and specificity.7 Knowing which testing algorithm the hospital lab uses helps guide interpretation of results.
For patients meeting criteria for ASUC, obtaining at least an abdominal x-ray is important to assess for colonic dilation to further stratify the patient by risk. Colonic dilation, defined as a transverse colon diameter greater than 5.5 cm, places the patient in the category of fulminant colitis and colorectal surgical consultation should be obtained.8 A CT scan is often ordered first because it can provide a rapid assessment of intra-abdominal processes but is not routinely needed unless hemodynamic instability, an acute abdomen, or markedly abnormal laboratory testing (specifically white blood cell count with bandemia) is present as these can be indicators of toxic megacolon or perforation.8-10
Day 1 – Assess disease severity and assemble the team
Obtaining a thorough clinical history is essential to classify disease severity and identify potential triggers for the acute exacerbation. Potential triggers may include infections, new medications, recent antibiotic use, recent travel, sick contacts, or cessation of treatments. Standard questions include asking about the timing of onset of symptoms, bowel movements during a 24-hour period, and particularly the presence of nocturnal bowel movements. If patients report bloody stools, inquire how often they see blood relative to the total number of bowel movements. The presence and nature of abdominal pain should be elicited, particularly changes in abdominal pain and comparison with previous disease flares. These clinical parameters are used to assess response to treatment; therefore, ask patients to keep a log of their stool frequency, consistency, rectal urgency, and bleeding each day to report to the team during daily rounds.
For patients with ASUC, a full colonoscopy is rarely indicated in the inpatient setting because it is unlikely to change management and poses a risk of perforation.11 However, a sigmoidoscopy within the first 24 hours of admission will provide useful information about the endoscopic disease activity, particularly if features such as deep or well-like ulcers, large mucosal abrasions, or extensive loss of the mucosal layer are present because these are predictors of colectomy.8 Tissue biopsies can exclude cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, an important consideration for patients on immunosuppression including corticosteroids.12-16
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is extremely important for hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. At baseline, IBD patients have a threefold higher risk of VTE than do non-IBD patients, which increases to approximately sixfold during flares.17 Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is recommended for all hospitalized IBD patients, even those with rectal bleeding. This may seem counterintuitive in the setting of “GI bleeding,” so it is important to counsel both patients and team members regarding VTE risks and the role of the prophylactic regimen to ensure adherence. Mechanical VTE prophylaxis can be used in patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability until pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis can be safely initiated.17
Narcotics should be used sparingly for hospitalized IBD patients. Narcotic use is associated with greater likelihood of subsequent IBD hospitalizations, ED visits, and higher costs of health care for patients with IBD.18 Heavy use of opiates, defined as continuous use for more than 30 days at a dose exceeding 50 mg morphine per day or equivalent, was strongly associated with an increased overall mortality in IBD patients.19 Opiates also slow bowel motility and precipitate toxic megacolon, along with any other agent that slows bowel motility, such as anticholinergic medications.8 These agents may also mask bowel frequency symptoms that would otherwise indicate a failure of medical therapy. Similarly, use of NSAIDS should also be avoided because these have been associated with disease relapse and escalating intestinal inflammation.20
Once disease severity has been determined, intravenous corticosteroid therapy may be initiated, ideally once CDI and CMV have been excluded. The recommended dosing of intravenous corticosteroids is methylprednisolone 20 mg IV every 8 hours or equivalent. There is no evidence to support additional benefit for doses exceeding these amounts.8 Prior to starting parenteral corticosteroids, it is important to keep in mind the possible need for rescue therapy during the admission. Recommended testing includes hepatitis B surface antigen and antibody, hepatitis B core antibody and tuberculosis testing if there is no documented negative testing within the past 6-12 months. These labs should be drawn prior to steroid treatment to avoid delays in care and indeterminate results. Finally, a lipid profile is recommended for patients who may be cyclosporine candidates pending response to intravenous corticosteroids. Unless the patient has been admitted with a bowel obstruction, which should raise the suspicion that the diagnosis is actually Crohn’s disease, enteral feeding is preferred for UC patients even if they may have significant food aversion. The early involvement of a registered dietitian is valuable to guide dietary choices and recommend appropriate enteral nutrition supplements. During acute flares, patients may find a low-residue diet to be less stimulating to their gut while their acute flare is being treated. Electrolyte abnormalities should be repleted and consistently monitored during the hospitalization. Providing parenteral intravenous iron for anemic patients will expedite correction of the anemia alongside treatment of the underlying UC.
Most UC patients admitted to the hospital will require a multidisciplinary approach with gastroenterologists, surgeons, radiologists, dietitians, and case coordinators/social workers, among others. It is essential to assemble the team, especially the surgeons, earlier during the hospitalization rather than later. It is especially important to discuss the role of the surgeon in the management of UC and explain why the surgeon is being consulted in the context of the patient’s acute presentation. Being transparent about the parameters the GI team are monitoring to determine if and when surgery is the most appropriate and safe approach will improve patients’ acceptance of the surgical team’s role in their care. Specific indications for surgery in ASUC include toxic megacolon, colonic perforation, severe refractory hemorrhage, and failure to respond to medical therapy (Table 1).8
Day 3 – Assessing response to corticosteroids
In addition to daily symptom assessments, a careful abdominal exam should be performed every day with the understanding that steroids (and also narcotics) may mask perforation or pain. Any abrupt decrease or cessation of bowel movements, increasing abdominal distention, or a sudden increase in abdominal pain or tenderness may require abdominal imaging to ensure no interim perforation or severe colonic dilation has occurred while receiving steroid therapy. In these circumstances, the addition of broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics should be considered, particularly if hemodynamic instability (such as tachycardia) is present.
Patients should be assessed for response to intravenous steroid therapy after 3 days of treatment. A meaningful response to corticosteroids is present if the patient has had more than 50% improvement in symptoms, particularly rectal bleeding and stool frequency. A more than 75% improvement in CRP should also be noted from admission to day 3 with an overall trend of improvement.2,21 Additionally, patients should be afebrile, require minimal to no narcotic usage, tolerating oral intake, and be ambulatory. If the patient has met all these parameters, it is reasonable to transition to oral corticosteroids, such as prednisone 40-60 mg daily after a course of 3-5 days of intravenous corticosteroids. Ideally, patients should be observed for 24-48 hours in the hospital after transitioning to oral corticosteroids to make sure that symptoms do not worsen with the switch.
Patients with more than eight bowel movements per day, CRP greater than 4.5 g/dL, deep ulcers on endoscopy, or albumin less than 3.0 g/dL have a higher likelihood of failing intravenous corticosteroid therapy, and these patients should be prepared for rescue therapy.2,21 A patient has failed intravenous corticosteroids by day 3 if they have sustained fever in the absence of an infection, continued CRP elevation or lack of CRP decrease, or ongoing high stool frequency, bleeding, and pain with less than 50% improvement from baseline on admission.8 In the setting of nonresponse to intravenous corticosteroids, it is prudent to involve colorectal surgery to discuss colectomy as an option of equal merit to medical salvage therapies such as infliximab or cyclosporine.
Infliximab is the most readily available rescue therapy for steroid-refractory patients and has been shown to increase colectomy-free survival in patients with ASUC.8 However, patients with the same predictors for intravenous steroid failures (low albumin, high CRP, and/or deep ulcers on endoscopy) are also at the highest risk for infliximab nonresponse. These factors are important to discuss with the patients and colorectal surgery teams when providing the options of treatment strategy, particularly with medication dosing. ASUC with more severe disease biochemically (low albumin, elevated CRP, possibly bandemia) benefit from a higher dose of infliximab at 10 mg/kg, given the likelihood of increased drug clearance in this situation.22,23
From a practical standpoint, it is important to confirm the patient’s insurance status prior to medication administration to make sure therapy can be continued after hospital discharge. Early involvement of the social workers and case coordinators is key to ensuring timely administration of the next dose of treatment. Patients who receive infliximab rescue therapy should be monitored for an additional 1-2 days after administration to ensure they are responding to this therapy with continued monitoring of CRP and symptoms during this period. If there is no response at this point, an additional dose of infliximab may be considered but surgery should not be delayed if there is no meaningful response after the first dose.
Another option for intravenous corticosteroid nonresponders is intravenous cyclosporine because treatment failure rates for cyclosporine and infliximab were similar in head-to-head studies.24 However, patient selection is key to successful utilization of this agent. Unlike infliximab, cyclosporine is primarily an induction agent for steroid nonresponders rather than a maintenance strategy. Therefore, in patients in whom cyclosporine is being considered, thiopurines or vedolizumab are potential options for maintenance therapy. If the patient has poor renal function, low cholesterol, advanced age, significant comorbidities, or a history of nonadherence to therapy, cyclosporine should not be given. Additionally, clinical experience with intravenous cyclosporine administration and monitoring both during inpatient and outpatient care settings should be factored into the decision making for infliximab versus cyclosporine.8
Day 5 and beyond – Discharge planning
Patients who have responded to the initial intravenous steroid course by hospital day 5 should have successfully transitioned to oral steroids with plans to start an appropriate steroid-sparing therapy shortly after discharge. Treatment planning should commence prior to discharge and should be communicated with the outpatient GI team to ensure a smooth transition to the ambulatory care setting, primarily to begin insurance authorizations as soon as possible. If the patient has had a meaningful response to infliximab rescue therapy (improvement by more than 50% in bowel frequency, amount of blood, abdominal pain), discharge planning needs to prioritize obtaining authorization for the second dose within 2 weeks of the initial infusion. These patients are high risk for readmission, and close outpatient follow-up by the ambulatory GI care team is necessary to help direct the tapering of steroids and monitor response to treatment.
If the patient has not responded to intravenous steroid therapy, infliximab, or cyclosporine by day 5-7, then surgery should be strongly considered. Delaying surgery may worsen outcomes as patients become more malnourished, anemic, and continue to receive intravenous steroids. Additional preoperative optimization may be required depending on the patient’s course up to this point (Table 2).
Summary
The cornerstones of inpatient UC management center on a thorough initial evaluation including imaging and endoscopy as appropriate, establishment of baseline parameters, and daily assessment of response to therapy through a combination of patient-reported outcomes and biomarkers of inflammation. With this strategy in mind, practitioners and care teams can manage these complex patients using a consistent strategy focusing on multidisciplinary, evidence-based care.
References
1. Truelove SC et al. Br Med J. 1955 Oct 23;2(4947):1041-8.
2. Ho GT et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004 May 15;19(10):1079-87.
3. Tinsley A et al. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015;50(9):1103-9.
4. Issa M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Mar;5(3):345-51.
5. Ananthakrishnan AN et al. Gut. 2008 Feb;57(2):205-10.
6. Negron ME et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 May;111(5):691-704.
7. Taylor KN et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):428-37.
8. Rubin DT et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar;114(3):384-413.
9. Jalan KN et al. Gastroenterology. 1969 Jul;57(1):68-82.
10. Gan SI et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Nov;98(11):2363-71.
11. Makkar R et al. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013 Sep;9(9):573-83.
12. Hindryckx P et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Nov;13(11):654-64.
13. Yerushalmy-Feler A et al. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2019 Feb 15;21(2):5.
14. Shukla T et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017 May/Jun;51(5):394-401.
15. McCurdy JD et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jan;13(1):131-7; quiz e7.
16. Cottone M et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Mar;96(3):773-5.
17. Nguyen GC et al. Gastroenterology. 2014 Mar;146(3):835-48 e6.
18. Limsrivilai J et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Mar;15(3):385-92 e2.
19. Targownik LE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct;109(10):1613-20.
20. Takeuchi K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Feb;4(2):196-202.
21. Travis SP et al. Gut. 1996 Jun;38(6):905-10.
22. Syal G et al. Mo1891 - Gastroenterology. 2018;154:S841.
23. Ungar B et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Jun;43(12):1293-9.
24. Laharie D et al. Lancet 2012 Dec 1;380(9857):1909-15.
Dr. Chiplunker is an advanced inflammatory bowel disease fellow; Dr. Ha is associate professor of medicine at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Introduction
Inpatient management of acute ulcerative colitis (UC) flares can be challenging because of the multiple patient and disease-related factors influencing therapeutic decision making. The clinical course during the first 24-72 hours of the hospitalization will likely guide the decision between rescue medical and surgical therapy. Using available evidence from clinical practice guidelines, we present a day-by-day guide to managing most hospitalized UC patients.
Day 0 – The emergency department (ED)
When an UC patient presents to the ED for evaluation, the initial assessments should focus on the acuity and severity of the flare. Key clinical features of disease severity include the presence of fever, tachycardia, hypotension, or weight loss in addition to worsened gastrointestinal symptoms of stool frequency relative to baseline, rectal bleeding, and abdominal pain. Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is often defined using the modified Truelove and Witts criteria.1 A patient meets criteria for ASUC if they have at least six bloody stools per day and at least one sign of systemic toxicity, such as heart rate greater than 90 bpm, temperature at or above 37.8° C, hemoglobin level below 10.5 g/dL, or elevated inflammatory markers.
Initial laboratory assessments should include complete blood counts to identify anemia, potential superimposed infection, or toxicity and a comprehensive metabolic profile to evaluate for dehydration, electrolyte abnormalities, hepatic injury or hypoalbuminemia (an important predictor of surgery), as well as assessment of response to treatment and readmission.2,3 An evaluation at admission of C-reactive protein (CRP) is crucial because changes from the initial value will determine steroid response and predict need for surgical intervention or rescue therapy. A baseline fecal calprotectin can serve as a noninvasive marker that can be followed after discharge to monitor response to therapy.
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) must be ruled out in all patients presenting with ASUC regardless of history of antibiotic use or prior negative testing. Concomitant UC and CDI are associated with a four- to sixfold increased risk of in-hospital mortality and a two- to sixfold increased risk of bowel surgery.4-6 Immunoassay testing is inexpensive and fast with a high specificity but has low sensitivity; nucleic acid amplification testing with polymerase chain reaction has a high sensitivity and specificity.7 Knowing which testing algorithm the hospital lab uses helps guide interpretation of results.
For patients meeting criteria for ASUC, obtaining at least an abdominal x-ray is important to assess for colonic dilation to further stratify the patient by risk. Colonic dilation, defined as a transverse colon diameter greater than 5.5 cm, places the patient in the category of fulminant colitis and colorectal surgical consultation should be obtained.8 A CT scan is often ordered first because it can provide a rapid assessment of intra-abdominal processes but is not routinely needed unless hemodynamic instability, an acute abdomen, or markedly abnormal laboratory testing (specifically white blood cell count with bandemia) is present as these can be indicators of toxic megacolon or perforation.8-10
Day 1 – Assess disease severity and assemble the team
Obtaining a thorough clinical history is essential to classify disease severity and identify potential triggers for the acute exacerbation. Potential triggers may include infections, new medications, recent antibiotic use, recent travel, sick contacts, or cessation of treatments. Standard questions include asking about the timing of onset of symptoms, bowel movements during a 24-hour period, and particularly the presence of nocturnal bowel movements. If patients report bloody stools, inquire how often they see blood relative to the total number of bowel movements. The presence and nature of abdominal pain should be elicited, particularly changes in abdominal pain and comparison with previous disease flares. These clinical parameters are used to assess response to treatment; therefore, ask patients to keep a log of their stool frequency, consistency, rectal urgency, and bleeding each day to report to the team during daily rounds.
For patients with ASUC, a full colonoscopy is rarely indicated in the inpatient setting because it is unlikely to change management and poses a risk of perforation.11 However, a sigmoidoscopy within the first 24 hours of admission will provide useful information about the endoscopic disease activity, particularly if features such as deep or well-like ulcers, large mucosal abrasions, or extensive loss of the mucosal layer are present because these are predictors of colectomy.8 Tissue biopsies can exclude cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, an important consideration for patients on immunosuppression including corticosteroids.12-16
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is extremely important for hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. At baseline, IBD patients have a threefold higher risk of VTE than do non-IBD patients, which increases to approximately sixfold during flares.17 Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is recommended for all hospitalized IBD patients, even those with rectal bleeding. This may seem counterintuitive in the setting of “GI bleeding,” so it is important to counsel both patients and team members regarding VTE risks and the role of the prophylactic regimen to ensure adherence. Mechanical VTE prophylaxis can be used in patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability until pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis can be safely initiated.17
Narcotics should be used sparingly for hospitalized IBD patients. Narcotic use is associated with greater likelihood of subsequent IBD hospitalizations, ED visits, and higher costs of health care for patients with IBD.18 Heavy use of opiates, defined as continuous use for more than 30 days at a dose exceeding 50 mg morphine per day or equivalent, was strongly associated with an increased overall mortality in IBD patients.19 Opiates also slow bowel motility and precipitate toxic megacolon, along with any other agent that slows bowel motility, such as anticholinergic medications.8 These agents may also mask bowel frequency symptoms that would otherwise indicate a failure of medical therapy. Similarly, use of NSAIDS should also be avoided because these have been associated with disease relapse and escalating intestinal inflammation.20
Once disease severity has been determined, intravenous corticosteroid therapy may be initiated, ideally once CDI and CMV have been excluded. The recommended dosing of intravenous corticosteroids is methylprednisolone 20 mg IV every 8 hours or equivalent. There is no evidence to support additional benefit for doses exceeding these amounts.8 Prior to starting parenteral corticosteroids, it is important to keep in mind the possible need for rescue therapy during the admission. Recommended testing includes hepatitis B surface antigen and antibody, hepatitis B core antibody and tuberculosis testing if there is no documented negative testing within the past 6-12 months. These labs should be drawn prior to steroid treatment to avoid delays in care and indeterminate results. Finally, a lipid profile is recommended for patients who may be cyclosporine candidates pending response to intravenous corticosteroids. Unless the patient has been admitted with a bowel obstruction, which should raise the suspicion that the diagnosis is actually Crohn’s disease, enteral feeding is preferred for UC patients even if they may have significant food aversion. The early involvement of a registered dietitian is valuable to guide dietary choices and recommend appropriate enteral nutrition supplements. During acute flares, patients may find a low-residue diet to be less stimulating to their gut while their acute flare is being treated. Electrolyte abnormalities should be repleted and consistently monitored during the hospitalization. Providing parenteral intravenous iron for anemic patients will expedite correction of the anemia alongside treatment of the underlying UC.
Most UC patients admitted to the hospital will require a multidisciplinary approach with gastroenterologists, surgeons, radiologists, dietitians, and case coordinators/social workers, among others. It is essential to assemble the team, especially the surgeons, earlier during the hospitalization rather than later. It is especially important to discuss the role of the surgeon in the management of UC and explain why the surgeon is being consulted in the context of the patient’s acute presentation. Being transparent about the parameters the GI team are monitoring to determine if and when surgery is the most appropriate and safe approach will improve patients’ acceptance of the surgical team’s role in their care. Specific indications for surgery in ASUC include toxic megacolon, colonic perforation, severe refractory hemorrhage, and failure to respond to medical therapy (Table 1).8
Day 3 – Assessing response to corticosteroids
In addition to daily symptom assessments, a careful abdominal exam should be performed every day with the understanding that steroids (and also narcotics) may mask perforation or pain. Any abrupt decrease or cessation of bowel movements, increasing abdominal distention, or a sudden increase in abdominal pain or tenderness may require abdominal imaging to ensure no interim perforation or severe colonic dilation has occurred while receiving steroid therapy. In these circumstances, the addition of broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics should be considered, particularly if hemodynamic instability (such as tachycardia) is present.
Patients should be assessed for response to intravenous steroid therapy after 3 days of treatment. A meaningful response to corticosteroids is present if the patient has had more than 50% improvement in symptoms, particularly rectal bleeding and stool frequency. A more than 75% improvement in CRP should also be noted from admission to day 3 with an overall trend of improvement.2,21 Additionally, patients should be afebrile, require minimal to no narcotic usage, tolerating oral intake, and be ambulatory. If the patient has met all these parameters, it is reasonable to transition to oral corticosteroids, such as prednisone 40-60 mg daily after a course of 3-5 days of intravenous corticosteroids. Ideally, patients should be observed for 24-48 hours in the hospital after transitioning to oral corticosteroids to make sure that symptoms do not worsen with the switch.
Patients with more than eight bowel movements per day, CRP greater than 4.5 g/dL, deep ulcers on endoscopy, or albumin less than 3.0 g/dL have a higher likelihood of failing intravenous corticosteroid therapy, and these patients should be prepared for rescue therapy.2,21 A patient has failed intravenous corticosteroids by day 3 if they have sustained fever in the absence of an infection, continued CRP elevation or lack of CRP decrease, or ongoing high stool frequency, bleeding, and pain with less than 50% improvement from baseline on admission.8 In the setting of nonresponse to intravenous corticosteroids, it is prudent to involve colorectal surgery to discuss colectomy as an option of equal merit to medical salvage therapies such as infliximab or cyclosporine.
Infliximab is the most readily available rescue therapy for steroid-refractory patients and has been shown to increase colectomy-free survival in patients with ASUC.8 However, patients with the same predictors for intravenous steroid failures (low albumin, high CRP, and/or deep ulcers on endoscopy) are also at the highest risk for infliximab nonresponse. These factors are important to discuss with the patients and colorectal surgery teams when providing the options of treatment strategy, particularly with medication dosing. ASUC with more severe disease biochemically (low albumin, elevated CRP, possibly bandemia) benefit from a higher dose of infliximab at 10 mg/kg, given the likelihood of increased drug clearance in this situation.22,23
From a practical standpoint, it is important to confirm the patient’s insurance status prior to medication administration to make sure therapy can be continued after hospital discharge. Early involvement of the social workers and case coordinators is key to ensuring timely administration of the next dose of treatment. Patients who receive infliximab rescue therapy should be monitored for an additional 1-2 days after administration to ensure they are responding to this therapy with continued monitoring of CRP and symptoms during this period. If there is no response at this point, an additional dose of infliximab may be considered but surgery should not be delayed if there is no meaningful response after the first dose.
Another option for intravenous corticosteroid nonresponders is intravenous cyclosporine because treatment failure rates for cyclosporine and infliximab were similar in head-to-head studies.24 However, patient selection is key to successful utilization of this agent. Unlike infliximab, cyclosporine is primarily an induction agent for steroid nonresponders rather than a maintenance strategy. Therefore, in patients in whom cyclosporine is being considered, thiopurines or vedolizumab are potential options for maintenance therapy. If the patient has poor renal function, low cholesterol, advanced age, significant comorbidities, or a history of nonadherence to therapy, cyclosporine should not be given. Additionally, clinical experience with intravenous cyclosporine administration and monitoring both during inpatient and outpatient care settings should be factored into the decision making for infliximab versus cyclosporine.8
Day 5 and beyond – Discharge planning
Patients who have responded to the initial intravenous steroid course by hospital day 5 should have successfully transitioned to oral steroids with plans to start an appropriate steroid-sparing therapy shortly after discharge. Treatment planning should commence prior to discharge and should be communicated with the outpatient GI team to ensure a smooth transition to the ambulatory care setting, primarily to begin insurance authorizations as soon as possible. If the patient has had a meaningful response to infliximab rescue therapy (improvement by more than 50% in bowel frequency, amount of blood, abdominal pain), discharge planning needs to prioritize obtaining authorization for the second dose within 2 weeks of the initial infusion. These patients are high risk for readmission, and close outpatient follow-up by the ambulatory GI care team is necessary to help direct the tapering of steroids and monitor response to treatment.
If the patient has not responded to intravenous steroid therapy, infliximab, or cyclosporine by day 5-7, then surgery should be strongly considered. Delaying surgery may worsen outcomes as patients become more malnourished, anemic, and continue to receive intravenous steroids. Additional preoperative optimization may be required depending on the patient’s course up to this point (Table 2).
Summary
The cornerstones of inpatient UC management center on a thorough initial evaluation including imaging and endoscopy as appropriate, establishment of baseline parameters, and daily assessment of response to therapy through a combination of patient-reported outcomes and biomarkers of inflammation. With this strategy in mind, practitioners and care teams can manage these complex patients using a consistent strategy focusing on multidisciplinary, evidence-based care.
References
1. Truelove SC et al. Br Med J. 1955 Oct 23;2(4947):1041-8.
2. Ho GT et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004 May 15;19(10):1079-87.
3. Tinsley A et al. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015;50(9):1103-9.
4. Issa M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Mar;5(3):345-51.
5. Ananthakrishnan AN et al. Gut. 2008 Feb;57(2):205-10.
6. Negron ME et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 May;111(5):691-704.
7. Taylor KN et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):428-37.
8. Rubin DT et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar;114(3):384-413.
9. Jalan KN et al. Gastroenterology. 1969 Jul;57(1):68-82.
10. Gan SI et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Nov;98(11):2363-71.
11. Makkar R et al. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013 Sep;9(9):573-83.
12. Hindryckx P et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Nov;13(11):654-64.
13. Yerushalmy-Feler A et al. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2019 Feb 15;21(2):5.
14. Shukla T et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017 May/Jun;51(5):394-401.
15. McCurdy JD et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jan;13(1):131-7; quiz e7.
16. Cottone M et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Mar;96(3):773-5.
17. Nguyen GC et al. Gastroenterology. 2014 Mar;146(3):835-48 e6.
18. Limsrivilai J et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Mar;15(3):385-92 e2.
19. Targownik LE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct;109(10):1613-20.
20. Takeuchi K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Feb;4(2):196-202.
21. Travis SP et al. Gut. 1996 Jun;38(6):905-10.
22. Syal G et al. Mo1891 - Gastroenterology. 2018;154:S841.
23. Ungar B et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Jun;43(12):1293-9.
24. Laharie D et al. Lancet 2012 Dec 1;380(9857):1909-15.
Dr. Chiplunker is an advanced inflammatory bowel disease fellow; Dr. Ha is associate professor of medicine at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Introduction
Inpatient management of acute ulcerative colitis (UC) flares can be challenging because of the multiple patient and disease-related factors influencing therapeutic decision making. The clinical course during the first 24-72 hours of the hospitalization will likely guide the decision between rescue medical and surgical therapy. Using available evidence from clinical practice guidelines, we present a day-by-day guide to managing most hospitalized UC patients.
Day 0 – The emergency department (ED)
When an UC patient presents to the ED for evaluation, the initial assessments should focus on the acuity and severity of the flare. Key clinical features of disease severity include the presence of fever, tachycardia, hypotension, or weight loss in addition to worsened gastrointestinal symptoms of stool frequency relative to baseline, rectal bleeding, and abdominal pain. Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is often defined using the modified Truelove and Witts criteria.1 A patient meets criteria for ASUC if they have at least six bloody stools per day and at least one sign of systemic toxicity, such as heart rate greater than 90 bpm, temperature at or above 37.8° C, hemoglobin level below 10.5 g/dL, or elevated inflammatory markers.
Initial laboratory assessments should include complete blood counts to identify anemia, potential superimposed infection, or toxicity and a comprehensive metabolic profile to evaluate for dehydration, electrolyte abnormalities, hepatic injury or hypoalbuminemia (an important predictor of surgery), as well as assessment of response to treatment and readmission.2,3 An evaluation at admission of C-reactive protein (CRP) is crucial because changes from the initial value will determine steroid response and predict need for surgical intervention or rescue therapy. A baseline fecal calprotectin can serve as a noninvasive marker that can be followed after discharge to monitor response to therapy.
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) must be ruled out in all patients presenting with ASUC regardless of history of antibiotic use or prior negative testing. Concomitant UC and CDI are associated with a four- to sixfold increased risk of in-hospital mortality and a two- to sixfold increased risk of bowel surgery.4-6 Immunoassay testing is inexpensive and fast with a high specificity but has low sensitivity; nucleic acid amplification testing with polymerase chain reaction has a high sensitivity and specificity.7 Knowing which testing algorithm the hospital lab uses helps guide interpretation of results.
For patients meeting criteria for ASUC, obtaining at least an abdominal x-ray is important to assess for colonic dilation to further stratify the patient by risk. Colonic dilation, defined as a transverse colon diameter greater than 5.5 cm, places the patient in the category of fulminant colitis and colorectal surgical consultation should be obtained.8 A CT scan is often ordered first because it can provide a rapid assessment of intra-abdominal processes but is not routinely needed unless hemodynamic instability, an acute abdomen, or markedly abnormal laboratory testing (specifically white blood cell count with bandemia) is present as these can be indicators of toxic megacolon or perforation.8-10
Day 1 – Assess disease severity and assemble the team
Obtaining a thorough clinical history is essential to classify disease severity and identify potential triggers for the acute exacerbation. Potential triggers may include infections, new medications, recent antibiotic use, recent travel, sick contacts, or cessation of treatments. Standard questions include asking about the timing of onset of symptoms, bowel movements during a 24-hour period, and particularly the presence of nocturnal bowel movements. If patients report bloody stools, inquire how often they see blood relative to the total number of bowel movements. The presence and nature of abdominal pain should be elicited, particularly changes in abdominal pain and comparison with previous disease flares. These clinical parameters are used to assess response to treatment; therefore, ask patients to keep a log of their stool frequency, consistency, rectal urgency, and bleeding each day to report to the team during daily rounds.
For patients with ASUC, a full colonoscopy is rarely indicated in the inpatient setting because it is unlikely to change management and poses a risk of perforation.11 However, a sigmoidoscopy within the first 24 hours of admission will provide useful information about the endoscopic disease activity, particularly if features such as deep or well-like ulcers, large mucosal abrasions, or extensive loss of the mucosal layer are present because these are predictors of colectomy.8 Tissue biopsies can exclude cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, an important consideration for patients on immunosuppression including corticosteroids.12-16
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is extremely important for hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. At baseline, IBD patients have a threefold higher risk of VTE than do non-IBD patients, which increases to approximately sixfold during flares.17 Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is recommended for all hospitalized IBD patients, even those with rectal bleeding. This may seem counterintuitive in the setting of “GI bleeding,” so it is important to counsel both patients and team members regarding VTE risks and the role of the prophylactic regimen to ensure adherence. Mechanical VTE prophylaxis can be used in patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability until pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis can be safely initiated.17
Narcotics should be used sparingly for hospitalized IBD patients. Narcotic use is associated with greater likelihood of subsequent IBD hospitalizations, ED visits, and higher costs of health care for patients with IBD.18 Heavy use of opiates, defined as continuous use for more than 30 days at a dose exceeding 50 mg morphine per day or equivalent, was strongly associated with an increased overall mortality in IBD patients.19 Opiates also slow bowel motility and precipitate toxic megacolon, along with any other agent that slows bowel motility, such as anticholinergic medications.8 These agents may also mask bowel frequency symptoms that would otherwise indicate a failure of medical therapy. Similarly, use of NSAIDS should also be avoided because these have been associated with disease relapse and escalating intestinal inflammation.20
Once disease severity has been determined, intravenous corticosteroid therapy may be initiated, ideally once CDI and CMV have been excluded. The recommended dosing of intravenous corticosteroids is methylprednisolone 20 mg IV every 8 hours or equivalent. There is no evidence to support additional benefit for doses exceeding these amounts.8 Prior to starting parenteral corticosteroids, it is important to keep in mind the possible need for rescue therapy during the admission. Recommended testing includes hepatitis B surface antigen and antibody, hepatitis B core antibody and tuberculosis testing if there is no documented negative testing within the past 6-12 months. These labs should be drawn prior to steroid treatment to avoid delays in care and indeterminate results. Finally, a lipid profile is recommended for patients who may be cyclosporine candidates pending response to intravenous corticosteroids. Unless the patient has been admitted with a bowel obstruction, which should raise the suspicion that the diagnosis is actually Crohn’s disease, enteral feeding is preferred for UC patients even if they may have significant food aversion. The early involvement of a registered dietitian is valuable to guide dietary choices and recommend appropriate enteral nutrition supplements. During acute flares, patients may find a low-residue diet to be less stimulating to their gut while their acute flare is being treated. Electrolyte abnormalities should be repleted and consistently monitored during the hospitalization. Providing parenteral intravenous iron for anemic patients will expedite correction of the anemia alongside treatment of the underlying UC.
Most UC patients admitted to the hospital will require a multidisciplinary approach with gastroenterologists, surgeons, radiologists, dietitians, and case coordinators/social workers, among others. It is essential to assemble the team, especially the surgeons, earlier during the hospitalization rather than later. It is especially important to discuss the role of the surgeon in the management of UC and explain why the surgeon is being consulted in the context of the patient’s acute presentation. Being transparent about the parameters the GI team are monitoring to determine if and when surgery is the most appropriate and safe approach will improve patients’ acceptance of the surgical team’s role in their care. Specific indications for surgery in ASUC include toxic megacolon, colonic perforation, severe refractory hemorrhage, and failure to respond to medical therapy (Table 1).8
Day 3 – Assessing response to corticosteroids
In addition to daily symptom assessments, a careful abdominal exam should be performed every day with the understanding that steroids (and also narcotics) may mask perforation or pain. Any abrupt decrease or cessation of bowel movements, increasing abdominal distention, or a sudden increase in abdominal pain or tenderness may require abdominal imaging to ensure no interim perforation or severe colonic dilation has occurred while receiving steroid therapy. In these circumstances, the addition of broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics should be considered, particularly if hemodynamic instability (such as tachycardia) is present.
Patients should be assessed for response to intravenous steroid therapy after 3 days of treatment. A meaningful response to corticosteroids is present if the patient has had more than 50% improvement in symptoms, particularly rectal bleeding and stool frequency. A more than 75% improvement in CRP should also be noted from admission to day 3 with an overall trend of improvement.2,21 Additionally, patients should be afebrile, require minimal to no narcotic usage, tolerating oral intake, and be ambulatory. If the patient has met all these parameters, it is reasonable to transition to oral corticosteroids, such as prednisone 40-60 mg daily after a course of 3-5 days of intravenous corticosteroids. Ideally, patients should be observed for 24-48 hours in the hospital after transitioning to oral corticosteroids to make sure that symptoms do not worsen with the switch.
Patients with more than eight bowel movements per day, CRP greater than 4.5 g/dL, deep ulcers on endoscopy, or albumin less than 3.0 g/dL have a higher likelihood of failing intravenous corticosteroid therapy, and these patients should be prepared for rescue therapy.2,21 A patient has failed intravenous corticosteroids by day 3 if they have sustained fever in the absence of an infection, continued CRP elevation or lack of CRP decrease, or ongoing high stool frequency, bleeding, and pain with less than 50% improvement from baseline on admission.8 In the setting of nonresponse to intravenous corticosteroids, it is prudent to involve colorectal surgery to discuss colectomy as an option of equal merit to medical salvage therapies such as infliximab or cyclosporine.
Infliximab is the most readily available rescue therapy for steroid-refractory patients and has been shown to increase colectomy-free survival in patients with ASUC.8 However, patients with the same predictors for intravenous steroid failures (low albumin, high CRP, and/or deep ulcers on endoscopy) are also at the highest risk for infliximab nonresponse. These factors are important to discuss with the patients and colorectal surgery teams when providing the options of treatment strategy, particularly with medication dosing. ASUC with more severe disease biochemically (low albumin, elevated CRP, possibly bandemia) benefit from a higher dose of infliximab at 10 mg/kg, given the likelihood of increased drug clearance in this situation.22,23
From a practical standpoint, it is important to confirm the patient’s insurance status prior to medication administration to make sure therapy can be continued after hospital discharge. Early involvement of the social workers and case coordinators is key to ensuring timely administration of the next dose of treatment. Patients who receive infliximab rescue therapy should be monitored for an additional 1-2 days after administration to ensure they are responding to this therapy with continued monitoring of CRP and symptoms during this period. If there is no response at this point, an additional dose of infliximab may be considered but surgery should not be delayed if there is no meaningful response after the first dose.
Another option for intravenous corticosteroid nonresponders is intravenous cyclosporine because treatment failure rates for cyclosporine and infliximab were similar in head-to-head studies.24 However, patient selection is key to successful utilization of this agent. Unlike infliximab, cyclosporine is primarily an induction agent for steroid nonresponders rather than a maintenance strategy. Therefore, in patients in whom cyclosporine is being considered, thiopurines or vedolizumab are potential options for maintenance therapy. If the patient has poor renal function, low cholesterol, advanced age, significant comorbidities, or a history of nonadherence to therapy, cyclosporine should not be given. Additionally, clinical experience with intravenous cyclosporine administration and monitoring both during inpatient and outpatient care settings should be factored into the decision making for infliximab versus cyclosporine.8
Day 5 and beyond – Discharge planning
Patients who have responded to the initial intravenous steroid course by hospital day 5 should have successfully transitioned to oral steroids with plans to start an appropriate steroid-sparing therapy shortly after discharge. Treatment planning should commence prior to discharge and should be communicated with the outpatient GI team to ensure a smooth transition to the ambulatory care setting, primarily to begin insurance authorizations as soon as possible. If the patient has had a meaningful response to infliximab rescue therapy (improvement by more than 50% in bowel frequency, amount of blood, abdominal pain), discharge planning needs to prioritize obtaining authorization for the second dose within 2 weeks of the initial infusion. These patients are high risk for readmission, and close outpatient follow-up by the ambulatory GI care team is necessary to help direct the tapering of steroids and monitor response to treatment.
If the patient has not responded to intravenous steroid therapy, infliximab, or cyclosporine by day 5-7, then surgery should be strongly considered. Delaying surgery may worsen outcomes as patients become more malnourished, anemic, and continue to receive intravenous steroids. Additional preoperative optimization may be required depending on the patient’s course up to this point (Table 2).
Summary
The cornerstones of inpatient UC management center on a thorough initial evaluation including imaging and endoscopy as appropriate, establishment of baseline parameters, and daily assessment of response to therapy through a combination of patient-reported outcomes and biomarkers of inflammation. With this strategy in mind, practitioners and care teams can manage these complex patients using a consistent strategy focusing on multidisciplinary, evidence-based care.
References
1. Truelove SC et al. Br Med J. 1955 Oct 23;2(4947):1041-8.
2. Ho GT et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004 May 15;19(10):1079-87.
3. Tinsley A et al. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015;50(9):1103-9.
4. Issa M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Mar;5(3):345-51.
5. Ananthakrishnan AN et al. Gut. 2008 Feb;57(2):205-10.
6. Negron ME et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 May;111(5):691-704.
7. Taylor KN et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):428-37.
8. Rubin DT et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar;114(3):384-413.
9. Jalan KN et al. Gastroenterology. 1969 Jul;57(1):68-82.
10. Gan SI et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Nov;98(11):2363-71.
11. Makkar R et al. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013 Sep;9(9):573-83.
12. Hindryckx P et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Nov;13(11):654-64.
13. Yerushalmy-Feler A et al. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2019 Feb 15;21(2):5.
14. Shukla T et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017 May/Jun;51(5):394-401.
15. McCurdy JD et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jan;13(1):131-7; quiz e7.
16. Cottone M et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Mar;96(3):773-5.
17. Nguyen GC et al. Gastroenterology. 2014 Mar;146(3):835-48 e6.
18. Limsrivilai J et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Mar;15(3):385-92 e2.
19. Targownik LE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct;109(10):1613-20.
20. Takeuchi K et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Feb;4(2):196-202.
21. Travis SP et al. Gut. 1996 Jun;38(6):905-10.
22. Syal G et al. Mo1891 - Gastroenterology. 2018;154:S841.
23. Ungar B et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Jun;43(12):1293-9.
24. Laharie D et al. Lancet 2012 Dec 1;380(9857):1909-15.
Dr. Chiplunker is an advanced inflammatory bowel disease fellow; Dr. Ha is associate professor of medicine at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
AGA News
Ten tips to help you get a research grant
It’s almost time to submit your application for the American Gastroenterological Association Research Scholar Award, the application deadline is Nov. 13, 2019. Review these tips for writing and preparing your application.
1. Start early. Allow plenty of time to complete your application, give it multiple reviews, and get feedback from others. Most applicants start working on the Specific Aims for the project 6 months in advance of the deadline.
2. Look at examples. Ask your division if there are any templates/prior grant submissions that you can review. There’s no recipe for a successful grant, so the only way to compose one is to have a sense of what has worked in the past. In general, prior awardees are happy to share their applications if you contact them.
3. Request feedback. Ask mentors and colleagues for early feedback on your Specific Aims page. If it makes sense and is interesting to them, reviewers will likely feel the same way.
4. Ask your collaborators for letters of support. In addition to your preceptor, consider including letters of support from prior researchers that you have worked with or any collaborators for the current project, especially if they will help you with a new technique or reagents.
5. Contact the grants staff with questions and concerns early on. If you don’t understand part of the application, aren’t sure if you’re eligible or are having problems with submission, contact the grant staff right away. Don’t wait until the week or day the grant is due when staff may be flooded with calls. They can assist you much better with advance notice, which will allow you to avoid last-minute stress.
6. Each application should be different. Keep in mind the scope of the grant and amount of funding. Don’t just recycle an R01-level application for a 1-year AGA pilot award.
7. More is better than less when it comes to preliminary data. If your expertise in a technique you are proposing is established, you will not need to demonstrate the capability to do the work but will likely need to show preliminary data. If you are looking to build expertise (as a part of your career development), you may need to show that the infrastructure that enables you to do the work is accessible.
8. Don’t take constructive feedback personally. As you share your draft with mentors and colleagues for feedback, you may receive some unanticipated criticism. Try not to take this personally. If you can detach yourself emotionally, you’ll be in a better position to answer critiques and make adjustments.
9. Remember your end goal: To help patients! Even the most basic science proposals are rooted in a clear potential to benefit patients.
10. Stay positive. If you do not succeed on your first application, believe in your work, make it better, and apply again.
Thanks to the following AGA Research Foundation grant recipients for sharing their advice, which resulted in the above 10 tips:
- Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD, 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award
- Barbara Jung, MD, AGAF, 2016 AGA-Elsevier Pilot Research Award
- Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, 2014 AGA Research Scholar Award
- Josephine Ni, MD, 2017 AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
- Sahar Nissim, MD, PhD, 2017 AGA-Caroline Craig Augustyn and Damian Augustyn Award in Digestive Cancer
- Jatin Roper, MD, 2011 AGA Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award
- Christina Twyman-Saint Victor, MD, 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award
Visit www.gastro.org/research-funding to review the AGA Research Foundation research grants now open for applications. If you have questions about the AGA awards program, please contact [email protected].
The importance of getting involved for gastroenterology
On Sept. 20, 2019, I had the opportunity to participate in AGA’s Advocacy Day for the second time, joining 40 of our gastroenterology colleagues from across the United States on Capitol Hill to advocate for our profession and our patients.
The evening before Advocacy Day, we discussed strategies for having a successful meeting on Capitol Hill with AGA staff (including Kathleen Teixeira, AGA vice president of government affairs, and Jonathan Sollish, AGA senior coordinator, public policy). We discussed having our “asks” supported with evidence, and “getting personal” about how these policy issues directly affect us and our patients. We also had the chance to hear from Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), both of whom invited our questions. Both congressmen are friends of AGA, with Rep. McGovern serving as chair of the House Rules Committee, and Sen. Blunt serving as chair of the Senate Labor–Health & Human Services Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Advocacy Day began with a group breakfast during which we reviewed some of the policy issues of central importance to gastroenterology:
- Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act (HR1570/S668), which enjoys strong bipartisan support, would correct the “cost-sharing” problem of screening colonoscopies turning therapeutic (with polypectomy) for our Medicare patients, by waiving the coinsurance for screening colonoscopies — regardless of whether we remove polyps during these colonoscopies.
- Safe Step Act, HR2279, legislation introduced in the House, facilitates a common-sense and timely (72 hours or 24 hours if life threatening) appeals process when our patients are subjected to step therapy (“fail first”) by insurers.
- Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, HR3107, legislation in the House, eases onerous prior authorization burdens by promoting an electronic prior authorization process, ensuring requests are approved by qualified medical professionals who have specialty-specific experience, and mandating that plans report their rates of delays and denials.
- National Institutes of Health research funding facilitates innovative research and supports young investigators in our field.
Full of enthusiasm, our six-strong North Carolina contingent (pictured L-R, Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF; David Leiman, MD, MSPH; Animesh Jain, MD; Anne Finefrock Peery, MD; Lisa Gangarosa, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Government Affairs Committee; and Amit Patel, MD) met with the offices of Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), and both North Carolina senators, Richard Burr (R) and Thom Tillis (R), on Capitol Hill to convey our “asks.”
At Rep. Price’s office in the stately Rayburn House Office Building, we thanked his team for cosponsorship of H.R. 1570 and H.R. 2279. We also discussed the importance of increasing research funding by the AGA’s goal of $2.5 billion for NIH for fiscal year 2020, noting that a majority of our delegation has received NIH funding for our training and/or research activities. We also encouraged Price’s office to cosponsor H.R. 3107, sharing our personal experiences about the administrative toll of the prior authorization process for obtaining appropriate and recommended medications for our patients – in my case, swallowed topical corticosteroids for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.
We moved on to Sen. Tillis’s office, where we thanked his office for cosponsorship of S. 668 but encouraged his office to cosponsor upcoming companion Senate legislation for H.R. 2279 and H.R. 3107. Our colleague capably conveyed how an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient he saw recently may require a colectomy because of delays in appropriate treatment stemming from these regulatory processes. We also showed Tillis’s office how NIH funding generates significant economic activity in North Carolina, supporting jobs in our state.
After a quick stop at the U.S. Senate gift shop in the basement to buy souvenirs for our kids, our last meeting was with Sen. Burr’s office. There, we also thanked his office for cosponsorship of S. 668 but encouraged him to sign the “Dear Colleague” letter that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has circulated asking the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to address the colonoscopy cost-sharing “loophole.” We discussed the importance of cosponsoring upcoming companion Senate legislation for H.R. 2279 and H.R. 3107, sharing stories from our clinical practices about how these regulatory burdens have delayed treatment for our patients.
You can get involved, too.
AGA Advocacy Day was a tremendous experience, but it is not the only way AGA members can get involved and take action. The AGA Advocacy website, gastro.org/advocacy, provides more information on multiple avenues for advocacy. These include an online advocacy tool for sending templated letters on these issues to your elected officials.
Perhaps now more than ever, it is crucial that we get involved to support gastroenterology and advocate for our patients.
Dr. Patel is assistant professor, division of gastroenterology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.; member, AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee.
GI of the week: Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD
Congrats to Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD, who was selected for an NIH Director’s New Innovator Award, part of the NIH director’s high-risk, high-reward research award program. The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award will provide Dr. Beyder with more than $2 million in funding over a 5-year period to continue his project: Does the gut have a sense of touch?
Dr. Beyder’s lab at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., recently discovered a novel population of mechanosensitive epithelial sensory cells that are similar to skin’s touch sensors, which prompted a potentially transformative question: “Does the gut have a sense of touch?” We look forward to seeing the results of future research on this topic.
Dr. Beyder – a physician-scientist at the Mayo Clinic – is a 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award recipient and graduate of the 2018 AGA Future Leaders Program. Dr. Beyder currently serves on the AGA Nominating Committee.
Please join us in congratulating Dr. Beyder on Twitter (@BeyderLab) or in the AGA Community.
The NIH director’s high-risk, high-reward research program funds highly innovative, high-impact biomedical research proposed by extraordinarily creative scientists – these awards have one of the lowest funding rates for NIH. Congrats to two additional AGA members who also received a 2019 NIH Director’s New Innovator Award: Maayan Levy, PhD, and Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, both from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Eight new insights about diet and gut health
During your 4 years of medical school, you likely received only 4 hours of nutrition training. Yet we know diet is so integral to the care of GI patients. That’s why AGA focused the 2019 James W. Freston Conference on the topic: Food at the Intersection of Gut Health and Disease.
Our course directors William Chey, MD, AGAF, Sheila E. Crowe, MD, AGAF, and Gerard E. Mullin, MD, AGAF, share eight points from the meeting that stuck with them and can help all practicing GIs as they consider dietary treatments for their patients.
1. Personalized nutrition is important. Genetic differences lead to differences in health outcomes. One size or recommendation does not fit all. This is why certain diets only work on certain people. There is no one diet for all and for all disease states. Genetic tests can be helpful, but they rely on reporting that isn’t readily available yet.
2. Dietary therapy is key to managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). EoE is becoming more and more prevalent. Genes can’t change that fast, but epigenetic factors can, and the evidence seems to be in food. EoE is not an IgE-mediated disease and therefore most allergy tests will not prove useful; however, food is often the trigger – most common, dairy. Dietary therapy is likely the best way to manage. You want to reduce the number of eliminated foods by way of a reintroduction protocol. The six-food elimination diet is standard, though some are moving to a four-food elimination diet (dairy, wheat, egg, and soy).
3. There has been a reported increase in those with food allergies, sensitivities, celiac disease, and other adverse reactions to food. Many of the food allergy tests available are not helpful. In addition, many afflicted patients are using self-imposed diets rather than working with a GI, allergist, or dietitian. This needs to change.
4. There is currently insufficient evidence to support a gluten-free diet for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). It is possible that fructans, more than gluten, are causing the GI issues. Typically, the low-FODMAP diet is beneficial to IBS patients if done correctly with the guidance of a dietitian; however, not everyone with IBS improves on it. All the steps are important though, including reintroduction and maintenance.
5. When working with patients on the low-FODMAP or other restrictive diets, it is important to know their food and eating history. Avoidance/restrictive food intake disorder is something we need to be aware of when it comes to patients with a history or likelihood to develop disordered eating/eating disorders. The patient team may need to include an eating disorder therapist.
6. The general population in the United States has increased the adoption of a gluten-free diet although the number of cases of celiac disease has not increased. Many have self-reported gluten sensitivities. Those that have removed gluten, following trends, are more at risk of bowel irregularity (low fiber), weight gain, and disordered eating. Celiac disease is not a do-it-yourself disease, patients will be best served working with a dietitian and GI.
7. Food can induce symptoms in patients with IBD. It can also trigger gut inflammation resulting in incident or relapse. There is experimental plausibility for some factors of the relationship to be causal and we may be able to modify the diet to prevent and manage IBD.
8. The focus on nutrition education must continue! Nutrition should be a required part of continuing medical education for physicians. And physicians should work with dietitians to improve the care of GI patients.
17 fellows advancing GI and patient care
Each year during Digestive Disease Week®, AGA hosts a session titled “Advancing Clinical Practice: GI Fellow-Directed Quality-Improvement Projects.” During the 2019 session, 17 quality improvement initiatives were presented — you can review these abstracts in the July issue of Gastroenterology in the “AGA Section” or review a presenter’s abstract by clicking their name or image. Kudos to the promising fellows featured below, who all served as lead authors for their quality improvement projects.
Manasi Agrawal, MD
Lenox Hill Hospital, New York
@ManasiAgrawalMD
Jessica Breton, MD
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Adam Faye, MD
Columbia University Medical Center, New York
@AdamFaye4
Shelly Gurwara, MD
Wake Forest Baptist Health Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Afrin Kamal, MD
Stanford (Calif.) University
Ani Kardashian, MD
University of California, Los Angeles
@AniKardashianMD
Sonali Palchaudhuri, MD
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
@sopalchaudhuri
Nasim Parsa, MD
University of Missouri Health System, Columbia
Sahil Patel, MD
Drexel University, Philadelphia
@sahilr
Vikram Raghu, MD
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh
Amit Shah, MD
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Lin Shen, MD
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
@LinShenMD
Charles Snyder, MD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York
Brian Sullivan, MD
Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Ashley Vachon, MD
University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora
Ted Walker, MD
Washington University/Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
Xiao Jing Wang, MD
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
@IrisWangMD
Ten tips to help you get a research grant
It’s almost time to submit your application for the American Gastroenterological Association Research Scholar Award, the application deadline is Nov. 13, 2019. Review these tips for writing and preparing your application.
1. Start early. Allow plenty of time to complete your application, give it multiple reviews, and get feedback from others. Most applicants start working on the Specific Aims for the project 6 months in advance of the deadline.
2. Look at examples. Ask your division if there are any templates/prior grant submissions that you can review. There’s no recipe for a successful grant, so the only way to compose one is to have a sense of what has worked in the past. In general, prior awardees are happy to share their applications if you contact them.
3. Request feedback. Ask mentors and colleagues for early feedback on your Specific Aims page. If it makes sense and is interesting to them, reviewers will likely feel the same way.
4. Ask your collaborators for letters of support. In addition to your preceptor, consider including letters of support from prior researchers that you have worked with or any collaborators for the current project, especially if they will help you with a new technique or reagents.
5. Contact the grants staff with questions and concerns early on. If you don’t understand part of the application, aren’t sure if you’re eligible or are having problems with submission, contact the grant staff right away. Don’t wait until the week or day the grant is due when staff may be flooded with calls. They can assist you much better with advance notice, which will allow you to avoid last-minute stress.
6. Each application should be different. Keep in mind the scope of the grant and amount of funding. Don’t just recycle an R01-level application for a 1-year AGA pilot award.
7. More is better than less when it comes to preliminary data. If your expertise in a technique you are proposing is established, you will not need to demonstrate the capability to do the work but will likely need to show preliminary data. If you are looking to build expertise (as a part of your career development), you may need to show that the infrastructure that enables you to do the work is accessible.
8. Don’t take constructive feedback personally. As you share your draft with mentors and colleagues for feedback, you may receive some unanticipated criticism. Try not to take this personally. If you can detach yourself emotionally, you’ll be in a better position to answer critiques and make adjustments.
9. Remember your end goal: To help patients! Even the most basic science proposals are rooted in a clear potential to benefit patients.
10. Stay positive. If you do not succeed on your first application, believe in your work, make it better, and apply again.
Thanks to the following AGA Research Foundation grant recipients for sharing their advice, which resulted in the above 10 tips:
- Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD, 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award
- Barbara Jung, MD, AGAF, 2016 AGA-Elsevier Pilot Research Award
- Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, 2014 AGA Research Scholar Award
- Josephine Ni, MD, 2017 AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
- Sahar Nissim, MD, PhD, 2017 AGA-Caroline Craig Augustyn and Damian Augustyn Award in Digestive Cancer
- Jatin Roper, MD, 2011 AGA Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award
- Christina Twyman-Saint Victor, MD, 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award
Visit www.gastro.org/research-funding to review the AGA Research Foundation research grants now open for applications. If you have questions about the AGA awards program, please contact [email protected].
The importance of getting involved for gastroenterology
On Sept. 20, 2019, I had the opportunity to participate in AGA’s Advocacy Day for the second time, joining 40 of our gastroenterology colleagues from across the United States on Capitol Hill to advocate for our profession and our patients.
The evening before Advocacy Day, we discussed strategies for having a successful meeting on Capitol Hill with AGA staff (including Kathleen Teixeira, AGA vice president of government affairs, and Jonathan Sollish, AGA senior coordinator, public policy). We discussed having our “asks” supported with evidence, and “getting personal” about how these policy issues directly affect us and our patients. We also had the chance to hear from Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), both of whom invited our questions. Both congressmen are friends of AGA, with Rep. McGovern serving as chair of the House Rules Committee, and Sen. Blunt serving as chair of the Senate Labor–Health & Human Services Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Advocacy Day began with a group breakfast during which we reviewed some of the policy issues of central importance to gastroenterology:
- Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act (HR1570/S668), which enjoys strong bipartisan support, would correct the “cost-sharing” problem of screening colonoscopies turning therapeutic (with polypectomy) for our Medicare patients, by waiving the coinsurance for screening colonoscopies — regardless of whether we remove polyps during these colonoscopies.
- Safe Step Act, HR2279, legislation introduced in the House, facilitates a common-sense and timely (72 hours or 24 hours if life threatening) appeals process when our patients are subjected to step therapy (“fail first”) by insurers.
- Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, HR3107, legislation in the House, eases onerous prior authorization burdens by promoting an electronic prior authorization process, ensuring requests are approved by qualified medical professionals who have specialty-specific experience, and mandating that plans report their rates of delays and denials.
- National Institutes of Health research funding facilitates innovative research and supports young investigators in our field.
Full of enthusiasm, our six-strong North Carolina contingent (pictured L-R, Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF; David Leiman, MD, MSPH; Animesh Jain, MD; Anne Finefrock Peery, MD; Lisa Gangarosa, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Government Affairs Committee; and Amit Patel, MD) met with the offices of Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), and both North Carolina senators, Richard Burr (R) and Thom Tillis (R), on Capitol Hill to convey our “asks.”
At Rep. Price’s office in the stately Rayburn House Office Building, we thanked his team for cosponsorship of H.R. 1570 and H.R. 2279. We also discussed the importance of increasing research funding by the AGA’s goal of $2.5 billion for NIH for fiscal year 2020, noting that a majority of our delegation has received NIH funding for our training and/or research activities. We also encouraged Price’s office to cosponsor H.R. 3107, sharing our personal experiences about the administrative toll of the prior authorization process for obtaining appropriate and recommended medications for our patients – in my case, swallowed topical corticosteroids for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.
We moved on to Sen. Tillis’s office, where we thanked his office for cosponsorship of S. 668 but encouraged his office to cosponsor upcoming companion Senate legislation for H.R. 2279 and H.R. 3107. Our colleague capably conveyed how an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient he saw recently may require a colectomy because of delays in appropriate treatment stemming from these regulatory processes. We also showed Tillis’s office how NIH funding generates significant economic activity in North Carolina, supporting jobs in our state.
After a quick stop at the U.S. Senate gift shop in the basement to buy souvenirs for our kids, our last meeting was with Sen. Burr’s office. There, we also thanked his office for cosponsorship of S. 668 but encouraged him to sign the “Dear Colleague” letter that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has circulated asking the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to address the colonoscopy cost-sharing “loophole.” We discussed the importance of cosponsoring upcoming companion Senate legislation for H.R. 2279 and H.R. 3107, sharing stories from our clinical practices about how these regulatory burdens have delayed treatment for our patients.
You can get involved, too.
AGA Advocacy Day was a tremendous experience, but it is not the only way AGA members can get involved and take action. The AGA Advocacy website, gastro.org/advocacy, provides more information on multiple avenues for advocacy. These include an online advocacy tool for sending templated letters on these issues to your elected officials.
Perhaps now more than ever, it is crucial that we get involved to support gastroenterology and advocate for our patients.
Dr. Patel is assistant professor, division of gastroenterology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.; member, AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee.
GI of the week: Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD
Congrats to Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD, who was selected for an NIH Director’s New Innovator Award, part of the NIH director’s high-risk, high-reward research award program. The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award will provide Dr. Beyder with more than $2 million in funding over a 5-year period to continue his project: Does the gut have a sense of touch?
Dr. Beyder’s lab at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., recently discovered a novel population of mechanosensitive epithelial sensory cells that are similar to skin’s touch sensors, which prompted a potentially transformative question: “Does the gut have a sense of touch?” We look forward to seeing the results of future research on this topic.
Dr. Beyder – a physician-scientist at the Mayo Clinic – is a 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award recipient and graduate of the 2018 AGA Future Leaders Program. Dr. Beyder currently serves on the AGA Nominating Committee.
Please join us in congratulating Dr. Beyder on Twitter (@BeyderLab) or in the AGA Community.
The NIH director’s high-risk, high-reward research program funds highly innovative, high-impact biomedical research proposed by extraordinarily creative scientists – these awards have one of the lowest funding rates for NIH. Congrats to two additional AGA members who also received a 2019 NIH Director’s New Innovator Award: Maayan Levy, PhD, and Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, both from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Eight new insights about diet and gut health
During your 4 years of medical school, you likely received only 4 hours of nutrition training. Yet we know diet is so integral to the care of GI patients. That’s why AGA focused the 2019 James W. Freston Conference on the topic: Food at the Intersection of Gut Health and Disease.
Our course directors William Chey, MD, AGAF, Sheila E. Crowe, MD, AGAF, and Gerard E. Mullin, MD, AGAF, share eight points from the meeting that stuck with them and can help all practicing GIs as they consider dietary treatments for their patients.
1. Personalized nutrition is important. Genetic differences lead to differences in health outcomes. One size or recommendation does not fit all. This is why certain diets only work on certain people. There is no one diet for all and for all disease states. Genetic tests can be helpful, but they rely on reporting that isn’t readily available yet.
2. Dietary therapy is key to managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). EoE is becoming more and more prevalent. Genes can’t change that fast, but epigenetic factors can, and the evidence seems to be in food. EoE is not an IgE-mediated disease and therefore most allergy tests will not prove useful; however, food is often the trigger – most common, dairy. Dietary therapy is likely the best way to manage. You want to reduce the number of eliminated foods by way of a reintroduction protocol. The six-food elimination diet is standard, though some are moving to a four-food elimination diet (dairy, wheat, egg, and soy).
3. There has been a reported increase in those with food allergies, sensitivities, celiac disease, and other adverse reactions to food. Many of the food allergy tests available are not helpful. In addition, many afflicted patients are using self-imposed diets rather than working with a GI, allergist, or dietitian. This needs to change.
4. There is currently insufficient evidence to support a gluten-free diet for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). It is possible that fructans, more than gluten, are causing the GI issues. Typically, the low-FODMAP diet is beneficial to IBS patients if done correctly with the guidance of a dietitian; however, not everyone with IBS improves on it. All the steps are important though, including reintroduction and maintenance.
5. When working with patients on the low-FODMAP or other restrictive diets, it is important to know their food and eating history. Avoidance/restrictive food intake disorder is something we need to be aware of when it comes to patients with a history or likelihood to develop disordered eating/eating disorders. The patient team may need to include an eating disorder therapist.
6. The general population in the United States has increased the adoption of a gluten-free diet although the number of cases of celiac disease has not increased. Many have self-reported gluten sensitivities. Those that have removed gluten, following trends, are more at risk of bowel irregularity (low fiber), weight gain, and disordered eating. Celiac disease is not a do-it-yourself disease, patients will be best served working with a dietitian and GI.
7. Food can induce symptoms in patients with IBD. It can also trigger gut inflammation resulting in incident or relapse. There is experimental plausibility for some factors of the relationship to be causal and we may be able to modify the diet to prevent and manage IBD.
8. The focus on nutrition education must continue! Nutrition should be a required part of continuing medical education for physicians. And physicians should work with dietitians to improve the care of GI patients.
17 fellows advancing GI and patient care
Each year during Digestive Disease Week®, AGA hosts a session titled “Advancing Clinical Practice: GI Fellow-Directed Quality-Improvement Projects.” During the 2019 session, 17 quality improvement initiatives were presented — you can review these abstracts in the July issue of Gastroenterology in the “AGA Section” or review a presenter’s abstract by clicking their name or image. Kudos to the promising fellows featured below, who all served as lead authors for their quality improvement projects.
Manasi Agrawal, MD
Lenox Hill Hospital, New York
@ManasiAgrawalMD
Jessica Breton, MD
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Adam Faye, MD
Columbia University Medical Center, New York
@AdamFaye4
Shelly Gurwara, MD
Wake Forest Baptist Health Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Afrin Kamal, MD
Stanford (Calif.) University
Ani Kardashian, MD
University of California, Los Angeles
@AniKardashianMD
Sonali Palchaudhuri, MD
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
@sopalchaudhuri
Nasim Parsa, MD
University of Missouri Health System, Columbia
Sahil Patel, MD
Drexel University, Philadelphia
@sahilr
Vikram Raghu, MD
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh
Amit Shah, MD
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Lin Shen, MD
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
@LinShenMD
Charles Snyder, MD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York
Brian Sullivan, MD
Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Ashley Vachon, MD
University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora
Ted Walker, MD
Washington University/Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
Xiao Jing Wang, MD
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
@IrisWangMD
Ten tips to help you get a research grant
It’s almost time to submit your application for the American Gastroenterological Association Research Scholar Award, the application deadline is Nov. 13, 2019. Review these tips for writing and preparing your application.
1. Start early. Allow plenty of time to complete your application, give it multiple reviews, and get feedback from others. Most applicants start working on the Specific Aims for the project 6 months in advance of the deadline.
2. Look at examples. Ask your division if there are any templates/prior grant submissions that you can review. There’s no recipe for a successful grant, so the only way to compose one is to have a sense of what has worked in the past. In general, prior awardees are happy to share their applications if you contact them.
3. Request feedback. Ask mentors and colleagues for early feedback on your Specific Aims page. If it makes sense and is interesting to them, reviewers will likely feel the same way.
4. Ask your collaborators for letters of support. In addition to your preceptor, consider including letters of support from prior researchers that you have worked with or any collaborators for the current project, especially if they will help you with a new technique or reagents.
5. Contact the grants staff with questions and concerns early on. If you don’t understand part of the application, aren’t sure if you’re eligible or are having problems with submission, contact the grant staff right away. Don’t wait until the week or day the grant is due when staff may be flooded with calls. They can assist you much better with advance notice, which will allow you to avoid last-minute stress.
6. Each application should be different. Keep in mind the scope of the grant and amount of funding. Don’t just recycle an R01-level application for a 1-year AGA pilot award.
7. More is better than less when it comes to preliminary data. If your expertise in a technique you are proposing is established, you will not need to demonstrate the capability to do the work but will likely need to show preliminary data. If you are looking to build expertise (as a part of your career development), you may need to show that the infrastructure that enables you to do the work is accessible.
8. Don’t take constructive feedback personally. As you share your draft with mentors and colleagues for feedback, you may receive some unanticipated criticism. Try not to take this personally. If you can detach yourself emotionally, you’ll be in a better position to answer critiques and make adjustments.
9. Remember your end goal: To help patients! Even the most basic science proposals are rooted in a clear potential to benefit patients.
10. Stay positive. If you do not succeed on your first application, believe in your work, make it better, and apply again.
Thanks to the following AGA Research Foundation grant recipients for sharing their advice, which resulted in the above 10 tips:
- Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD, 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award
- Barbara Jung, MD, AGAF, 2016 AGA-Elsevier Pilot Research Award
- Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, 2014 AGA Research Scholar Award
- Josephine Ni, MD, 2017 AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
- Sahar Nissim, MD, PhD, 2017 AGA-Caroline Craig Augustyn and Damian Augustyn Award in Digestive Cancer
- Jatin Roper, MD, 2011 AGA Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award
- Christina Twyman-Saint Victor, MD, 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award
Visit www.gastro.org/research-funding to review the AGA Research Foundation research grants now open for applications. If you have questions about the AGA awards program, please contact [email protected].
The importance of getting involved for gastroenterology
On Sept. 20, 2019, I had the opportunity to participate in AGA’s Advocacy Day for the second time, joining 40 of our gastroenterology colleagues from across the United States on Capitol Hill to advocate for our profession and our patients.
The evening before Advocacy Day, we discussed strategies for having a successful meeting on Capitol Hill with AGA staff (including Kathleen Teixeira, AGA vice president of government affairs, and Jonathan Sollish, AGA senior coordinator, public policy). We discussed having our “asks” supported with evidence, and “getting personal” about how these policy issues directly affect us and our patients. We also had the chance to hear from Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), both of whom invited our questions. Both congressmen are friends of AGA, with Rep. McGovern serving as chair of the House Rules Committee, and Sen. Blunt serving as chair of the Senate Labor–Health & Human Services Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Advocacy Day began with a group breakfast during which we reviewed some of the policy issues of central importance to gastroenterology:
- Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act (HR1570/S668), which enjoys strong bipartisan support, would correct the “cost-sharing” problem of screening colonoscopies turning therapeutic (with polypectomy) for our Medicare patients, by waiving the coinsurance for screening colonoscopies — regardless of whether we remove polyps during these colonoscopies.
- Safe Step Act, HR2279, legislation introduced in the House, facilitates a common-sense and timely (72 hours or 24 hours if life threatening) appeals process when our patients are subjected to step therapy (“fail first”) by insurers.
- Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, HR3107, legislation in the House, eases onerous prior authorization burdens by promoting an electronic prior authorization process, ensuring requests are approved by qualified medical professionals who have specialty-specific experience, and mandating that plans report their rates of delays and denials.
- National Institutes of Health research funding facilitates innovative research and supports young investigators in our field.
Full of enthusiasm, our six-strong North Carolina contingent (pictured L-R, Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF; David Leiman, MD, MSPH; Animesh Jain, MD; Anne Finefrock Peery, MD; Lisa Gangarosa, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Government Affairs Committee; and Amit Patel, MD) met with the offices of Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), and both North Carolina senators, Richard Burr (R) and Thom Tillis (R), on Capitol Hill to convey our “asks.”
At Rep. Price’s office in the stately Rayburn House Office Building, we thanked his team for cosponsorship of H.R. 1570 and H.R. 2279. We also discussed the importance of increasing research funding by the AGA’s goal of $2.5 billion for NIH for fiscal year 2020, noting that a majority of our delegation has received NIH funding for our training and/or research activities. We also encouraged Price’s office to cosponsor H.R. 3107, sharing our personal experiences about the administrative toll of the prior authorization process for obtaining appropriate and recommended medications for our patients – in my case, swallowed topical corticosteroids for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.
We moved on to Sen. Tillis’s office, where we thanked his office for cosponsorship of S. 668 but encouraged his office to cosponsor upcoming companion Senate legislation for H.R. 2279 and H.R. 3107. Our colleague capably conveyed how an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient he saw recently may require a colectomy because of delays in appropriate treatment stemming from these regulatory processes. We also showed Tillis’s office how NIH funding generates significant economic activity in North Carolina, supporting jobs in our state.
After a quick stop at the U.S. Senate gift shop in the basement to buy souvenirs for our kids, our last meeting was with Sen. Burr’s office. There, we also thanked his office for cosponsorship of S. 668 but encouraged him to sign the “Dear Colleague” letter that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has circulated asking the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to address the colonoscopy cost-sharing “loophole.” We discussed the importance of cosponsoring upcoming companion Senate legislation for H.R. 2279 and H.R. 3107, sharing stories from our clinical practices about how these regulatory burdens have delayed treatment for our patients.
You can get involved, too.
AGA Advocacy Day was a tremendous experience, but it is not the only way AGA members can get involved and take action. The AGA Advocacy website, gastro.org/advocacy, provides more information on multiple avenues for advocacy. These include an online advocacy tool for sending templated letters on these issues to your elected officials.
Perhaps now more than ever, it is crucial that we get involved to support gastroenterology and advocate for our patients.
Dr. Patel is assistant professor, division of gastroenterology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.; member, AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee.
GI of the week: Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD
Congrats to Arthur Beyder, MD, PhD, who was selected for an NIH Director’s New Innovator Award, part of the NIH director’s high-risk, high-reward research award program. The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award will provide Dr. Beyder with more than $2 million in funding over a 5-year period to continue his project: Does the gut have a sense of touch?
Dr. Beyder’s lab at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., recently discovered a novel population of mechanosensitive epithelial sensory cells that are similar to skin’s touch sensors, which prompted a potentially transformative question: “Does the gut have a sense of touch?” We look forward to seeing the results of future research on this topic.
Dr. Beyder – a physician-scientist at the Mayo Clinic – is a 2015 AGA Research Scholar Award recipient and graduate of the 2018 AGA Future Leaders Program. Dr. Beyder currently serves on the AGA Nominating Committee.
Please join us in congratulating Dr. Beyder on Twitter (@BeyderLab) or in the AGA Community.
The NIH director’s high-risk, high-reward research program funds highly innovative, high-impact biomedical research proposed by extraordinarily creative scientists – these awards have one of the lowest funding rates for NIH. Congrats to two additional AGA members who also received a 2019 NIH Director’s New Innovator Award: Maayan Levy, PhD, and Christoph A. Thaiss, PhD, both from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Eight new insights about diet and gut health
During your 4 years of medical school, you likely received only 4 hours of nutrition training. Yet we know diet is so integral to the care of GI patients. That’s why AGA focused the 2019 James W. Freston Conference on the topic: Food at the Intersection of Gut Health and Disease.
Our course directors William Chey, MD, AGAF, Sheila E. Crowe, MD, AGAF, and Gerard E. Mullin, MD, AGAF, share eight points from the meeting that stuck with them and can help all practicing GIs as they consider dietary treatments for their patients.
1. Personalized nutrition is important. Genetic differences lead to differences in health outcomes. One size or recommendation does not fit all. This is why certain diets only work on certain people. There is no one diet for all and for all disease states. Genetic tests can be helpful, but they rely on reporting that isn’t readily available yet.
2. Dietary therapy is key to managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). EoE is becoming more and more prevalent. Genes can’t change that fast, but epigenetic factors can, and the evidence seems to be in food. EoE is not an IgE-mediated disease and therefore most allergy tests will not prove useful; however, food is often the trigger – most common, dairy. Dietary therapy is likely the best way to manage. You want to reduce the number of eliminated foods by way of a reintroduction protocol. The six-food elimination diet is standard, though some are moving to a four-food elimination diet (dairy, wheat, egg, and soy).
3. There has been a reported increase in those with food allergies, sensitivities, celiac disease, and other adverse reactions to food. Many of the food allergy tests available are not helpful. In addition, many afflicted patients are using self-imposed diets rather than working with a GI, allergist, or dietitian. This needs to change.
4. There is currently insufficient evidence to support a gluten-free diet for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). It is possible that fructans, more than gluten, are causing the GI issues. Typically, the low-FODMAP diet is beneficial to IBS patients if done correctly with the guidance of a dietitian; however, not everyone with IBS improves on it. All the steps are important though, including reintroduction and maintenance.
5. When working with patients on the low-FODMAP or other restrictive diets, it is important to know their food and eating history. Avoidance/restrictive food intake disorder is something we need to be aware of when it comes to patients with a history or likelihood to develop disordered eating/eating disorders. The patient team may need to include an eating disorder therapist.
6. The general population in the United States has increased the adoption of a gluten-free diet although the number of cases of celiac disease has not increased. Many have self-reported gluten sensitivities. Those that have removed gluten, following trends, are more at risk of bowel irregularity (low fiber), weight gain, and disordered eating. Celiac disease is not a do-it-yourself disease, patients will be best served working with a dietitian and GI.
7. Food can induce symptoms in patients with IBD. It can also trigger gut inflammation resulting in incident or relapse. There is experimental plausibility for some factors of the relationship to be causal and we may be able to modify the diet to prevent and manage IBD.
8. The focus on nutrition education must continue! Nutrition should be a required part of continuing medical education for physicians. And physicians should work with dietitians to improve the care of GI patients.
17 fellows advancing GI and patient care
Each year during Digestive Disease Week®, AGA hosts a session titled “Advancing Clinical Practice: GI Fellow-Directed Quality-Improvement Projects.” During the 2019 session, 17 quality improvement initiatives were presented — you can review these abstracts in the July issue of Gastroenterology in the “AGA Section” or review a presenter’s abstract by clicking their name or image. Kudos to the promising fellows featured below, who all served as lead authors for their quality improvement projects.
Manasi Agrawal, MD
Lenox Hill Hospital, New York
@ManasiAgrawalMD
Jessica Breton, MD
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Adam Faye, MD
Columbia University Medical Center, New York
@AdamFaye4
Shelly Gurwara, MD
Wake Forest Baptist Health Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Afrin Kamal, MD
Stanford (Calif.) University
Ani Kardashian, MD
University of California, Los Angeles
@AniKardashianMD
Sonali Palchaudhuri, MD
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
@sopalchaudhuri
Nasim Parsa, MD
University of Missouri Health System, Columbia
Sahil Patel, MD
Drexel University, Philadelphia
@sahilr
Vikram Raghu, MD
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh
Amit Shah, MD
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Lin Shen, MD
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
@LinShenMD
Charles Snyder, MD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York
Brian Sullivan, MD
Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Ashley Vachon, MD
University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora
Ted Walker, MD
Washington University/Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
Xiao Jing Wang, MD
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
@IrisWangMD
Calendar
For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
UPCOMING EVENTS
Dec. 9-10, 11-12, 18-19, 2019; Jan. 15-16, 22-23; Feb. 12-13, Mar. 10-11, 11-12, 25-26; Apr. 15-16; May 13-14, 2020
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc.
Become a certified GI coder with a 2-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Anaheim, Calif. (12/9-10); Houston, Tex. (12/11-12); New Orleans, La. (12/18-19); Phoenix, Ariz. (12/18-19); Pittsburgh, Pa. (1/15-16); Dallas, Tex. (1/22-23); Hartford, Conn. (2/12-13); Orlando, Fla. (3/10-11); Novi, Mich. (3/11-12); Charlotte, N.C. (3/25-26); Columbus, Ohio (4/15-16); Chicago, Ill. (5/13-14)
Jan. 23–25, 2020
2020 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®
Gain a multidisciplinary perspective on treating inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Join health care professionals and researchers at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress® for the premier conference on IBD. Discover different perspectives, leave with practical information you can immediately implement, and hear about potential treatments on the horizon.
Austin, Tex.
Jan. 23–25, 2020
Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
Designed for clinicians, scientists, and all other members of the cancer care and research community, the 2020 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium will feature a wide array of multidisciplinary topics and expert faculty will offer insights on the application of gastrointestinal advances in: cancers of the esophagus and stomach, pancreas, small bowel and hepatobiliary tract, and the colon, rectum, and anus.
San Francisco, Calif.
Feb. 8-9, 2020
2020 Academic Skills Workshop
A free biannual meeting for fellows and early-career GIs that is implemented in conjunction with the AASLD. Topics range from leveraging mentor-mentee relationships, promotion strategies, and insights on writing grants. The application deadline is Nov. 18, 2019.
Charlotte, N.C.
Feb. 20; Mar. 24, 2020
Coding and Reimbursement Solutions by McVey Associates, Inc.
Improve the efficiency and performance of your practice by staying current on the latest reimbursement, coding and compliance changes.
Knoxville, Tenn. (2/20); Birmingham, Ala. (3/24)
May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students, and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery, and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education, or administration, the DDW program offers something for you. Abstract submissions will be due on Dec. 1, and registration will open in January 2020.
Chicago, Ill.
June 3-6, 2020
2020 AGA Tech Summit
Visit https://techsummit.gastro.org/ for more details.
San Francisco, Calif.
AWARDS DEADLINES
AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top-scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year and receive a $1,000 award.
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
AGA Student Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year three) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This $750 travel award supports recipients who are young (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of DDW) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
UPCOMING EVENTS
Dec. 9-10, 11-12, 18-19, 2019; Jan. 15-16, 22-23; Feb. 12-13, Mar. 10-11, 11-12, 25-26; Apr. 15-16; May 13-14, 2020
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc.
Become a certified GI coder with a 2-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Anaheim, Calif. (12/9-10); Houston, Tex. (12/11-12); New Orleans, La. (12/18-19); Phoenix, Ariz. (12/18-19); Pittsburgh, Pa. (1/15-16); Dallas, Tex. (1/22-23); Hartford, Conn. (2/12-13); Orlando, Fla. (3/10-11); Novi, Mich. (3/11-12); Charlotte, N.C. (3/25-26); Columbus, Ohio (4/15-16); Chicago, Ill. (5/13-14)
Jan. 23–25, 2020
2020 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®
Gain a multidisciplinary perspective on treating inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Join health care professionals and researchers at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress® for the premier conference on IBD. Discover different perspectives, leave with practical information you can immediately implement, and hear about potential treatments on the horizon.
Austin, Tex.
Jan. 23–25, 2020
Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
Designed for clinicians, scientists, and all other members of the cancer care and research community, the 2020 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium will feature a wide array of multidisciplinary topics and expert faculty will offer insights on the application of gastrointestinal advances in: cancers of the esophagus and stomach, pancreas, small bowel and hepatobiliary tract, and the colon, rectum, and anus.
San Francisco, Calif.
Feb. 8-9, 2020
2020 Academic Skills Workshop
A free biannual meeting for fellows and early-career GIs that is implemented in conjunction with the AASLD. Topics range from leveraging mentor-mentee relationships, promotion strategies, and insights on writing grants. The application deadline is Nov. 18, 2019.
Charlotte, N.C.
Feb. 20; Mar. 24, 2020
Coding and Reimbursement Solutions by McVey Associates, Inc.
Improve the efficiency and performance of your practice by staying current on the latest reimbursement, coding and compliance changes.
Knoxville, Tenn. (2/20); Birmingham, Ala. (3/24)
May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students, and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery, and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education, or administration, the DDW program offers something for you. Abstract submissions will be due on Dec. 1, and registration will open in January 2020.
Chicago, Ill.
June 3-6, 2020
2020 AGA Tech Summit
Visit https://techsummit.gastro.org/ for more details.
San Francisco, Calif.
AWARDS DEADLINES
AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top-scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year and receive a $1,000 award.
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
AGA Student Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year three) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This $750 travel award supports recipients who are young (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of DDW) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
UPCOMING EVENTS
Dec. 9-10, 11-12, 18-19, 2019; Jan. 15-16, 22-23; Feb. 12-13, Mar. 10-11, 11-12, 25-26; Apr. 15-16; May 13-14, 2020
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc.
Become a certified GI coder with a 2-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Anaheim, Calif. (12/9-10); Houston, Tex. (12/11-12); New Orleans, La. (12/18-19); Phoenix, Ariz. (12/18-19); Pittsburgh, Pa. (1/15-16); Dallas, Tex. (1/22-23); Hartford, Conn. (2/12-13); Orlando, Fla. (3/10-11); Novi, Mich. (3/11-12); Charlotte, N.C. (3/25-26); Columbus, Ohio (4/15-16); Chicago, Ill. (5/13-14)
Jan. 23–25, 2020
2020 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®
Gain a multidisciplinary perspective on treating inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Join health care professionals and researchers at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress® for the premier conference on IBD. Discover different perspectives, leave with practical information you can immediately implement, and hear about potential treatments on the horizon.
Austin, Tex.
Jan. 23–25, 2020
Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
Designed for clinicians, scientists, and all other members of the cancer care and research community, the 2020 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium will feature a wide array of multidisciplinary topics and expert faculty will offer insights on the application of gastrointestinal advances in: cancers of the esophagus and stomach, pancreas, small bowel and hepatobiliary tract, and the colon, rectum, and anus.
San Francisco, Calif.
Feb. 8-9, 2020
2020 Academic Skills Workshop
A free biannual meeting for fellows and early-career GIs that is implemented in conjunction with the AASLD. Topics range from leveraging mentor-mentee relationships, promotion strategies, and insights on writing grants. The application deadline is Nov. 18, 2019.
Charlotte, N.C.
Feb. 20; Mar. 24, 2020
Coding and Reimbursement Solutions by McVey Associates, Inc.
Improve the efficiency and performance of your practice by staying current on the latest reimbursement, coding and compliance changes.
Knoxville, Tenn. (2/20); Birmingham, Ala. (3/24)
May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students, and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery, and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education, or administration, the DDW program offers something for you. Abstract submissions will be due on Dec. 1, and registration will open in January 2020.
Chicago, Ill.
June 3-6, 2020
2020 AGA Tech Summit
Visit https://techsummit.gastro.org/ for more details.
San Francisco, Calif.
AWARDS DEADLINES
AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top-scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year and receive a $1,000 award.
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
AGA Student Abstract Award
This $500 travel award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year three) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This $750 travel award supports recipients who are young (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of DDW) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 26, 2020
An emerging role for physicians in health policy advocacy
The American Board of Internal Medicine has called for “a commitment to the promotion of public health and preventative medicine, as well as public advocacy on the part of each physician.”1 In our responsibility to preserve and promote human life, physicians are not only uniquely positioned for advocacy but also inherently assume the role of becoming health care activists.
The American Medical Association has defined physician advocacy as promoting “social, economic, educational, and political changes that ameliorate suffering and contribute to human well being.”2 For health care professionals, this translates into ensuring the concerns and best interests of patients are at the core of all decisions.3 For generations, physicians have taken extra steps for patient care in daily practice, including submitting prior authorizations, performing peer review, and taking part in family meetings. Many doctors also participate on hospital committees and boards for quality improvement measures and are leaders in designing strategies to improve patient safety and health care experiences. Although these examples may be viewed as a fundamental part of daily practice, in fact, these roles are consistent with advocacy on a local level. A significant number of physicians participate in medical education, research, and societal duties, which include formulating and reviewing guidelines for medical practice. Participation in conference organizing committees and reviewing medical journals are likewise not uncommon roles among medical practitioners. These efforts to provide education to improve patient care are also forms of advocacy on a national or regional level but often viewed as a standard in professionalism.4
It is on the federal and political level in advocacy where physician representation is critical. Health legislation is enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States.5 These laws can drastically affect clinical practice and patient care, especially in the realm of preventive medicine and pharmaceuticals. Gastroenterology is a unique field in which a large portion of practice is dedicated to cancer prevention, by screening age-appropriate individuals and monitoring high-risk patients. The field is rapidly expanding in the pharmaceutical area with new medications for inflammatory bowel disease and groundbreaking treatments for viral hepatitis. The breadth of practice in gastroenterology calls for antiquated laws to be changed to accommodate the development of patient care guidelines. With physicians representing less than 3% of Congress,6 the rules that govern our practice are largely left to those unfamiliar with the delivery of health care.
Lack of experience, limited time, and a tradition in medicine that prefers physicians to be apolitical are each contributing factors for reduced participation in federal advocacy.7 Professional GI societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, have a presence in public policy to educate lawmakers and promote statutes in gastroenterology. The involvement of these organizations in legislation is critical since public policy directly affects the interests and well-being of patients.
The priority public policy issues for GI societies are listed as follows:
- Reducing the administrative burden of prior authorizations.
- Implementing timely appeals for non–first-line therapies as determined by payers (step therapy).
- Eliminating surprise billing and cost-sharing for screening colonoscopy.
- Preserving patient protections, including for preexisting conditions and preventive services.
- Increasing federal funding and research appropriations for gastrointestinal research.
Communication with and development of relationships with legislators are essential to effective advocacy.7,8 Health professionals should be well-informed resources for members of Congress and therefore it is pivotal to provide factual information when presenting topics. There are various ways to reach congressional representatives, including personal visits, writing letters, making phone calls, or attending town halls.
Of the aforementioned, in-person meetings are the best way to directly connect with legislators. These allow for time to discuss a legislative issue, including the background and societal impact, proposed initiative, and personal accounts relating to the topic. Attending town halls also will give face-time with legislators, although the format to ask questions often is abbreviated. GI societies use letter writing as a way to increase support for a proposed bill or measure. The efficacy of letter writing increases with higher involvement. Letters are often generated in an online forum that requires the user’s zip code (so the letter can be routed to the appropriate legislator) and name with electronic signature, which are designed for easy use to boost participation.
Understanding that physicians are advocates in daily practice and that federal initiatives have significant impact on patients and clinical practice is the first step to getting involved. Participation at the local level includes connecting with the district offices of congressional leaders through letter writing, making phone calls, or in-person visits. On regional and national levels, involvement with state legislators, GI societies, or personal like-minded groups are ways to initiate federal advocacy. GI societies have federal policy committees, political action committees, and opportunities for early-career gastroenterologists to become involved in advocacy, including the Congressional Advocates Program from the AGA and the Young Physician Leadership Scholars Program from the ACG. Be sure to visit AGA’s Advocacy & Policy page to keep informed about current and future opportunities.
As the population grows and human life expectancy increases, the practice of medicine is a prime target for legislative changes, which ultimately affect patient care and clinical practice. Physicians are respected members of society, have expansive knowledge in disease processes and the delivery of health care to patients, and are naturally patient advocates. For these reasons, it is imperative for doctors to rise to the calling of federal advocacy, to continue to preserve the best interests and dignity of our patients.
References
1. ABIM Foundation. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:243-6.
2. Earnest MA et al. Academic Med. 2010;85(1):63-7.
3. Schwartz L. J Med Ethics. 2002;28:37-40.
4. Howell BA et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05184-3. [epub ahead of print]
5. The House of Representatives.
6. AGA News: https://www.gastro.org/news/new-congress-includes-22-health-care-providers
7. Kupfer SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4)8:834-7.
8. Grace ND and LB Dennis. Hepatology. 2007;45(6):1337-9.
Dr. Abbasi is a gastroenterologist who works in inflammatory bowel diseases at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Santa Monica Gastroenterology, Calif.
The American Board of Internal Medicine has called for “a commitment to the promotion of public health and preventative medicine, as well as public advocacy on the part of each physician.”1 In our responsibility to preserve and promote human life, physicians are not only uniquely positioned for advocacy but also inherently assume the role of becoming health care activists.
The American Medical Association has defined physician advocacy as promoting “social, economic, educational, and political changes that ameliorate suffering and contribute to human well being.”2 For health care professionals, this translates into ensuring the concerns and best interests of patients are at the core of all decisions.3 For generations, physicians have taken extra steps for patient care in daily practice, including submitting prior authorizations, performing peer review, and taking part in family meetings. Many doctors also participate on hospital committees and boards for quality improvement measures and are leaders in designing strategies to improve patient safety and health care experiences. Although these examples may be viewed as a fundamental part of daily practice, in fact, these roles are consistent with advocacy on a local level. A significant number of physicians participate in medical education, research, and societal duties, which include formulating and reviewing guidelines for medical practice. Participation in conference organizing committees and reviewing medical journals are likewise not uncommon roles among medical practitioners. These efforts to provide education to improve patient care are also forms of advocacy on a national or regional level but often viewed as a standard in professionalism.4
It is on the federal and political level in advocacy where physician representation is critical. Health legislation is enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States.5 These laws can drastically affect clinical practice and patient care, especially in the realm of preventive medicine and pharmaceuticals. Gastroenterology is a unique field in which a large portion of practice is dedicated to cancer prevention, by screening age-appropriate individuals and monitoring high-risk patients. The field is rapidly expanding in the pharmaceutical area with new medications for inflammatory bowel disease and groundbreaking treatments for viral hepatitis. The breadth of practice in gastroenterology calls for antiquated laws to be changed to accommodate the development of patient care guidelines. With physicians representing less than 3% of Congress,6 the rules that govern our practice are largely left to those unfamiliar with the delivery of health care.
Lack of experience, limited time, and a tradition in medicine that prefers physicians to be apolitical are each contributing factors for reduced participation in federal advocacy.7 Professional GI societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, have a presence in public policy to educate lawmakers and promote statutes in gastroenterology. The involvement of these organizations in legislation is critical since public policy directly affects the interests and well-being of patients.
The priority public policy issues for GI societies are listed as follows:
- Reducing the administrative burden of prior authorizations.
- Implementing timely appeals for non–first-line therapies as determined by payers (step therapy).
- Eliminating surprise billing and cost-sharing for screening colonoscopy.
- Preserving patient protections, including for preexisting conditions and preventive services.
- Increasing federal funding and research appropriations for gastrointestinal research.
Communication with and development of relationships with legislators are essential to effective advocacy.7,8 Health professionals should be well-informed resources for members of Congress and therefore it is pivotal to provide factual information when presenting topics. There are various ways to reach congressional representatives, including personal visits, writing letters, making phone calls, or attending town halls.
Of the aforementioned, in-person meetings are the best way to directly connect with legislators. These allow for time to discuss a legislative issue, including the background and societal impact, proposed initiative, and personal accounts relating to the topic. Attending town halls also will give face-time with legislators, although the format to ask questions often is abbreviated. GI societies use letter writing as a way to increase support for a proposed bill or measure. The efficacy of letter writing increases with higher involvement. Letters are often generated in an online forum that requires the user’s zip code (so the letter can be routed to the appropriate legislator) and name with electronic signature, which are designed for easy use to boost participation.
Understanding that physicians are advocates in daily practice and that federal initiatives have significant impact on patients and clinical practice is the first step to getting involved. Participation at the local level includes connecting with the district offices of congressional leaders through letter writing, making phone calls, or in-person visits. On regional and national levels, involvement with state legislators, GI societies, or personal like-minded groups are ways to initiate federal advocacy. GI societies have federal policy committees, political action committees, and opportunities for early-career gastroenterologists to become involved in advocacy, including the Congressional Advocates Program from the AGA and the Young Physician Leadership Scholars Program from the ACG. Be sure to visit AGA’s Advocacy & Policy page to keep informed about current and future opportunities.
As the population grows and human life expectancy increases, the practice of medicine is a prime target for legislative changes, which ultimately affect patient care and clinical practice. Physicians are respected members of society, have expansive knowledge in disease processes and the delivery of health care to patients, and are naturally patient advocates. For these reasons, it is imperative for doctors to rise to the calling of federal advocacy, to continue to preserve the best interests and dignity of our patients.
References
1. ABIM Foundation. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:243-6.
2. Earnest MA et al. Academic Med. 2010;85(1):63-7.
3. Schwartz L. J Med Ethics. 2002;28:37-40.
4. Howell BA et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05184-3. [epub ahead of print]
5. The House of Representatives.
6. AGA News: https://www.gastro.org/news/new-congress-includes-22-health-care-providers
7. Kupfer SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4)8:834-7.
8. Grace ND and LB Dennis. Hepatology. 2007;45(6):1337-9.
Dr. Abbasi is a gastroenterologist who works in inflammatory bowel diseases at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Santa Monica Gastroenterology, Calif.
The American Board of Internal Medicine has called for “a commitment to the promotion of public health and preventative medicine, as well as public advocacy on the part of each physician.”1 In our responsibility to preserve and promote human life, physicians are not only uniquely positioned for advocacy but also inherently assume the role of becoming health care activists.
The American Medical Association has defined physician advocacy as promoting “social, economic, educational, and political changes that ameliorate suffering and contribute to human well being.”2 For health care professionals, this translates into ensuring the concerns and best interests of patients are at the core of all decisions.3 For generations, physicians have taken extra steps for patient care in daily practice, including submitting prior authorizations, performing peer review, and taking part in family meetings. Many doctors also participate on hospital committees and boards for quality improvement measures and are leaders in designing strategies to improve patient safety and health care experiences. Although these examples may be viewed as a fundamental part of daily practice, in fact, these roles are consistent with advocacy on a local level. A significant number of physicians participate in medical education, research, and societal duties, which include formulating and reviewing guidelines for medical practice. Participation in conference organizing committees and reviewing medical journals are likewise not uncommon roles among medical practitioners. These efforts to provide education to improve patient care are also forms of advocacy on a national or regional level but often viewed as a standard in professionalism.4
It is on the federal and political level in advocacy where physician representation is critical. Health legislation is enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States.5 These laws can drastically affect clinical practice and patient care, especially in the realm of preventive medicine and pharmaceuticals. Gastroenterology is a unique field in which a large portion of practice is dedicated to cancer prevention, by screening age-appropriate individuals and monitoring high-risk patients. The field is rapidly expanding in the pharmaceutical area with new medications for inflammatory bowel disease and groundbreaking treatments for viral hepatitis. The breadth of practice in gastroenterology calls for antiquated laws to be changed to accommodate the development of patient care guidelines. With physicians representing less than 3% of Congress,6 the rules that govern our practice are largely left to those unfamiliar with the delivery of health care.
Lack of experience, limited time, and a tradition in medicine that prefers physicians to be apolitical are each contributing factors for reduced participation in federal advocacy.7 Professional GI societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, have a presence in public policy to educate lawmakers and promote statutes in gastroenterology. The involvement of these organizations in legislation is critical since public policy directly affects the interests and well-being of patients.
The priority public policy issues for GI societies are listed as follows:
- Reducing the administrative burden of prior authorizations.
- Implementing timely appeals for non–first-line therapies as determined by payers (step therapy).
- Eliminating surprise billing and cost-sharing for screening colonoscopy.
- Preserving patient protections, including for preexisting conditions and preventive services.
- Increasing federal funding and research appropriations for gastrointestinal research.
Communication with and development of relationships with legislators are essential to effective advocacy.7,8 Health professionals should be well-informed resources for members of Congress and therefore it is pivotal to provide factual information when presenting topics. There are various ways to reach congressional representatives, including personal visits, writing letters, making phone calls, or attending town halls.
Of the aforementioned, in-person meetings are the best way to directly connect with legislators. These allow for time to discuss a legislative issue, including the background and societal impact, proposed initiative, and personal accounts relating to the topic. Attending town halls also will give face-time with legislators, although the format to ask questions often is abbreviated. GI societies use letter writing as a way to increase support for a proposed bill or measure. The efficacy of letter writing increases with higher involvement. Letters are often generated in an online forum that requires the user’s zip code (so the letter can be routed to the appropriate legislator) and name with electronic signature, which are designed for easy use to boost participation.
Understanding that physicians are advocates in daily practice and that federal initiatives have significant impact on patients and clinical practice is the first step to getting involved. Participation at the local level includes connecting with the district offices of congressional leaders through letter writing, making phone calls, or in-person visits. On regional and national levels, involvement with state legislators, GI societies, or personal like-minded groups are ways to initiate federal advocacy. GI societies have federal policy committees, political action committees, and opportunities for early-career gastroenterologists to become involved in advocacy, including the Congressional Advocates Program from the AGA and the Young Physician Leadership Scholars Program from the ACG. Be sure to visit AGA’s Advocacy & Policy page to keep informed about current and future opportunities.
As the population grows and human life expectancy increases, the practice of medicine is a prime target for legislative changes, which ultimately affect patient care and clinical practice. Physicians are respected members of society, have expansive knowledge in disease processes and the delivery of health care to patients, and are naturally patient advocates. For these reasons, it is imperative for doctors to rise to the calling of federal advocacy, to continue to preserve the best interests and dignity of our patients.
References
1. ABIM Foundation. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:243-6.
2. Earnest MA et al. Academic Med. 2010;85(1):63-7.
3. Schwartz L. J Med Ethics. 2002;28:37-40.
4. Howell BA et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05184-3. [epub ahead of print]
5. The House of Representatives.
6. AGA News: https://www.gastro.org/news/new-congress-includes-22-health-care-providers
7. Kupfer SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4)8:834-7.
8. Grace ND and LB Dennis. Hepatology. 2007;45(6):1337-9.
Dr. Abbasi is a gastroenterologist who works in inflammatory bowel diseases at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Santa Monica Gastroenterology, Calif.
AGA promotes workforce diversity in academic gastroenterology: The FORWARD program
“The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has worked diligently and effectively to expand the pool of underrepresented in medicine physicians who provide care for patients with digestive diseases,” remarks Byron Cryer, MD, FORWARD principal investigator and associate dean for the office of faculty diversity & development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
This long history of promoting and encouraging diversity in the field is notable; however, the society recognizes that there is still more to be done to prepare and sponsor underrepresented in medicine physician-scientists to assume leadership positions in the field.
“As of 2017, only 3.2% of gastroenterology fellows were African American and 8.5% were Hispanic,” remarked Sandra Quezada, MD, AGA Chair, Diversity Committee. These statistics closely correspond to AGA’s membership demographics, where only 3.36% of AGA members are African American and 5.53% are Hispanic, among those reporting ethnicity.
Under the leadership of principal investigators Byron Cryer, MD, and Sheila Crowe, MD, and coinvestigators Juanita Merchant, MD, and Jesus Rivera-Nieves, MD, AGA developed the FORWARD (Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity) program.
This program was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases through an education project (R25) grant.
The overall objective of the grant is to enhance the diversity of the biomedical science research workforce in gastroenterology and to prepare individuals to assume leadership positions within the AGA and in academic medicine.
The FORWARD program has three aims:
1. Provide skill development in leadership – including general leadership development, executive coaching, and opportunities for leadership experience within the society.
2. Implement a diversity management plan focused on active mentoring approaches, using both one-on-one and networking approaches, to provide opportunities for broad support and sponsorship.
3. Provide training for skill development in research careers including training in research development, management of research groups, scientific manuscript, and grant writing.
The program targets fellows and early-career faculty and was promoted broadly to society membership and to past participants in AGA diversity programs. Through a rigorous selection process, 10 physician-scientists were selected among a qualified pool of applicants. Participants were matched with experienced academic gastroenterologists who committed to serve as their professional mentors throughout the course of their participation in the FORWARD program.
Leadership development
The first FORWARD cohort kicked off in March 2019 and will conclude May 2020. They convened at AGA’s inaugural 2½ day Leadership Development Conference. During the conference, the 10 FORWARD scholars joined with 18 AGA Future Leader program participants and 40 Women’s Leadership Conference attendees to participate in leadership development training that addressed such topics as building resilience, presentation skills, negotiation, career success in an ever-changing scientific environment, emotional intelligence, and other key topics designed to bolster their skills as emerging leaders in gastroenterology. With seven past and current AGA presidents in attendance, the FORWARD participants had the unique opportunity to learn about the career paths and gain advice from key leaders in the field while also networking with fellow emerging leaders in both the Future Leaders program and Women’s Leadership Conference.
To further prepare the FORWARD scholars to assume future leadership positions within the society, they’ve begun “internships” that included shadowing AGA committee meetings during Digestive Disease Week (DDW®) 2019 in San Diego and participating in networking events with AGA leaders at receptions and various events.
Mentoring and coaching
In addition to leadership development training at the conference, each FORWARD scholar identified a research topic that they would work on with their mentor and a grant-writing expert to develop into a full grant proposal by the conclusion of the program. The FORWARD mentors have committed to provide mentoring that addresses scientific research content as well as career guidance. The active mentoring provided to the FORWARD scholars is extensive and includes regular contact with their mentors as well as one-on-one executive coaching by a professional coach committed to learning about their needs and guiding them through an individual development plan.
To facilitate the coaching for their individual development plan, each FORWARD scholar completed a Self-Assessment for Physician Leaders and a 360° assessment, which informed the executive coaching that the scholars receive. For many of the scholars, this is the first time that they have benefited from individual executive coaching.
Academic research skills development
In addition to leadership development training and networking opportunities along with executive coaching and mentoring, the FORWARD scholars benefit from direct evaluation and consultation on grant writing. FORWARD scholars have access to a private learning management system where they participate in online grant-writing skills training designed by a grant-writing expert. Based on their training, they are developing various segments of an actual grant proposal and are receiving both virtual peer critiques as well as individualized critiques and guidance from the grant-writing consultant, their program mentor, and their home institution mentor. Future training modules will include lab management and manuscript writing.
Jesus Rivera-Nieves, MD, FORWARD coinvestigator, stated, “I have had the honor of monitoring the progress of our first class of scholars recently. I am incredibly proud of the caliber of these early-career professionals and have no doubt that they will emerge as leaders in our field, where more diversity is greatly needed.”
The scholars and their mentors will reconvene at DDW® 2020 for an opportunity to give a presentation and participate in a commencement ceremony concluding their involvement in the program. Following the graduation of this first cohort, there will be a period of evaluation prior to recruitment of the second cohort of FORWARD scholars.
The 2018-2020 FORWARD Cohort includes:
Yelina Alvarez, MD, PhD
|
Dominique Bailey, MD
|
|
Oriana M. Damas, MD
|
Patricia D. Jones, MD, MSCR
|
Folasade (Fola) May, MD, PhD, MPhil
|
Antonio Mendoza Ladd, MD, FACG, FASGE
|
Akinbowale Oyalowo, MD
|
|
Eric J. Vargas, MD |
The 2018-2020 – FORWARD Program Mentors
Maria Abreu, MD, AGAF
|
C. Rick Boland, MD, AGAF
|
John Carethers, MD, AGAF
|
Darwin Conwell, MD, MS
|
|
John Inadomi, MD, AGAF
|
|
|
|
Gary Wu, MD
|
Dr. Cryer is associate dean for faculty diversity and development, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Dr. Rivera-Nieves, is professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego; and Ms. NuQuay, is senior director, member relations and constituency programs, American Gastroenterological Association, Bethesda, Md.
“The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has worked diligently and effectively to expand the pool of underrepresented in medicine physicians who provide care for patients with digestive diseases,” remarks Byron Cryer, MD, FORWARD principal investigator and associate dean for the office of faculty diversity & development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
This long history of promoting and encouraging diversity in the field is notable; however, the society recognizes that there is still more to be done to prepare and sponsor underrepresented in medicine physician-scientists to assume leadership positions in the field.
“As of 2017, only 3.2% of gastroenterology fellows were African American and 8.5% were Hispanic,” remarked Sandra Quezada, MD, AGA Chair, Diversity Committee. These statistics closely correspond to AGA’s membership demographics, where only 3.36% of AGA members are African American and 5.53% are Hispanic, among those reporting ethnicity.
Under the leadership of principal investigators Byron Cryer, MD, and Sheila Crowe, MD, and coinvestigators Juanita Merchant, MD, and Jesus Rivera-Nieves, MD, AGA developed the FORWARD (Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity) program.
This program was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases through an education project (R25) grant.
The overall objective of the grant is to enhance the diversity of the biomedical science research workforce in gastroenterology and to prepare individuals to assume leadership positions within the AGA and in academic medicine.
The FORWARD program has three aims:
1. Provide skill development in leadership – including general leadership development, executive coaching, and opportunities for leadership experience within the society.
2. Implement a diversity management plan focused on active mentoring approaches, using both one-on-one and networking approaches, to provide opportunities for broad support and sponsorship.
3. Provide training for skill development in research careers including training in research development, management of research groups, scientific manuscript, and grant writing.
The program targets fellows and early-career faculty and was promoted broadly to society membership and to past participants in AGA diversity programs. Through a rigorous selection process, 10 physician-scientists were selected among a qualified pool of applicants. Participants were matched with experienced academic gastroenterologists who committed to serve as their professional mentors throughout the course of their participation in the FORWARD program.
Leadership development
The first FORWARD cohort kicked off in March 2019 and will conclude May 2020. They convened at AGA’s inaugural 2½ day Leadership Development Conference. During the conference, the 10 FORWARD scholars joined with 18 AGA Future Leader program participants and 40 Women’s Leadership Conference attendees to participate in leadership development training that addressed such topics as building resilience, presentation skills, negotiation, career success in an ever-changing scientific environment, emotional intelligence, and other key topics designed to bolster their skills as emerging leaders in gastroenterology. With seven past and current AGA presidents in attendance, the FORWARD participants had the unique opportunity to learn about the career paths and gain advice from key leaders in the field while also networking with fellow emerging leaders in both the Future Leaders program and Women’s Leadership Conference.
To further prepare the FORWARD scholars to assume future leadership positions within the society, they’ve begun “internships” that included shadowing AGA committee meetings during Digestive Disease Week (DDW®) 2019 in San Diego and participating in networking events with AGA leaders at receptions and various events.
Mentoring and coaching
In addition to leadership development training at the conference, each FORWARD scholar identified a research topic that they would work on with their mentor and a grant-writing expert to develop into a full grant proposal by the conclusion of the program. The FORWARD mentors have committed to provide mentoring that addresses scientific research content as well as career guidance. The active mentoring provided to the FORWARD scholars is extensive and includes regular contact with their mentors as well as one-on-one executive coaching by a professional coach committed to learning about their needs and guiding them through an individual development plan.
To facilitate the coaching for their individual development plan, each FORWARD scholar completed a Self-Assessment for Physician Leaders and a 360° assessment, which informed the executive coaching that the scholars receive. For many of the scholars, this is the first time that they have benefited from individual executive coaching.
Academic research skills development
In addition to leadership development training and networking opportunities along with executive coaching and mentoring, the FORWARD scholars benefit from direct evaluation and consultation on grant writing. FORWARD scholars have access to a private learning management system where they participate in online grant-writing skills training designed by a grant-writing expert. Based on their training, they are developing various segments of an actual grant proposal and are receiving both virtual peer critiques as well as individualized critiques and guidance from the grant-writing consultant, their program mentor, and their home institution mentor. Future training modules will include lab management and manuscript writing.
Jesus Rivera-Nieves, MD, FORWARD coinvestigator, stated, “I have had the honor of monitoring the progress of our first class of scholars recently. I am incredibly proud of the caliber of these early-career professionals and have no doubt that they will emerge as leaders in our field, where more diversity is greatly needed.”
The scholars and their mentors will reconvene at DDW® 2020 for an opportunity to give a presentation and participate in a commencement ceremony concluding their involvement in the program. Following the graduation of this first cohort, there will be a period of evaluation prior to recruitment of the second cohort of FORWARD scholars.
The 2018-2020 FORWARD Cohort includes:
Yelina Alvarez, MD, PhD
|
Dominique Bailey, MD
|
|
Oriana M. Damas, MD
|
Patricia D. Jones, MD, MSCR
|
Folasade (Fola) May, MD, PhD, MPhil
|
Antonio Mendoza Ladd, MD, FACG, FASGE
|
Akinbowale Oyalowo, MD
|
|
Eric J. Vargas, MD |
The 2018-2020 – FORWARD Program Mentors
Maria Abreu, MD, AGAF
|
C. Rick Boland, MD, AGAF
|
John Carethers, MD, AGAF
|
Darwin Conwell, MD, MS
|
|
John Inadomi, MD, AGAF
|
|
|
|
Gary Wu, MD
|
Dr. Cryer is associate dean for faculty diversity and development, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Dr. Rivera-Nieves, is professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego; and Ms. NuQuay, is senior director, member relations and constituency programs, American Gastroenterological Association, Bethesda, Md.
“The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has worked diligently and effectively to expand the pool of underrepresented in medicine physicians who provide care for patients with digestive diseases,” remarks Byron Cryer, MD, FORWARD principal investigator and associate dean for the office of faculty diversity & development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
This long history of promoting and encouraging diversity in the field is notable; however, the society recognizes that there is still more to be done to prepare and sponsor underrepresented in medicine physician-scientists to assume leadership positions in the field.
“As of 2017, only 3.2% of gastroenterology fellows were African American and 8.5% were Hispanic,” remarked Sandra Quezada, MD, AGA Chair, Diversity Committee. These statistics closely correspond to AGA’s membership demographics, where only 3.36% of AGA members are African American and 5.53% are Hispanic, among those reporting ethnicity.
Under the leadership of principal investigators Byron Cryer, MD, and Sheila Crowe, MD, and coinvestigators Juanita Merchant, MD, and Jesus Rivera-Nieves, MD, AGA developed the FORWARD (Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity) program.
This program was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases through an education project (R25) grant.
The overall objective of the grant is to enhance the diversity of the biomedical science research workforce in gastroenterology and to prepare individuals to assume leadership positions within the AGA and in academic medicine.
The FORWARD program has three aims:
1. Provide skill development in leadership – including general leadership development, executive coaching, and opportunities for leadership experience within the society.
2. Implement a diversity management plan focused on active mentoring approaches, using both one-on-one and networking approaches, to provide opportunities for broad support and sponsorship.
3. Provide training for skill development in research careers including training in research development, management of research groups, scientific manuscript, and grant writing.
The program targets fellows and early-career faculty and was promoted broadly to society membership and to past participants in AGA diversity programs. Through a rigorous selection process, 10 physician-scientists were selected among a qualified pool of applicants. Participants were matched with experienced academic gastroenterologists who committed to serve as their professional mentors throughout the course of their participation in the FORWARD program.
Leadership development
The first FORWARD cohort kicked off in March 2019 and will conclude May 2020. They convened at AGA’s inaugural 2½ day Leadership Development Conference. During the conference, the 10 FORWARD scholars joined with 18 AGA Future Leader program participants and 40 Women’s Leadership Conference attendees to participate in leadership development training that addressed such topics as building resilience, presentation skills, negotiation, career success in an ever-changing scientific environment, emotional intelligence, and other key topics designed to bolster their skills as emerging leaders in gastroenterology. With seven past and current AGA presidents in attendance, the FORWARD participants had the unique opportunity to learn about the career paths and gain advice from key leaders in the field while also networking with fellow emerging leaders in both the Future Leaders program and Women’s Leadership Conference.
To further prepare the FORWARD scholars to assume future leadership positions within the society, they’ve begun “internships” that included shadowing AGA committee meetings during Digestive Disease Week (DDW®) 2019 in San Diego and participating in networking events with AGA leaders at receptions and various events.
Mentoring and coaching
In addition to leadership development training at the conference, each FORWARD scholar identified a research topic that they would work on with their mentor and a grant-writing expert to develop into a full grant proposal by the conclusion of the program. The FORWARD mentors have committed to provide mentoring that addresses scientific research content as well as career guidance. The active mentoring provided to the FORWARD scholars is extensive and includes regular contact with their mentors as well as one-on-one executive coaching by a professional coach committed to learning about their needs and guiding them through an individual development plan.
To facilitate the coaching for their individual development plan, each FORWARD scholar completed a Self-Assessment for Physician Leaders and a 360° assessment, which informed the executive coaching that the scholars receive. For many of the scholars, this is the first time that they have benefited from individual executive coaching.
Academic research skills development
In addition to leadership development training and networking opportunities along with executive coaching and mentoring, the FORWARD scholars benefit from direct evaluation and consultation on grant writing. FORWARD scholars have access to a private learning management system where they participate in online grant-writing skills training designed by a grant-writing expert. Based on their training, they are developing various segments of an actual grant proposal and are receiving both virtual peer critiques as well as individualized critiques and guidance from the grant-writing consultant, their program mentor, and their home institution mentor. Future training modules will include lab management and manuscript writing.
Jesus Rivera-Nieves, MD, FORWARD coinvestigator, stated, “I have had the honor of monitoring the progress of our first class of scholars recently. I am incredibly proud of the caliber of these early-career professionals and have no doubt that they will emerge as leaders in our field, where more diversity is greatly needed.”
The scholars and their mentors will reconvene at DDW® 2020 for an opportunity to give a presentation and participate in a commencement ceremony concluding their involvement in the program. Following the graduation of this first cohort, there will be a period of evaluation prior to recruitment of the second cohort of FORWARD scholars.
The 2018-2020 FORWARD Cohort includes:
Yelina Alvarez, MD, PhD
|
Dominique Bailey, MD
|
|
Oriana M. Damas, MD
|
Patricia D. Jones, MD, MSCR
|
Folasade (Fola) May, MD, PhD, MPhil
|
Antonio Mendoza Ladd, MD, FACG, FASGE
|
Akinbowale Oyalowo, MD
|
|
Eric J. Vargas, MD |
The 2018-2020 – FORWARD Program Mentors
Maria Abreu, MD, AGAF
|
C. Rick Boland, MD, AGAF
|
John Carethers, MD, AGAF
|
Darwin Conwell, MD, MS
|
|
John Inadomi, MD, AGAF
|
|
|
|
Gary Wu, MD
|
Dr. Cryer is associate dean for faculty diversity and development, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Dr. Rivera-Nieves, is professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego; and Ms. NuQuay, is senior director, member relations and constituency programs, American Gastroenterological Association, Bethesda, Md.
Q&A with DDW 2019 Advancing Clinical Practice: GI Fellow-Directed Quality Improvement Projects session abstract reviewers
The AGA Education & Training Committee sponsors a session during Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) entitled “Advancing Clinical Practice: GI Fellow-Directed Quality Improvement (QI) Projects.” Session participants are selected to give an oral or poster presentation of a quality improvement project they complete during fellowship. The QI project abstracts are peer reviewed and chosen by volunteers from the AGA Young Delegates. We asked several abstract reviewers from the 2019 session for advice on what makes an exceptional QI project and how to make an abstract stand out.
This session will be held again during DDW 2020. Interested participants should submit their abstract to the DDW descriptor GI Fellow-Directed QI Session via the DDW abstract submission site between Oct. 17 and Dec. 1, 2019.
What are the top 3 things that make an exceptional QI project?
Mohammad Bilal, MD, fellow, advanced endoscopy
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Harvard Medical School in Boston
Quality improvement projects are essential to identify areas of improvement in a health care system/institution and to be able to improve them. The best kind of QI projects are those that lead to sustainable positive outcomes. This is not always easy and usually requires a multifocal intervention strategy. In my opinion, the top three things that make an exceptional QI project are:
1. A clear, focused, concise, realistic, and achievable “aim statement,” also known as a “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant/Realistic, Time-Bound) aim statement.
2. A project that directly impacts patient-related outcomes.
3. A project that involves multiple members of the health care team in addition to physicians and patients, such as pharmacists, therapists, schedulers, or IT staff.
Chung Sang Tse, MD, gastroenterology fellow
Brown University Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, R.I.
Some of the most impressive QI abstracts that stood out to my fellow cojudges and I were those that employed novel yet widely applicable solutions to common problems, along with empiric data to assess their effects. For example, one of the most highly rated abstracts was one that used an electronic order set to standardize the acute care of inflammatory bowel disease flare in the emergency department and measured the impact on treatment outcomes. Another memorable abstract tested the use of meditation (via an instructional soundtrack) in the endoscopy suite to assess its effect on sedation use, procedural time, and patient comfort; although the results in the abstract did not reach statistical significance, the reviewers rated this abstract favorably for its attempt to improve the endoscopy experience in a low-cost and replicable manner. For this QI category, the reviewers weighed most heavily on a study’s impact, the rigor of methodology, and novelty of the problem/solution.
What advice would you give to prospective authors to make their abstracts stand out?
Michelle Hughes, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine
Section of digestive diseases, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.
Turning your hard work from a QI project into a successful abstract can seem daunting. There are a few things to consider to help your findings reach your target audience. First, an abstract should be clear and concise. Limit background content and focus on highlighting your project’s methodology and results. Remember, readers look for a comprehensive overview so they can easily understand what you did and found without a lot of extra content obscuring the main points. Everything in your abstract should tie back to your stated aim. Does the background build a case for your project? Do the results and conclusion clearly answer the hypothesis and/or clinical question? If a reported result does not help answer your question, then it should probably be left out. Another tip is to always carefully follow the guidelines for abstract submission. Ensure you use correct formatting and follow all outlined rules. Ask a colleague to review and proofread your abstract draft prior to submission. Lastly, before you start writing, decide what take-away message or statement makes your project meaningful. Refer to this as you write and finalize your abstract so that you keep your message clear and remain focused. You did the hard work to execute your project – but without an effective abstract, the impact of your work may get lost.
Manol Jovani, MD, MPH, therapeutic endoscopy fellow
Division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore
The abstract is the “elevator pitch” of your year(s)-long work, and as such it must be very carefully crafted. Dedicate specific time to the style and quality of your presentation long before the deadline. As for elevator pitches, first impressions are very important. For an abstract, it begins with the title. Select a declarative title that draws the interest of the reviewers/readers and tells them exactly what to expect, which also accurately represents the main findings. The introduction and aims should be very short and to the point. For example, it is counterproductive to start with “Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are the two major types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).” This does not add any information, states what is obvious to any GI reviewer, uses up 92 characters, and possibly gives a subconscious sense of unoriginality. Throughout the description of your methods/results, use clear language. A well-written abstract will explicitly and concisely state the populations included, statistical analyses performed, and specific outcomes. Make it easy for reviewers to follow along by presenting the results in a logical progression and by striving to use as few acronyms as possible. In addition, less is often more. The abstract should have only one main message, enunciated with the title, evident in the results, and interpreted with the conclusion. If you have additional space, use it to make compelling concluding remarks. As in an elevator pitch, the conclusion is as important as the introduction. Conclude by giving a clear message to the audience/reviewers on what the main findings are and suggest specific implications for future research. Do not end with “more studies are needed,” but rather suggest specifically how these results will influence our future understanding. Finally, know your audience and adapt your presentation to their needs, knowledge, and interests. This includes being mindful of the section to which you are submitting your abstract. An excellent abstract that could have been an oral presentation in one section may end up being a poster in another. Something important to remember about abstracts is that, while the content of the research is the most important part, the quality of its presentation serves to alert the reviewers and readers about it.
Ms. Mietzelfeld is a coordinator of data and training initiatives for the American Gastroenterological Association in Bethesda, Md.
The AGA Education & Training Committee sponsors a session during Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) entitled “Advancing Clinical Practice: GI Fellow-Directed Quality Improvement (QI) Projects.” Session participants are selected to give an oral or poster presentation of a quality improvement project they complete during fellowship. The QI project abstracts are peer reviewed and chosen by volunteers from the AGA Young Delegates. We asked several abstract reviewers from the 2019 session for advice on what makes an exceptional QI project and how to make an abstract stand out.
This session will be held again during DDW 2020. Interested participants should submit their abstract to the DDW descriptor GI Fellow-Directed QI Session via the DDW abstract submission site between Oct. 17 and Dec. 1, 2019.
What are the top 3 things that make an exceptional QI project?
Mohammad Bilal, MD, fellow, advanced endoscopy
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Harvard Medical School in Boston
Quality improvement projects are essential to identify areas of improvement in a health care system/institution and to be able to improve them. The best kind of QI projects are those that lead to sustainable positive outcomes. This is not always easy and usually requires a multifocal intervention strategy. In my opinion, the top three things that make an exceptional QI project are:
1. A clear, focused, concise, realistic, and achievable “aim statement,” also known as a “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant/Realistic, Time-Bound) aim statement.
2. A project that directly impacts patient-related outcomes.
3. A project that involves multiple members of the health care team in addition to physicians and patients, such as pharmacists, therapists, schedulers, or IT staff.
Chung Sang Tse, MD, gastroenterology fellow
Brown University Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, R.I.
Some of the most impressive QI abstracts that stood out to my fellow cojudges and I were those that employed novel yet widely applicable solutions to common problems, along with empiric data to assess their effects. For example, one of the most highly rated abstracts was one that used an electronic order set to standardize the acute care of inflammatory bowel disease flare in the emergency department and measured the impact on treatment outcomes. Another memorable abstract tested the use of meditation (via an instructional soundtrack) in the endoscopy suite to assess its effect on sedation use, procedural time, and patient comfort; although the results in the abstract did not reach statistical significance, the reviewers rated this abstract favorably for its attempt to improve the endoscopy experience in a low-cost and replicable manner. For this QI category, the reviewers weighed most heavily on a study’s impact, the rigor of methodology, and novelty of the problem/solution.
What advice would you give to prospective authors to make their abstracts stand out?
Michelle Hughes, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine
Section of digestive diseases, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.
Turning your hard work from a QI project into a successful abstract can seem daunting. There are a few things to consider to help your findings reach your target audience. First, an abstract should be clear and concise. Limit background content and focus on highlighting your project’s methodology and results. Remember, readers look for a comprehensive overview so they can easily understand what you did and found without a lot of extra content obscuring the main points. Everything in your abstract should tie back to your stated aim. Does the background build a case for your project? Do the results and conclusion clearly answer the hypothesis and/or clinical question? If a reported result does not help answer your question, then it should probably be left out. Another tip is to always carefully follow the guidelines for abstract submission. Ensure you use correct formatting and follow all outlined rules. Ask a colleague to review and proofread your abstract draft prior to submission. Lastly, before you start writing, decide what take-away message or statement makes your project meaningful. Refer to this as you write and finalize your abstract so that you keep your message clear and remain focused. You did the hard work to execute your project – but without an effective abstract, the impact of your work may get lost.
Manol Jovani, MD, MPH, therapeutic endoscopy fellow
Division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore
The abstract is the “elevator pitch” of your year(s)-long work, and as such it must be very carefully crafted. Dedicate specific time to the style and quality of your presentation long before the deadline. As for elevator pitches, first impressions are very important. For an abstract, it begins with the title. Select a declarative title that draws the interest of the reviewers/readers and tells them exactly what to expect, which also accurately represents the main findings. The introduction and aims should be very short and to the point. For example, it is counterproductive to start with “Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are the two major types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).” This does not add any information, states what is obvious to any GI reviewer, uses up 92 characters, and possibly gives a subconscious sense of unoriginality. Throughout the description of your methods/results, use clear language. A well-written abstract will explicitly and concisely state the populations included, statistical analyses performed, and specific outcomes. Make it easy for reviewers to follow along by presenting the results in a logical progression and by striving to use as few acronyms as possible. In addition, less is often more. The abstract should have only one main message, enunciated with the title, evident in the results, and interpreted with the conclusion. If you have additional space, use it to make compelling concluding remarks. As in an elevator pitch, the conclusion is as important as the introduction. Conclude by giving a clear message to the audience/reviewers on what the main findings are and suggest specific implications for future research. Do not end with “more studies are needed,” but rather suggest specifically how these results will influence our future understanding. Finally, know your audience and adapt your presentation to their needs, knowledge, and interests. This includes being mindful of the section to which you are submitting your abstract. An excellent abstract that could have been an oral presentation in one section may end up being a poster in another. Something important to remember about abstracts is that, while the content of the research is the most important part, the quality of its presentation serves to alert the reviewers and readers about it.
Ms. Mietzelfeld is a coordinator of data and training initiatives for the American Gastroenterological Association in Bethesda, Md.
The AGA Education & Training Committee sponsors a session during Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) entitled “Advancing Clinical Practice: GI Fellow-Directed Quality Improvement (QI) Projects.” Session participants are selected to give an oral or poster presentation of a quality improvement project they complete during fellowship. The QI project abstracts are peer reviewed and chosen by volunteers from the AGA Young Delegates. We asked several abstract reviewers from the 2019 session for advice on what makes an exceptional QI project and how to make an abstract stand out.
This session will be held again during DDW 2020. Interested participants should submit their abstract to the DDW descriptor GI Fellow-Directed QI Session via the DDW abstract submission site between Oct. 17 and Dec. 1, 2019.
What are the top 3 things that make an exceptional QI project?
Mohammad Bilal, MD, fellow, advanced endoscopy
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Harvard Medical School in Boston
Quality improvement projects are essential to identify areas of improvement in a health care system/institution and to be able to improve them. The best kind of QI projects are those that lead to sustainable positive outcomes. This is not always easy and usually requires a multifocal intervention strategy. In my opinion, the top three things that make an exceptional QI project are:
1. A clear, focused, concise, realistic, and achievable “aim statement,” also known as a “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant/Realistic, Time-Bound) aim statement.
2. A project that directly impacts patient-related outcomes.
3. A project that involves multiple members of the health care team in addition to physicians and patients, such as pharmacists, therapists, schedulers, or IT staff.
Chung Sang Tse, MD, gastroenterology fellow
Brown University Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, R.I.
Some of the most impressive QI abstracts that stood out to my fellow cojudges and I were those that employed novel yet widely applicable solutions to common problems, along with empiric data to assess their effects. For example, one of the most highly rated abstracts was one that used an electronic order set to standardize the acute care of inflammatory bowel disease flare in the emergency department and measured the impact on treatment outcomes. Another memorable abstract tested the use of meditation (via an instructional soundtrack) in the endoscopy suite to assess its effect on sedation use, procedural time, and patient comfort; although the results in the abstract did not reach statistical significance, the reviewers rated this abstract favorably for its attempt to improve the endoscopy experience in a low-cost and replicable manner. For this QI category, the reviewers weighed most heavily on a study’s impact, the rigor of methodology, and novelty of the problem/solution.
What advice would you give to prospective authors to make their abstracts stand out?
Michelle Hughes, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine
Section of digestive diseases, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.
Turning your hard work from a QI project into a successful abstract can seem daunting. There are a few things to consider to help your findings reach your target audience. First, an abstract should be clear and concise. Limit background content and focus on highlighting your project’s methodology and results. Remember, readers look for a comprehensive overview so they can easily understand what you did and found without a lot of extra content obscuring the main points. Everything in your abstract should tie back to your stated aim. Does the background build a case for your project? Do the results and conclusion clearly answer the hypothesis and/or clinical question? If a reported result does not help answer your question, then it should probably be left out. Another tip is to always carefully follow the guidelines for abstract submission. Ensure you use correct formatting and follow all outlined rules. Ask a colleague to review and proofread your abstract draft prior to submission. Lastly, before you start writing, decide what take-away message or statement makes your project meaningful. Refer to this as you write and finalize your abstract so that you keep your message clear and remain focused. You did the hard work to execute your project – but without an effective abstract, the impact of your work may get lost.
Manol Jovani, MD, MPH, therapeutic endoscopy fellow
Division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore
The abstract is the “elevator pitch” of your year(s)-long work, and as such it must be very carefully crafted. Dedicate specific time to the style and quality of your presentation long before the deadline. As for elevator pitches, first impressions are very important. For an abstract, it begins with the title. Select a declarative title that draws the interest of the reviewers/readers and tells them exactly what to expect, which also accurately represents the main findings. The introduction and aims should be very short and to the point. For example, it is counterproductive to start with “Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are the two major types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).” This does not add any information, states what is obvious to any GI reviewer, uses up 92 characters, and possibly gives a subconscious sense of unoriginality. Throughout the description of your methods/results, use clear language. A well-written abstract will explicitly and concisely state the populations included, statistical analyses performed, and specific outcomes. Make it easy for reviewers to follow along by presenting the results in a logical progression and by striving to use as few acronyms as possible. In addition, less is often more. The abstract should have only one main message, enunciated with the title, evident in the results, and interpreted with the conclusion. If you have additional space, use it to make compelling concluding remarks. As in an elevator pitch, the conclusion is as important as the introduction. Conclude by giving a clear message to the audience/reviewers on what the main findings are and suggest specific implications for future research. Do not end with “more studies are needed,” but rather suggest specifically how these results will influence our future understanding. Finally, know your audience and adapt your presentation to their needs, knowledge, and interests. This includes being mindful of the section to which you are submitting your abstract. An excellent abstract that could have been an oral presentation in one section may end up being a poster in another. Something important to remember about abstracts is that, while the content of the research is the most important part, the quality of its presentation serves to alert the reviewers and readers about it.
Ms. Mietzelfeld is a coordinator of data and training initiatives for the American Gastroenterological Association in Bethesda, Md.
The P value: What to make of it? A simple guide for the uninitiated
Introduction
Many clinicians consider the P value as an almost magical number that determines whether treatment effects exist or not. Is that a correct understanding?
In order to grasp the conceptual meaning of the P value, consider comparing two treatments, A and B, and finding that A is twice as effective as B. Does it mean that treatment A is better in reality? We cannot be sure from that information alone. It may be that treatment A is truly better than treatment B (i.e., true positive). However, it may also be that by chance we have collected a sample in which more people respond to treatment A, making it appear as more effective, when in reality it is equally effective as treatment B (i.e., false positive).
An arbitrary definition
If the P value is less than 5% (P less than .05) that means that there is less than a 5% probability that we would observe the above results if in reality treatment A and treatment B were equally effective. Since this probability is very small, the convention is to reject the idea that both treatments are equally effective and declare that treatment A is indeed more effective.
The P value is thus a probability, and “statistical significance” depends simply on 5% being considered the cutoff for sufficiently low enough probability to make chance an unlikely explanation for the observed results. As you can see this is an arbitrary cutoff; it could have been 4% or 6%, and the concept would not have changed.1
Power
Thus, simply looking at the P value itself is insufficient. We need to interpret it in light of other information.2 Before doing that, we need to introduce a new related statistical concept, that of “power.” The power of a study can be conceptually understood as the ability to detect a difference if there truly is one. If there is a difference in reality between treatments A and B, then the power of a study is the ability to detect that difference.
Two factors influence power: the effect size (that is, the difference between A and B) and the sample size. If the effect size is large, then even with small samples we can detect it. For example, if treatment A was effective in 100% of the cases, and treatment B only in 10% of cases, then the difference will be clear even with a small number of patients. Conversely, if the effect size is small, then we would need a very large sample size to detect that difference. For example, if treatment A is effective in 20% of cases, and treatment B is effective in 22% of cases, the difference between them could be observed only if we enrolled a very large number of patients. A large sample size increases the power of a study. This has important implications for the interpretation of the P value.
How (not) to interpret the P value
Many clinicians do not consider other factors when interpreting the P value, and assume that the dichotomization of results as “significant” and “nonsignificant” accurately reflects reality.3
Authors may say something like the following: “Treatment A was effective in 50% of patients, and treatment B was effective in 20% of the patients, but there was no difference between them (P = .059).” The reason why they declare this as “no difference” is because there is no “statistically significant difference” if P = .059. However, this does not mean that there is no difference.
First, if the convention for the cutoff value for significance was another arbitrary value, say 0.06, then this would have been a statistically significant finding.
Second, we should pay attention to the magnitude of the P value when interpreting the results. As per definition above, the P value is simply the probability of a false-positive result. However, these probabilities may be greater than 5% with varying degrees. For example, a probability of false positive of 80% (P = .80) is very different from a probability of 6% (P = .059), even though, technically, both are “nonsignificant.” A P value of .059 can be interpreted to mean that there is possibly some “signal” of real difference in the data. It may be that the study above was not powered enough to see the difference of 30 percentage points between the treatments as statistically significant; had the sample size been larger and thus provided greater power, then the finding could have been significant. Instead of reporting that there is no difference, it would be better to say that these results are suggestive of a difference, but that there was not enough power to detect it. Alternatively, P = .059 can be considered as “marginally nonsignificant” to qualitatively differentiate it from larger values, say P = .80, which are clearly nonsignificant.
Third, a key distinction is that between clinical and statistical significance. In the example above, even though the study was not statistically significant (P = .059), a difference of 30% seems clinically important. The difference between clinical and statistical significance can perhaps be better illustrated with the opposite, and more common, mistake. As mentioned, a large sample size increases power, thus the ability to detect even minor differences. For example, if a study enrolls 100,000 participants in each arm, then even a difference of 0.2% between treatments A and B will be statistically significant. However, this difference is clinically irrelevant. Thus, when researchers report “statistically significant” results, careful attention must be paid to the clinical significance of those results. The purpose of the studies is to uncover reality, not to be technical about conventions.
Multiple testing and P value
Finally, another almost universally ignored problem in clinical research papers is that of multiple testing. It is not uncommon to read papers in which the authors present results for 20 different and independent hypotheses tests, and when one of them has a P value less than .05 they declare it as a significant finding. However, this is clearly mistaken. The more tests are made, the higher the probability of false positives. Imagine having 20 balls and only one of them is red. If you pick a random ball only once you have a 5% probability of picking the red one. If, however, you try it 10 different times, the probability of picking the red ball is higher (approximately 40%). Similarly, if we perform only one test, then the probability of a false positive is 5%; however, if we perform many tests, then the probability of a false positive is higher than 5%.
There are three main ways to deal with this problem. The first is to have only one main outcome declaring statistical significance for only that outcome and consider the other outcomes as exploratory. The second is to report on multiple findings and correct for multiple testing. The third is to report on multiple findings, but mention explicitly in the paper that they have not corrected for multiple testing and therefore the findings may be significant by chance.
Conclusion
In summary, the P value is the probability of a false-positive finding, and the cutoff of .05 is arbitrary. Instead of dichotomizing results as “significant” and “nonsignificant” purely based on whether the P value is more or less than .05, a more qualitative approach that takes into account the magnitude of the P value and the sample size should be considered, and multiple testing should be taken into account when declaring significant findings.
Dr. Jovani is a therapeutic endoscopy fellow, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
References
1. Guyatt G et al. CMAJ. 1995;152:27-32.
2. Guller U and DeLong ER. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:441-58.
3. Greenland S et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:337-50.
Introduction
Many clinicians consider the P value as an almost magical number that determines whether treatment effects exist or not. Is that a correct understanding?
In order to grasp the conceptual meaning of the P value, consider comparing two treatments, A and B, and finding that A is twice as effective as B. Does it mean that treatment A is better in reality? We cannot be sure from that information alone. It may be that treatment A is truly better than treatment B (i.e., true positive). However, it may also be that by chance we have collected a sample in which more people respond to treatment A, making it appear as more effective, when in reality it is equally effective as treatment B (i.e., false positive).
An arbitrary definition
If the P value is less than 5% (P less than .05) that means that there is less than a 5% probability that we would observe the above results if in reality treatment A and treatment B were equally effective. Since this probability is very small, the convention is to reject the idea that both treatments are equally effective and declare that treatment A is indeed more effective.
The P value is thus a probability, and “statistical significance” depends simply on 5% being considered the cutoff for sufficiently low enough probability to make chance an unlikely explanation for the observed results. As you can see this is an arbitrary cutoff; it could have been 4% or 6%, and the concept would not have changed.1
Power
Thus, simply looking at the P value itself is insufficient. We need to interpret it in light of other information.2 Before doing that, we need to introduce a new related statistical concept, that of “power.” The power of a study can be conceptually understood as the ability to detect a difference if there truly is one. If there is a difference in reality between treatments A and B, then the power of a study is the ability to detect that difference.
Two factors influence power: the effect size (that is, the difference between A and B) and the sample size. If the effect size is large, then even with small samples we can detect it. For example, if treatment A was effective in 100% of the cases, and treatment B only in 10% of cases, then the difference will be clear even with a small number of patients. Conversely, if the effect size is small, then we would need a very large sample size to detect that difference. For example, if treatment A is effective in 20% of cases, and treatment B is effective in 22% of cases, the difference between them could be observed only if we enrolled a very large number of patients. A large sample size increases the power of a study. This has important implications for the interpretation of the P value.
How (not) to interpret the P value
Many clinicians do not consider other factors when interpreting the P value, and assume that the dichotomization of results as “significant” and “nonsignificant” accurately reflects reality.3
Authors may say something like the following: “Treatment A was effective in 50% of patients, and treatment B was effective in 20% of the patients, but there was no difference between them (P = .059).” The reason why they declare this as “no difference” is because there is no “statistically significant difference” if P = .059. However, this does not mean that there is no difference.
First, if the convention for the cutoff value for significance was another arbitrary value, say 0.06, then this would have been a statistically significant finding.
Second, we should pay attention to the magnitude of the P value when interpreting the results. As per definition above, the P value is simply the probability of a false-positive result. However, these probabilities may be greater than 5% with varying degrees. For example, a probability of false positive of 80% (P = .80) is very different from a probability of 6% (P = .059), even though, technically, both are “nonsignificant.” A P value of .059 can be interpreted to mean that there is possibly some “signal” of real difference in the data. It may be that the study above was not powered enough to see the difference of 30 percentage points between the treatments as statistically significant; had the sample size been larger and thus provided greater power, then the finding could have been significant. Instead of reporting that there is no difference, it would be better to say that these results are suggestive of a difference, but that there was not enough power to detect it. Alternatively, P = .059 can be considered as “marginally nonsignificant” to qualitatively differentiate it from larger values, say P = .80, which are clearly nonsignificant.
Third, a key distinction is that between clinical and statistical significance. In the example above, even though the study was not statistically significant (P = .059), a difference of 30% seems clinically important. The difference between clinical and statistical significance can perhaps be better illustrated with the opposite, and more common, mistake. As mentioned, a large sample size increases power, thus the ability to detect even minor differences. For example, if a study enrolls 100,000 participants in each arm, then even a difference of 0.2% between treatments A and B will be statistically significant. However, this difference is clinically irrelevant. Thus, when researchers report “statistically significant” results, careful attention must be paid to the clinical significance of those results. The purpose of the studies is to uncover reality, not to be technical about conventions.
Multiple testing and P value
Finally, another almost universally ignored problem in clinical research papers is that of multiple testing. It is not uncommon to read papers in which the authors present results for 20 different and independent hypotheses tests, and when one of them has a P value less than .05 they declare it as a significant finding. However, this is clearly mistaken. The more tests are made, the higher the probability of false positives. Imagine having 20 balls and only one of them is red. If you pick a random ball only once you have a 5% probability of picking the red one. If, however, you try it 10 different times, the probability of picking the red ball is higher (approximately 40%). Similarly, if we perform only one test, then the probability of a false positive is 5%; however, if we perform many tests, then the probability of a false positive is higher than 5%.
There are three main ways to deal with this problem. The first is to have only one main outcome declaring statistical significance for only that outcome and consider the other outcomes as exploratory. The second is to report on multiple findings and correct for multiple testing. The third is to report on multiple findings, but mention explicitly in the paper that they have not corrected for multiple testing and therefore the findings may be significant by chance.
Conclusion
In summary, the P value is the probability of a false-positive finding, and the cutoff of .05 is arbitrary. Instead of dichotomizing results as “significant” and “nonsignificant” purely based on whether the P value is more or less than .05, a more qualitative approach that takes into account the magnitude of the P value and the sample size should be considered, and multiple testing should be taken into account when declaring significant findings.
Dr. Jovani is a therapeutic endoscopy fellow, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
References
1. Guyatt G et al. CMAJ. 1995;152:27-32.
2. Guller U and DeLong ER. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:441-58.
3. Greenland S et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:337-50.
Introduction
Many clinicians consider the P value as an almost magical number that determines whether treatment effects exist or not. Is that a correct understanding?
In order to grasp the conceptual meaning of the P value, consider comparing two treatments, A and B, and finding that A is twice as effective as B. Does it mean that treatment A is better in reality? We cannot be sure from that information alone. It may be that treatment A is truly better than treatment B (i.e., true positive). However, it may also be that by chance we have collected a sample in which more people respond to treatment A, making it appear as more effective, when in reality it is equally effective as treatment B (i.e., false positive).
An arbitrary definition
If the P value is less than 5% (P less than .05) that means that there is less than a 5% probability that we would observe the above results if in reality treatment A and treatment B were equally effective. Since this probability is very small, the convention is to reject the idea that both treatments are equally effective and declare that treatment A is indeed more effective.
The P value is thus a probability, and “statistical significance” depends simply on 5% being considered the cutoff for sufficiently low enough probability to make chance an unlikely explanation for the observed results. As you can see this is an arbitrary cutoff; it could have been 4% or 6%, and the concept would not have changed.1
Power
Thus, simply looking at the P value itself is insufficient. We need to interpret it in light of other information.2 Before doing that, we need to introduce a new related statistical concept, that of “power.” The power of a study can be conceptually understood as the ability to detect a difference if there truly is one. If there is a difference in reality between treatments A and B, then the power of a study is the ability to detect that difference.
Two factors influence power: the effect size (that is, the difference between A and B) and the sample size. If the effect size is large, then even with small samples we can detect it. For example, if treatment A was effective in 100% of the cases, and treatment B only in 10% of cases, then the difference will be clear even with a small number of patients. Conversely, if the effect size is small, then we would need a very large sample size to detect that difference. For example, if treatment A is effective in 20% of cases, and treatment B is effective in 22% of cases, the difference between them could be observed only if we enrolled a very large number of patients. A large sample size increases the power of a study. This has important implications for the interpretation of the P value.
How (not) to interpret the P value
Many clinicians do not consider other factors when interpreting the P value, and assume that the dichotomization of results as “significant” and “nonsignificant” accurately reflects reality.3
Authors may say something like the following: “Treatment A was effective in 50% of patients, and treatment B was effective in 20% of the patients, but there was no difference between them (P = .059).” The reason why they declare this as “no difference” is because there is no “statistically significant difference” if P = .059. However, this does not mean that there is no difference.
First, if the convention for the cutoff value for significance was another arbitrary value, say 0.06, then this would have been a statistically significant finding.
Second, we should pay attention to the magnitude of the P value when interpreting the results. As per definition above, the P value is simply the probability of a false-positive result. However, these probabilities may be greater than 5% with varying degrees. For example, a probability of false positive of 80% (P = .80) is very different from a probability of 6% (P = .059), even though, technically, both are “nonsignificant.” A P value of .059 can be interpreted to mean that there is possibly some “signal” of real difference in the data. It may be that the study above was not powered enough to see the difference of 30 percentage points between the treatments as statistically significant; had the sample size been larger and thus provided greater power, then the finding could have been significant. Instead of reporting that there is no difference, it would be better to say that these results are suggestive of a difference, but that there was not enough power to detect it. Alternatively, P = .059 can be considered as “marginally nonsignificant” to qualitatively differentiate it from larger values, say P = .80, which are clearly nonsignificant.
Third, a key distinction is that between clinical and statistical significance. In the example above, even though the study was not statistically significant (P = .059), a difference of 30% seems clinically important. The difference between clinical and statistical significance can perhaps be better illustrated with the opposite, and more common, mistake. As mentioned, a large sample size increases power, thus the ability to detect even minor differences. For example, if a study enrolls 100,000 participants in each arm, then even a difference of 0.2% between treatments A and B will be statistically significant. However, this difference is clinically irrelevant. Thus, when researchers report “statistically significant” results, careful attention must be paid to the clinical significance of those results. The purpose of the studies is to uncover reality, not to be technical about conventions.
Multiple testing and P value
Finally, another almost universally ignored problem in clinical research papers is that of multiple testing. It is not uncommon to read papers in which the authors present results for 20 different and independent hypotheses tests, and when one of them has a P value less than .05 they declare it as a significant finding. However, this is clearly mistaken. The more tests are made, the higher the probability of false positives. Imagine having 20 balls and only one of them is red. If you pick a random ball only once you have a 5% probability of picking the red one. If, however, you try it 10 different times, the probability of picking the red ball is higher (approximately 40%). Similarly, if we perform only one test, then the probability of a false positive is 5%; however, if we perform many tests, then the probability of a false positive is higher than 5%.
There are three main ways to deal with this problem. The first is to have only one main outcome declaring statistical significance for only that outcome and consider the other outcomes as exploratory. The second is to report on multiple findings and correct for multiple testing. The third is to report on multiple findings, but mention explicitly in the paper that they have not corrected for multiple testing and therefore the findings may be significant by chance.
Conclusion
In summary, the P value is the probability of a false-positive finding, and the cutoff of .05 is arbitrary. Instead of dichotomizing results as “significant” and “nonsignificant” purely based on whether the P value is more or less than .05, a more qualitative approach that takes into account the magnitude of the P value and the sample size should be considered, and multiple testing should be taken into account when declaring significant findings.
Dr. Jovani is a therapeutic endoscopy fellow, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
References
1. Guyatt G et al. CMAJ. 1995;152:27-32.
2. Guller U and DeLong ER. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:441-58.
3. Greenland S et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:337-50.
Not all labs are created equal: What to look for when searching for the right lab
Introduction
As researchers, we spend a substantial period of our careers as trainees in a lab. As graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, selecting the “right” lab has the potential to make a huge difference for your future career and your mental health. Although much of the decision is based on instinct, there is still some logic and reason that can be applied to ensure the choice is a good fit.
PI/mentor
PI funding. The history of funding and the funding of your specific project are important factors to consider. No matter how significant the scientific question, not having adequate funding can be paralyzing. For both graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, it is in your best interest to proactively inquire about the funding status of the lab. This can be accomplished using online reporters (such as NIH Reporter or Grantome) and asking the PI. It is equally important to identify which grant application/fellowship will fund your stipend and ensure that the funding is secure for 4-6 years.
PI personality. For better or for worse, the PI largely sets the tone for the lab. The personality of the PI can be a key determining factor in finding the right “fit” for a trainee. Ask your peers and current and past lab members about working with the PI. As you speak to lab members and alumni, don’t disregard warning signs of unethical behavior, bullying, or harassment. Even with the rise of movements such as the #MeTooSTEM, academic misconduct is hard to correct. It is far better to avoid these labs. If available, examine the PI’s social networks (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) or read previously published interviews and look for the PI’s attitude toward its lab members.
Mentoring style. The NIH emphasizes mentorship in numerous funding mechanisms; thus, it isn’t surprising that selecting an appropriate mentor is paramount for a successful training experience. A lot of this decision requires information about you as a trainee. Reflect on what type of scientific mentor will be the best fit for your needs and honestly evaluate your own communication style, expectations, and final career goals. Ask questions of the PI and lab members to identify the mentoring style. Find a mentor who takes his or her responsibility to train you seriously and who genuinely cares about the well-being of the lab personnel. Good mentors advocate for their trainees inside and outside of the lab. A mentor’s vocal support of talented trainees can help propel them toward their career goals.
Career support. One of the most important questions you need to consider is whether your mentor can help you accomplish your career goals. Be prepared to have an honest conversation with the PI about your goals. The majority of PhD scientists will pursue careers outside of academia, so choose a mentor who supports diverse career paths. A mentor who is invested in your success will work with you to finish papers in a timely manner, encourage you to apply for awards and grants, aid in the identification of fruitful collaborations, help develop new skills, and expand your professional network. A good mentor will also ensure that you have freedom in your project to pursue your own scientific interests, and ultimately allow you to carve out a project for you to take with you when your training is complete.
Research. The research done in your lab will also factor into your decision. Especially if you are a postdoctoral fellow, this will be the field/subject/niche in which you will likely establish your career and expertise. If there is a field you want to pursue, identify mentors who have a publication record in that subject. Examine the PIs for publications, citations, and overall contributions to the field. If the PI in question is young, you may not find many citations of papers. However, you can identify the quality of the papers, the lab’s experimental techniques, and how often the PI is invited to give talks on that subject.
Lab environment
The composition of a lab can play a huge role in your overall productivity and mental well-being. Your coworkers will be the ones you interact with on a day-to-day basis. Your lab mates can be a huge asset in terms of mastering new techniques, collaborating on a project, or receiving helpful feedback. Thus, it is to your benefit to get along with your lab mates and to choose a lab that has people who you want to work with or don’t mind working with. The reality of postdoctoral training is that you will spend a large amount of time working in the lab, so choosing a lab that has an environment that fits your personality and desired workload and schedule is important. Considering the valuable contribution of lab members toward your research progression, you should give considerable weight to this factor when choosing a lab.
Scientific output
Although labs with high-impact publications are attractive, it is more important to consider the frequency with which a lab comes out with papers. Search Pubmed to obtain the complete publication roster of the PI. This output will give you an idea about the consistency and regularity of publications and overall lab productivity. When querying the lab’s publication list, check if the lab members have coauthorships on manuscripts apart from their first-author ones. It is desirable to be a coauthor on other manuscripts, as this will help increase your publication record. In addition, look for collaborators of the PI. These collaborations might benefit you by broadening your skill set and experience. Be intentional about reviewing the papers from the lab over the last 5 years. If you want to pursue academic research, you will want to be in a lab that publishes frequently in well-respected journals.
Institution
The institutional environment should also influence your decision. Top universities can attract some of the best researchers. Moreover, funding agencies examine the “Environment and Institutional Commitment” as one of the criteria for awarding grants. When choosing an institution, consider its priorities and ensure that it aligns with your priorities (i.e., research, undergraduate education, etc.). Consider the number of PIs conducting research in your field. These other labs may benefit your career development through collaborations, scientific discussions, letters of recommendation, career support, and feedback.
Conclusion
While there are certain key criteria that should be prioritized when choosing a lab, the path to finding (and joining) the right lab will vary from individual to individual. Gather data, ask questions, research what you can online (lab website, publication records, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, or Twitter), and be ready for the interview with a long list of written questions for the PI and lab members. One of the best ways to begin looking for a new lab is to ask your current mentor, committee members, peers, and others in your professional network for their suggestions. Table 1 has questions to keep in mind as you are searching for a lab. You will spend much of your time in the lab of your choosing, so choose wisely.
Dr. Engevik is an instructor in pathology and immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston.
Introduction
As researchers, we spend a substantial period of our careers as trainees in a lab. As graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, selecting the “right” lab has the potential to make a huge difference for your future career and your mental health. Although much of the decision is based on instinct, there is still some logic and reason that can be applied to ensure the choice is a good fit.
PI/mentor
PI funding. The history of funding and the funding of your specific project are important factors to consider. No matter how significant the scientific question, not having adequate funding can be paralyzing. For both graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, it is in your best interest to proactively inquire about the funding status of the lab. This can be accomplished using online reporters (such as NIH Reporter or Grantome) and asking the PI. It is equally important to identify which grant application/fellowship will fund your stipend and ensure that the funding is secure for 4-6 years.
PI personality. For better or for worse, the PI largely sets the tone for the lab. The personality of the PI can be a key determining factor in finding the right “fit” for a trainee. Ask your peers and current and past lab members about working with the PI. As you speak to lab members and alumni, don’t disregard warning signs of unethical behavior, bullying, or harassment. Even with the rise of movements such as the #MeTooSTEM, academic misconduct is hard to correct. It is far better to avoid these labs. If available, examine the PI’s social networks (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) or read previously published interviews and look for the PI’s attitude toward its lab members.
Mentoring style. The NIH emphasizes mentorship in numerous funding mechanisms; thus, it isn’t surprising that selecting an appropriate mentor is paramount for a successful training experience. A lot of this decision requires information about you as a trainee. Reflect on what type of scientific mentor will be the best fit for your needs and honestly evaluate your own communication style, expectations, and final career goals. Ask questions of the PI and lab members to identify the mentoring style. Find a mentor who takes his or her responsibility to train you seriously and who genuinely cares about the well-being of the lab personnel. Good mentors advocate for their trainees inside and outside of the lab. A mentor’s vocal support of talented trainees can help propel them toward their career goals.
Career support. One of the most important questions you need to consider is whether your mentor can help you accomplish your career goals. Be prepared to have an honest conversation with the PI about your goals. The majority of PhD scientists will pursue careers outside of academia, so choose a mentor who supports diverse career paths. A mentor who is invested in your success will work with you to finish papers in a timely manner, encourage you to apply for awards and grants, aid in the identification of fruitful collaborations, help develop new skills, and expand your professional network. A good mentor will also ensure that you have freedom in your project to pursue your own scientific interests, and ultimately allow you to carve out a project for you to take with you when your training is complete.
Research. The research done in your lab will also factor into your decision. Especially if you are a postdoctoral fellow, this will be the field/subject/niche in which you will likely establish your career and expertise. If there is a field you want to pursue, identify mentors who have a publication record in that subject. Examine the PIs for publications, citations, and overall contributions to the field. If the PI in question is young, you may not find many citations of papers. However, you can identify the quality of the papers, the lab’s experimental techniques, and how often the PI is invited to give talks on that subject.
Lab environment
The composition of a lab can play a huge role in your overall productivity and mental well-being. Your coworkers will be the ones you interact with on a day-to-day basis. Your lab mates can be a huge asset in terms of mastering new techniques, collaborating on a project, or receiving helpful feedback. Thus, it is to your benefit to get along with your lab mates and to choose a lab that has people who you want to work with or don’t mind working with. The reality of postdoctoral training is that you will spend a large amount of time working in the lab, so choosing a lab that has an environment that fits your personality and desired workload and schedule is important. Considering the valuable contribution of lab members toward your research progression, you should give considerable weight to this factor when choosing a lab.
Scientific output
Although labs with high-impact publications are attractive, it is more important to consider the frequency with which a lab comes out with papers. Search Pubmed to obtain the complete publication roster of the PI. This output will give you an idea about the consistency and regularity of publications and overall lab productivity. When querying the lab’s publication list, check if the lab members have coauthorships on manuscripts apart from their first-author ones. It is desirable to be a coauthor on other manuscripts, as this will help increase your publication record. In addition, look for collaborators of the PI. These collaborations might benefit you by broadening your skill set and experience. Be intentional about reviewing the papers from the lab over the last 5 years. If you want to pursue academic research, you will want to be in a lab that publishes frequently in well-respected journals.
Institution
The institutional environment should also influence your decision. Top universities can attract some of the best researchers. Moreover, funding agencies examine the “Environment and Institutional Commitment” as one of the criteria for awarding grants. When choosing an institution, consider its priorities and ensure that it aligns with your priorities (i.e., research, undergraduate education, etc.). Consider the number of PIs conducting research in your field. These other labs may benefit your career development through collaborations, scientific discussions, letters of recommendation, career support, and feedback.
Conclusion
While there are certain key criteria that should be prioritized when choosing a lab, the path to finding (and joining) the right lab will vary from individual to individual. Gather data, ask questions, research what you can online (lab website, publication records, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, or Twitter), and be ready for the interview with a long list of written questions for the PI and lab members. One of the best ways to begin looking for a new lab is to ask your current mentor, committee members, peers, and others in your professional network for their suggestions. Table 1 has questions to keep in mind as you are searching for a lab. You will spend much of your time in the lab of your choosing, so choose wisely.
Dr. Engevik is an instructor in pathology and immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston.
Introduction
As researchers, we spend a substantial period of our careers as trainees in a lab. As graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, selecting the “right” lab has the potential to make a huge difference for your future career and your mental health. Although much of the decision is based on instinct, there is still some logic and reason that can be applied to ensure the choice is a good fit.
PI/mentor
PI funding. The history of funding and the funding of your specific project are important factors to consider. No matter how significant the scientific question, not having adequate funding can be paralyzing. For both graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, it is in your best interest to proactively inquire about the funding status of the lab. This can be accomplished using online reporters (such as NIH Reporter or Grantome) and asking the PI. It is equally important to identify which grant application/fellowship will fund your stipend and ensure that the funding is secure for 4-6 years.
PI personality. For better or for worse, the PI largely sets the tone for the lab. The personality of the PI can be a key determining factor in finding the right “fit” for a trainee. Ask your peers and current and past lab members about working with the PI. As you speak to lab members and alumni, don’t disregard warning signs of unethical behavior, bullying, or harassment. Even with the rise of movements such as the #MeTooSTEM, academic misconduct is hard to correct. It is far better to avoid these labs. If available, examine the PI’s social networks (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) or read previously published interviews and look for the PI’s attitude toward its lab members.
Mentoring style. The NIH emphasizes mentorship in numerous funding mechanisms; thus, it isn’t surprising that selecting an appropriate mentor is paramount for a successful training experience. A lot of this decision requires information about you as a trainee. Reflect on what type of scientific mentor will be the best fit for your needs and honestly evaluate your own communication style, expectations, and final career goals. Ask questions of the PI and lab members to identify the mentoring style. Find a mentor who takes his or her responsibility to train you seriously and who genuinely cares about the well-being of the lab personnel. Good mentors advocate for their trainees inside and outside of the lab. A mentor’s vocal support of talented trainees can help propel them toward their career goals.
Career support. One of the most important questions you need to consider is whether your mentor can help you accomplish your career goals. Be prepared to have an honest conversation with the PI about your goals. The majority of PhD scientists will pursue careers outside of academia, so choose a mentor who supports diverse career paths. A mentor who is invested in your success will work with you to finish papers in a timely manner, encourage you to apply for awards and grants, aid in the identification of fruitful collaborations, help develop new skills, and expand your professional network. A good mentor will also ensure that you have freedom in your project to pursue your own scientific interests, and ultimately allow you to carve out a project for you to take with you when your training is complete.
Research. The research done in your lab will also factor into your decision. Especially if you are a postdoctoral fellow, this will be the field/subject/niche in which you will likely establish your career and expertise. If there is a field you want to pursue, identify mentors who have a publication record in that subject. Examine the PIs for publications, citations, and overall contributions to the field. If the PI in question is young, you may not find many citations of papers. However, you can identify the quality of the papers, the lab’s experimental techniques, and how often the PI is invited to give talks on that subject.
Lab environment
The composition of a lab can play a huge role in your overall productivity and mental well-being. Your coworkers will be the ones you interact with on a day-to-day basis. Your lab mates can be a huge asset in terms of mastering new techniques, collaborating on a project, or receiving helpful feedback. Thus, it is to your benefit to get along with your lab mates and to choose a lab that has people who you want to work with or don’t mind working with. The reality of postdoctoral training is that you will spend a large amount of time working in the lab, so choosing a lab that has an environment that fits your personality and desired workload and schedule is important. Considering the valuable contribution of lab members toward your research progression, you should give considerable weight to this factor when choosing a lab.
Scientific output
Although labs with high-impact publications are attractive, it is more important to consider the frequency with which a lab comes out with papers. Search Pubmed to obtain the complete publication roster of the PI. This output will give you an idea about the consistency and regularity of publications and overall lab productivity. When querying the lab’s publication list, check if the lab members have coauthorships on manuscripts apart from their first-author ones. It is desirable to be a coauthor on other manuscripts, as this will help increase your publication record. In addition, look for collaborators of the PI. These collaborations might benefit you by broadening your skill set and experience. Be intentional about reviewing the papers from the lab over the last 5 years. If you want to pursue academic research, you will want to be in a lab that publishes frequently in well-respected journals.
Institution
The institutional environment should also influence your decision. Top universities can attract some of the best researchers. Moreover, funding agencies examine the “Environment and Institutional Commitment” as one of the criteria for awarding grants. When choosing an institution, consider its priorities and ensure that it aligns with your priorities (i.e., research, undergraduate education, etc.). Consider the number of PIs conducting research in your field. These other labs may benefit your career development through collaborations, scientific discussions, letters of recommendation, career support, and feedback.
Conclusion
While there are certain key criteria that should be prioritized when choosing a lab, the path to finding (and joining) the right lab will vary from individual to individual. Gather data, ask questions, research what you can online (lab website, publication records, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, or Twitter), and be ready for the interview with a long list of written questions for the PI and lab members. One of the best ways to begin looking for a new lab is to ask your current mentor, committee members, peers, and others in your professional network for their suggestions. Table 1 has questions to keep in mind as you are searching for a lab. You will spend much of your time in the lab of your choosing, so choose wisely.
Dr. Engevik is an instructor in pathology and immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston.