User login
Should you dismiss a difficult patient?
Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.
Do you have to tolerate their behavior?
No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.
But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.
Ms. Adler said.
Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.
Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.
About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.”
Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.
She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
When patients cross a line
Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.
“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.
Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.
“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”
Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.
Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.
“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’ At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally
According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.
Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.
Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.
1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.
She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.
2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.
3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.
Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:
4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.
“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.
5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.
Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.
6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.
The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.
Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.
She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.
“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.
Do you have to tolerate their behavior?
No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.
But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.
Ms. Adler said.
Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.
Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.
About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.”
Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.
She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
When patients cross a line
Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.
“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.
Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.
“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”
Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.
Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.
“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’ At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally
According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.
Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.
Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.
1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.
She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.
2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.
3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.
Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:
4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.
“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.
5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.
Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.
6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.
The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.
Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.
She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.
“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.
Do you have to tolerate their behavior?
No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.
But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.
Ms. Adler said.
Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.
Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.
About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.”
Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.
She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
When patients cross a line
Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.
“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.
Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.
“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”
Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.
Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.
“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’ At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally
According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.
Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.
Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.
1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.
She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.
2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.
3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.
Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:
4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.
“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.
5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.
Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.
6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.
The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.
Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.
She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.
“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How not to establish rapport with your patient
1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.
2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”
3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.
4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.
5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.
6. Wait.
7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.
8. Wait a bit more.
9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.
10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.
It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.
There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.
Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.
The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).
With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]
1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.
2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”
3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.
4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.
5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.
6. Wait.
7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.
8. Wait a bit more.
9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.
10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.
It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.
There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.
Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.
The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).
With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]
1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.
2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”
3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.
4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.
5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.
6. Wait.
7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.
8. Wait a bit more.
9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.
10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.
It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.
There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.
Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.
The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).
With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]
Should you have a chaperone in the exam room? Many say yes
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Art Caplan, PhD. I’m at the division of medical ethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.
, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area.
In some institutions, there has been a movement toward saying a chaperone must be present, that it’s mandatory. I know that is true at Yale’s health care centers and clinics. Others do so when the patient requests it. An interesting situation sometimes occurs when the hospital or the clinic requires a chaperone but the patient says, “I don’t want a chaperone. I want my privacy. I want the gynecologist or the urologist only. I don’t want anyone else to be seeing me. I’m not comfortable with anyone other than the doctor in the room.”
Complicating this issue of when is a chaperone appropriate and when can it be refused, if ever, is the fact that the role of chaperone is ill defined. For example, there isn’t really agreement on who can be a chaperone. Could it be a medical student? Could it be a nurse? Could it be another doctor? Should it be someone who at least has finished nursing school or medical school? Can it be a patient representative? There are no standards about who can play the role.
Should the chaperone be available to be seen when they’re in the room? Should they stay behind a curtain or somewhere where they’re not, so to speak, intrusive into what’s going on in the exam room? Do they sit in a chair? Do they stand? How do they behave, if you will? There’s no agreement.
There’s still no agreement on the training that a chaperone should have. Do we charge them with trying to represent what’s going on with the patient or trying to protect the doctor against any accusations that are ill founded about inappropriate conduct? Are they supposed to do both? How do they obtain consent, if they do, from the patient undergoing an examination in a sensitive part of their body or one that they’re sensitive about?
This area really requires some hard thinking if you’re considering having chaperones present. I think there are some online courses that offer some training. I haven’t looked at them, but they might be worth a look to see if they make you more comfortable about getting a chaperone oriented. I think it’s probably important to set a policy saying a chaperone must always be present for these kinds of examinations and list them, or one can be requested no matter what is going on in terms of the kind of exam being conducted.
There needs to be some statement saying that you have permission to either accept them or refuse them – or you don’t. Should they always be present, for example, with patients who are minors, adolescents or children? Does that extend that far out where a guardian, parent, or someone has to give permission?
In this area, I think we can all understand why chaperones have come to the fore, including allegations of misconduct and inappropriate touching, and considering comfort levels of patients to just put them more at ease. It’s obvious that we haven’t, as a nation or a medical profession, thought it through to the degree to which we have to.
I’m certainly not anti-chaperone, and I believe that if patients are more comfortable having one present, or a doctor is more comfortable having one present, or if we all agree that there are certain patients – kids – where certain types of examinations require or ought to expect the chaperone to be present, that’s wonderful.
We’ve got to lay out the rights of the doctors. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the institutions. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the patients. We should agree on who these people are. We should agree on how they’re trained.
We’ve got some work ahead of us if we’re going to have chaperones become a standard part of the medical examination.
Dr. Kaplan reported conflicts of interest with the Franklin Institute, Tengion, Biogen Idec, Johnson & Johnson, and PriCara.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Art Caplan, PhD. I’m at the division of medical ethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.
, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area.
In some institutions, there has been a movement toward saying a chaperone must be present, that it’s mandatory. I know that is true at Yale’s health care centers and clinics. Others do so when the patient requests it. An interesting situation sometimes occurs when the hospital or the clinic requires a chaperone but the patient says, “I don’t want a chaperone. I want my privacy. I want the gynecologist or the urologist only. I don’t want anyone else to be seeing me. I’m not comfortable with anyone other than the doctor in the room.”
Complicating this issue of when is a chaperone appropriate and when can it be refused, if ever, is the fact that the role of chaperone is ill defined. For example, there isn’t really agreement on who can be a chaperone. Could it be a medical student? Could it be a nurse? Could it be another doctor? Should it be someone who at least has finished nursing school or medical school? Can it be a patient representative? There are no standards about who can play the role.
Should the chaperone be available to be seen when they’re in the room? Should they stay behind a curtain or somewhere where they’re not, so to speak, intrusive into what’s going on in the exam room? Do they sit in a chair? Do they stand? How do they behave, if you will? There’s no agreement.
There’s still no agreement on the training that a chaperone should have. Do we charge them with trying to represent what’s going on with the patient or trying to protect the doctor against any accusations that are ill founded about inappropriate conduct? Are they supposed to do both? How do they obtain consent, if they do, from the patient undergoing an examination in a sensitive part of their body or one that they’re sensitive about?
This area really requires some hard thinking if you’re considering having chaperones present. I think there are some online courses that offer some training. I haven’t looked at them, but they might be worth a look to see if they make you more comfortable about getting a chaperone oriented. I think it’s probably important to set a policy saying a chaperone must always be present for these kinds of examinations and list them, or one can be requested no matter what is going on in terms of the kind of exam being conducted.
There needs to be some statement saying that you have permission to either accept them or refuse them – or you don’t. Should they always be present, for example, with patients who are minors, adolescents or children? Does that extend that far out where a guardian, parent, or someone has to give permission?
In this area, I think we can all understand why chaperones have come to the fore, including allegations of misconduct and inappropriate touching, and considering comfort levels of patients to just put them more at ease. It’s obvious that we haven’t, as a nation or a medical profession, thought it through to the degree to which we have to.
I’m certainly not anti-chaperone, and I believe that if patients are more comfortable having one present, or a doctor is more comfortable having one present, or if we all agree that there are certain patients – kids – where certain types of examinations require or ought to expect the chaperone to be present, that’s wonderful.
We’ve got to lay out the rights of the doctors. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the institutions. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the patients. We should agree on who these people are. We should agree on how they’re trained.
We’ve got some work ahead of us if we’re going to have chaperones become a standard part of the medical examination.
Dr. Kaplan reported conflicts of interest with the Franklin Institute, Tengion, Biogen Idec, Johnson & Johnson, and PriCara.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Art Caplan, PhD. I’m at the division of medical ethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.
, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area.
In some institutions, there has been a movement toward saying a chaperone must be present, that it’s mandatory. I know that is true at Yale’s health care centers and clinics. Others do so when the patient requests it. An interesting situation sometimes occurs when the hospital or the clinic requires a chaperone but the patient says, “I don’t want a chaperone. I want my privacy. I want the gynecologist or the urologist only. I don’t want anyone else to be seeing me. I’m not comfortable with anyone other than the doctor in the room.”
Complicating this issue of when is a chaperone appropriate and when can it be refused, if ever, is the fact that the role of chaperone is ill defined. For example, there isn’t really agreement on who can be a chaperone. Could it be a medical student? Could it be a nurse? Could it be another doctor? Should it be someone who at least has finished nursing school or medical school? Can it be a patient representative? There are no standards about who can play the role.
Should the chaperone be available to be seen when they’re in the room? Should they stay behind a curtain or somewhere where they’re not, so to speak, intrusive into what’s going on in the exam room? Do they sit in a chair? Do they stand? How do they behave, if you will? There’s no agreement.
There’s still no agreement on the training that a chaperone should have. Do we charge them with trying to represent what’s going on with the patient or trying to protect the doctor against any accusations that are ill founded about inappropriate conduct? Are they supposed to do both? How do they obtain consent, if they do, from the patient undergoing an examination in a sensitive part of their body or one that they’re sensitive about?
This area really requires some hard thinking if you’re considering having chaperones present. I think there are some online courses that offer some training. I haven’t looked at them, but they might be worth a look to see if they make you more comfortable about getting a chaperone oriented. I think it’s probably important to set a policy saying a chaperone must always be present for these kinds of examinations and list them, or one can be requested no matter what is going on in terms of the kind of exam being conducted.
There needs to be some statement saying that you have permission to either accept them or refuse them – or you don’t. Should they always be present, for example, with patients who are minors, adolescents or children? Does that extend that far out where a guardian, parent, or someone has to give permission?
In this area, I think we can all understand why chaperones have come to the fore, including allegations of misconduct and inappropriate touching, and considering comfort levels of patients to just put them more at ease. It’s obvious that we haven’t, as a nation or a medical profession, thought it through to the degree to which we have to.
I’m certainly not anti-chaperone, and I believe that if patients are more comfortable having one present, or a doctor is more comfortable having one present, or if we all agree that there are certain patients – kids – where certain types of examinations require or ought to expect the chaperone to be present, that’s wonderful.
We’ve got to lay out the rights of the doctors. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the institutions. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the patients. We should agree on who these people are. We should agree on how they’re trained.
We’ve got some work ahead of us if we’re going to have chaperones become a standard part of the medical examination.
Dr. Kaplan reported conflicts of interest with the Franklin Institute, Tengion, Biogen Idec, Johnson & Johnson, and PriCara.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Book review: “Sexual Citizens”
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
A new nonhormonal option for menopausal hot flashes: What prescribers should know
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause Society–credentialed menopause specialist.
I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. . The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.
For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.
In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.
With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.
Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.
With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.
Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.
As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.
Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.
For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.
The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause Society–credentialed menopause specialist.
I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. . The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.
For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.
In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.
With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.
Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.
With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.
Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.
As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.
Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.
For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.
The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause Society–credentialed menopause specialist.
I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. . The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.
For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.
In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.
With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.
Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.
With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.
Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.
As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.
Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.
For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.
The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Are you a physician ... or a vending machine?
When we address this problem with patients, some become immediately defensive, making it difficult to modify treatment regimens. It’s almost as if people believe that they have a “right” to their medications and nobody should dare take them away. Even when I think the interaction goes relatively smoothly, the outcome usually shows otherwise.
I will decrease gabapentin from 3,200 mg per day and they will come back with cyclobenzaprine from the urgent care center down the block.
I try to stop an abused amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, and not only do the drugs show up in the urine toxicology test a month later (from the brother’s girlfriend’s sister) but the screening will be positive for cocaine (from the sister’s boyfriend’s brother) and probably alprazolam, too.
People want what they want, and I believe what they want is the overwhelming need not to feel, and especially to not feel our natural and uncomfortable states of pain, sadness, anxiety, fatigue, and discomfort (sometimes all at once). They will use anything orally or intravenously or nasally to make those feelings go away.
I am an addiction specialist so I write this commentary out of care and concern and recognition of how much, pain both physical and psychic, people suffer.
Perhaps we as physicians are conditioned to believe that we must prescribe “something” to the patient who is uncomfortable and sitting in front of us. In general we are sympathetic to the needs of those who come to us in distress, and we try our best to help reduce their symptoms.
I know that we cannot simply “fire” people, because these patients are ours to take care of; they are our responsibility, though this is our overused response to “difficult” patients.
And I know that we have insufficient replacements for these medications. We stopped prescribing oxycodone and now people are on gabapentin in the highest doses, diversion is up, and so is its abuse.
Many of us regularly teach about breathing and mindfulness. I discuss trauma and talk therapy. I order physical therapy and walking regimens and podcasts. But our relationship is transactional, and in prescribing a medication, I have shown them that I am hearing them. I hate this feeling of being trapped.
I spend much of my day negotiating and drive home at night feeling like nothing more than a vending machine.
Dr. Hambright is with the department of addiction medicine at Samaritan Daytop Village, Ellenville, N.Y., and Samadhi Recovery Community Outreach Center, Kingston, N.Y. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When we address this problem with patients, some become immediately defensive, making it difficult to modify treatment regimens. It’s almost as if people believe that they have a “right” to their medications and nobody should dare take them away. Even when I think the interaction goes relatively smoothly, the outcome usually shows otherwise.
I will decrease gabapentin from 3,200 mg per day and they will come back with cyclobenzaprine from the urgent care center down the block.
I try to stop an abused amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, and not only do the drugs show up in the urine toxicology test a month later (from the brother’s girlfriend’s sister) but the screening will be positive for cocaine (from the sister’s boyfriend’s brother) and probably alprazolam, too.
People want what they want, and I believe what they want is the overwhelming need not to feel, and especially to not feel our natural and uncomfortable states of pain, sadness, anxiety, fatigue, and discomfort (sometimes all at once). They will use anything orally or intravenously or nasally to make those feelings go away.
I am an addiction specialist so I write this commentary out of care and concern and recognition of how much, pain both physical and psychic, people suffer.
Perhaps we as physicians are conditioned to believe that we must prescribe “something” to the patient who is uncomfortable and sitting in front of us. In general we are sympathetic to the needs of those who come to us in distress, and we try our best to help reduce their symptoms.
I know that we cannot simply “fire” people, because these patients are ours to take care of; they are our responsibility, though this is our overused response to “difficult” patients.
And I know that we have insufficient replacements for these medications. We stopped prescribing oxycodone and now people are on gabapentin in the highest doses, diversion is up, and so is its abuse.
Many of us regularly teach about breathing and mindfulness. I discuss trauma and talk therapy. I order physical therapy and walking regimens and podcasts. But our relationship is transactional, and in prescribing a medication, I have shown them that I am hearing them. I hate this feeling of being trapped.
I spend much of my day negotiating and drive home at night feeling like nothing more than a vending machine.
Dr. Hambright is with the department of addiction medicine at Samaritan Daytop Village, Ellenville, N.Y., and Samadhi Recovery Community Outreach Center, Kingston, N.Y. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When we address this problem with patients, some become immediately defensive, making it difficult to modify treatment regimens. It’s almost as if people believe that they have a “right” to their medications and nobody should dare take them away. Even when I think the interaction goes relatively smoothly, the outcome usually shows otherwise.
I will decrease gabapentin from 3,200 mg per day and they will come back with cyclobenzaprine from the urgent care center down the block.
I try to stop an abused amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, and not only do the drugs show up in the urine toxicology test a month later (from the brother’s girlfriend’s sister) but the screening will be positive for cocaine (from the sister’s boyfriend’s brother) and probably alprazolam, too.
People want what they want, and I believe what they want is the overwhelming need not to feel, and especially to not feel our natural and uncomfortable states of pain, sadness, anxiety, fatigue, and discomfort (sometimes all at once). They will use anything orally or intravenously or nasally to make those feelings go away.
I am an addiction specialist so I write this commentary out of care and concern and recognition of how much, pain both physical and psychic, people suffer.
Perhaps we as physicians are conditioned to believe that we must prescribe “something” to the patient who is uncomfortable and sitting in front of us. In general we are sympathetic to the needs of those who come to us in distress, and we try our best to help reduce their symptoms.
I know that we cannot simply “fire” people, because these patients are ours to take care of; they are our responsibility, though this is our overused response to “difficult” patients.
And I know that we have insufficient replacements for these medications. We stopped prescribing oxycodone and now people are on gabapentin in the highest doses, diversion is up, and so is its abuse.
Many of us regularly teach about breathing and mindfulness. I discuss trauma and talk therapy. I order physical therapy and walking regimens and podcasts. But our relationship is transactional, and in prescribing a medication, I have shown them that I am hearing them. I hate this feeling of being trapped.
I spend much of my day negotiating and drive home at night feeling like nothing more than a vending machine.
Dr. Hambright is with the department of addiction medicine at Samaritan Daytop Village, Ellenville, N.Y., and Samadhi Recovery Community Outreach Center, Kingston, N.Y. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO 2023: Promising results in breast cancer from NATALEE and PHERGain
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.
It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.
The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.
The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.
We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.
We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.
We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.
I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.
Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?
The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.
If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.
There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.
They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.
This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.
Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.
It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.
The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.
The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.
We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.
We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.
We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.
I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.
Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?
The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.
If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.
There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.
They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.
This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.
Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.
It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.
The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.
The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.
We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.
We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.
We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.
I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.
Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?
The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.
If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.
There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.
They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.
This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.
Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Self-talk overhaul may help patients achieve weight loss
It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.
Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
Misguided societal view drives blame game
This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.
Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.
Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
Combating internalized weight stigma
How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.
In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.
The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.
For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.
Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.
Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
What did participants say?
When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”
Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.
Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.
Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
Misguided societal view drives blame game
This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.
Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.
Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
Combating internalized weight stigma
How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.
In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.
The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.
For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.
Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.
Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
What did participants say?
When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”
Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.
Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.
Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
Misguided societal view drives blame game
This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.
Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.
Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
Combating internalized weight stigma
How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.
In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.
The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.
For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.
Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.
Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
What did participants say?
When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”
Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.
Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
PTSD: Children, adolescents, and all of us may be at risk
Not everyone will suffer an episode of posttraumatic stress disorder, even though everyday American life is characterized by a lot of uncertainty these days, particularly considering the proliferation of gun violence.
Also, everyone who does experience a traumatic event will not suffer an episode of PTSD – just as not everyone develops a heart attack or cancer, nor will everyone get every illness.
The data suggest that of those exposed to trauma, up to 25% of people will develop PTSD, according to Massachusetts General/McLean Hospital, Belmont, psychiatrist Kerry J. Ressler, MD, PhD, chief of the division of depression and anxiety disorders.
As I wrote in December 2022, our “kids” are not all right and psychiatry can help. I would say that many adolescents, and adults as well, may not be all right as we are terrorized not only by mass school shootings, but shootings happening almost anywhere and everywhere in our country: in supermarkets, hospitals, and shopping malls, at graduation parties, and on the streets.
According to a report published in Clinical Psychiatry News, a poll conducted by the American Psychiatric Association showed that most American adults [70%] reported that they were anxious or extremely anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe. APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, pointed out that there is “a lot of worry out there about economic uncertainty, about violence and how we are going to come out of this time period.”
Meanwhile, PTSD is still defined in the DSM-5 as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence experienced directly, witnessing the traumatic event as it occurs to others, learning that a traumatic event occurred to a close family member or friend, or experiencing of traumatic events plus extreme exposure to aversive details of the event.
Examples of traumatic events can be numerous. They include natural disasters, man-made disasters, various types of assaults, war trauma, and severe illness with ICU experiences. I would add encounters with racism and bigotry – including homophobia when one fears for their very life or physical injury. This list includes only a few triggers that may invoke this disorder.
Interestingly, the DSM-5 excludes aversive exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. Including these aspects of trauma exposure would indeed increase PTSD diagnoses, and I believe this type of exposure needs to be included, especially considering how different people process information. Some viewers of media remain “outside” the events depicted on television, movies, or electronic media while others fit directly “into” the film or TV show. Even, for example, a news program, as evidenced by those people suffering from PTSD after viewing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster on TV.
I have interviewed numerous people who witnessed Sept. 11 tragedies on TV, some during and some after the event, and they genuinely had experienced key factors of PTSD, including nightmares and intrusive recollections of the event. It’s important to include the ways in which people process information and events in order to make a correct diagnosis, in that “one [diagnostic] size does not fit all.”
PTSD at school
In my December column, I noted the fear of death that my generation and beyond experienced with the endless threat of nuclear war, which by its very nature meant death, and if not, the saying went “the living would envy the dead” – that is, in post–nuclear war.
As I pointed out in the column, that war never came and hopefully never will, yet the intensity of those many decades of threatened terror with regular school exercises of “hide under the desk” and “don’t look at the flash” left some with intrusive fearful thoughts, nightmares, and even visualization of atomic destruction, as well as the many scenes of destruction portrayed in news casts and films of nuclear explosions.
Clearly, most U.S. school children who participate in school lockdown drills will not suffer from PTSD episodes, but some will. If that “some” approaches 20% or even 10% or less, that will amount to a lot of kids.
I decided to interview two of my grandchildren, each living in different communities and attending different school systems, but both experiencing “lockdown drills.”
Jack, who is 13 and going into eighth grade, was quite clear regarding the drills and reported that in his age group, both he and the kids in his class felt scared while in lockdown. He told me some kids looked nervous. He mentioned that they were taught in school that if the “real thing” happened, the message was “hide, run, and fight.” I was curious and asked why not run first. He was quick to answer and said if you run, you might run into danger, so it’s better to hide and wait for help to arrive. I said to myself, if not PTSD, then being scared or nervous may also lead to anxiety or even to an anxiety disorder.
Next, I interviewed almost 11-year-old Charley, who is going into sixth grade. She was very clear about not at all being fearful or nervous during these drills and was confident that her classmates felt the same way. Then she explained that the school did a great job with a security officer and had locked doors all around that only opened from the inside. She was proud of the school and not fearful or worried at all.
The diverse views of these two young people surprised me but confirm that PTSD is not at all a given based on what is occurring in society. However, it should always be considered by clinicians if a child or adolescent begins to show signs consistent with PTSD.
These two interviews were quite short, but after I finished talking with Charley, she reported spontaneously that while she and her classmates were neither worried nor scared, some of their teachers did look nervous and seemed scared.
I was quite impressed with her sharpness and nuanced observation, and as noted, adults as well may be adversely affected by the entire concept of school lockdowns, as the awareness of their purpose rests in the forefront of their minds.
The way forward
So how do we prepare kids and adolescents for potential emotional problems like PTSD arising from lockdowns, even though most children or adults will not suffer any of these PTSD issues?
First, I believe that Second, it is important that school children be aware that if they feel bad in any way emotionally, they should speak to their parents, guardians, teachers, or school nurses.
Clearly, communicating simple problems without embarrassment or shame can lead to solutions, often quickly. Larger, more complicated issues may need professional intervention. Equally important, many mental health interventions need not be long in duration but client-centered, focused, and short term.
But what needs to be emphasized is that speaking and addressing what’s going on, if your thoughts and emotions are troubling, are in themselves therapeutic. Talk therapy works – especially if you get a new perspective on the old set of problems.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
Not everyone will suffer an episode of posttraumatic stress disorder, even though everyday American life is characterized by a lot of uncertainty these days, particularly considering the proliferation of gun violence.
Also, everyone who does experience a traumatic event will not suffer an episode of PTSD – just as not everyone develops a heart attack or cancer, nor will everyone get every illness.
The data suggest that of those exposed to trauma, up to 25% of people will develop PTSD, according to Massachusetts General/McLean Hospital, Belmont, psychiatrist Kerry J. Ressler, MD, PhD, chief of the division of depression and anxiety disorders.
As I wrote in December 2022, our “kids” are not all right and psychiatry can help. I would say that many adolescents, and adults as well, may not be all right as we are terrorized not only by mass school shootings, but shootings happening almost anywhere and everywhere in our country: in supermarkets, hospitals, and shopping malls, at graduation parties, and on the streets.
According to a report published in Clinical Psychiatry News, a poll conducted by the American Psychiatric Association showed that most American adults [70%] reported that they were anxious or extremely anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe. APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, pointed out that there is “a lot of worry out there about economic uncertainty, about violence and how we are going to come out of this time period.”
Meanwhile, PTSD is still defined in the DSM-5 as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence experienced directly, witnessing the traumatic event as it occurs to others, learning that a traumatic event occurred to a close family member or friend, or experiencing of traumatic events plus extreme exposure to aversive details of the event.
Examples of traumatic events can be numerous. They include natural disasters, man-made disasters, various types of assaults, war trauma, and severe illness with ICU experiences. I would add encounters with racism and bigotry – including homophobia when one fears for their very life or physical injury. This list includes only a few triggers that may invoke this disorder.
Interestingly, the DSM-5 excludes aversive exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. Including these aspects of trauma exposure would indeed increase PTSD diagnoses, and I believe this type of exposure needs to be included, especially considering how different people process information. Some viewers of media remain “outside” the events depicted on television, movies, or electronic media while others fit directly “into” the film or TV show. Even, for example, a news program, as evidenced by those people suffering from PTSD after viewing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster on TV.
I have interviewed numerous people who witnessed Sept. 11 tragedies on TV, some during and some after the event, and they genuinely had experienced key factors of PTSD, including nightmares and intrusive recollections of the event. It’s important to include the ways in which people process information and events in order to make a correct diagnosis, in that “one [diagnostic] size does not fit all.”
PTSD at school
In my December column, I noted the fear of death that my generation and beyond experienced with the endless threat of nuclear war, which by its very nature meant death, and if not, the saying went “the living would envy the dead” – that is, in post–nuclear war.
As I pointed out in the column, that war never came and hopefully never will, yet the intensity of those many decades of threatened terror with regular school exercises of “hide under the desk” and “don’t look at the flash” left some with intrusive fearful thoughts, nightmares, and even visualization of atomic destruction, as well as the many scenes of destruction portrayed in news casts and films of nuclear explosions.
Clearly, most U.S. school children who participate in school lockdown drills will not suffer from PTSD episodes, but some will. If that “some” approaches 20% or even 10% or less, that will amount to a lot of kids.
I decided to interview two of my grandchildren, each living in different communities and attending different school systems, but both experiencing “lockdown drills.”
Jack, who is 13 and going into eighth grade, was quite clear regarding the drills and reported that in his age group, both he and the kids in his class felt scared while in lockdown. He told me some kids looked nervous. He mentioned that they were taught in school that if the “real thing” happened, the message was “hide, run, and fight.” I was curious and asked why not run first. He was quick to answer and said if you run, you might run into danger, so it’s better to hide and wait for help to arrive. I said to myself, if not PTSD, then being scared or nervous may also lead to anxiety or even to an anxiety disorder.
Next, I interviewed almost 11-year-old Charley, who is going into sixth grade. She was very clear about not at all being fearful or nervous during these drills and was confident that her classmates felt the same way. Then she explained that the school did a great job with a security officer and had locked doors all around that only opened from the inside. She was proud of the school and not fearful or worried at all.
The diverse views of these two young people surprised me but confirm that PTSD is not at all a given based on what is occurring in society. However, it should always be considered by clinicians if a child or adolescent begins to show signs consistent with PTSD.
These two interviews were quite short, but after I finished talking with Charley, she reported spontaneously that while she and her classmates were neither worried nor scared, some of their teachers did look nervous and seemed scared.
I was quite impressed with her sharpness and nuanced observation, and as noted, adults as well may be adversely affected by the entire concept of school lockdowns, as the awareness of their purpose rests in the forefront of their minds.
The way forward
So how do we prepare kids and adolescents for potential emotional problems like PTSD arising from lockdowns, even though most children or adults will not suffer any of these PTSD issues?
First, I believe that Second, it is important that school children be aware that if they feel bad in any way emotionally, they should speak to their parents, guardians, teachers, or school nurses.
Clearly, communicating simple problems without embarrassment or shame can lead to solutions, often quickly. Larger, more complicated issues may need professional intervention. Equally important, many mental health interventions need not be long in duration but client-centered, focused, and short term.
But what needs to be emphasized is that speaking and addressing what’s going on, if your thoughts and emotions are troubling, are in themselves therapeutic. Talk therapy works – especially if you get a new perspective on the old set of problems.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
Not everyone will suffer an episode of posttraumatic stress disorder, even though everyday American life is characterized by a lot of uncertainty these days, particularly considering the proliferation of gun violence.
Also, everyone who does experience a traumatic event will not suffer an episode of PTSD – just as not everyone develops a heart attack or cancer, nor will everyone get every illness.
The data suggest that of those exposed to trauma, up to 25% of people will develop PTSD, according to Massachusetts General/McLean Hospital, Belmont, psychiatrist Kerry J. Ressler, MD, PhD, chief of the division of depression and anxiety disorders.
As I wrote in December 2022, our “kids” are not all right and psychiatry can help. I would say that many adolescents, and adults as well, may not be all right as we are terrorized not only by mass school shootings, but shootings happening almost anywhere and everywhere in our country: in supermarkets, hospitals, and shopping malls, at graduation parties, and on the streets.
According to a report published in Clinical Psychiatry News, a poll conducted by the American Psychiatric Association showed that most American adults [70%] reported that they were anxious or extremely anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe. APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, pointed out that there is “a lot of worry out there about economic uncertainty, about violence and how we are going to come out of this time period.”
Meanwhile, PTSD is still defined in the DSM-5 as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence experienced directly, witnessing the traumatic event as it occurs to others, learning that a traumatic event occurred to a close family member or friend, or experiencing of traumatic events plus extreme exposure to aversive details of the event.
Examples of traumatic events can be numerous. They include natural disasters, man-made disasters, various types of assaults, war trauma, and severe illness with ICU experiences. I would add encounters with racism and bigotry – including homophobia when one fears for their very life or physical injury. This list includes only a few triggers that may invoke this disorder.
Interestingly, the DSM-5 excludes aversive exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. Including these aspects of trauma exposure would indeed increase PTSD diagnoses, and I believe this type of exposure needs to be included, especially considering how different people process information. Some viewers of media remain “outside” the events depicted on television, movies, or electronic media while others fit directly “into” the film or TV show. Even, for example, a news program, as evidenced by those people suffering from PTSD after viewing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster on TV.
I have interviewed numerous people who witnessed Sept. 11 tragedies on TV, some during and some after the event, and they genuinely had experienced key factors of PTSD, including nightmares and intrusive recollections of the event. It’s important to include the ways in which people process information and events in order to make a correct diagnosis, in that “one [diagnostic] size does not fit all.”
PTSD at school
In my December column, I noted the fear of death that my generation and beyond experienced with the endless threat of nuclear war, which by its very nature meant death, and if not, the saying went “the living would envy the dead” – that is, in post–nuclear war.
As I pointed out in the column, that war never came and hopefully never will, yet the intensity of those many decades of threatened terror with regular school exercises of “hide under the desk” and “don’t look at the flash” left some with intrusive fearful thoughts, nightmares, and even visualization of atomic destruction, as well as the many scenes of destruction portrayed in news casts and films of nuclear explosions.
Clearly, most U.S. school children who participate in school lockdown drills will not suffer from PTSD episodes, but some will. If that “some” approaches 20% or even 10% or less, that will amount to a lot of kids.
I decided to interview two of my grandchildren, each living in different communities and attending different school systems, but both experiencing “lockdown drills.”
Jack, who is 13 and going into eighth grade, was quite clear regarding the drills and reported that in his age group, both he and the kids in his class felt scared while in lockdown. He told me some kids looked nervous. He mentioned that they were taught in school that if the “real thing” happened, the message was “hide, run, and fight.” I was curious and asked why not run first. He was quick to answer and said if you run, you might run into danger, so it’s better to hide and wait for help to arrive. I said to myself, if not PTSD, then being scared or nervous may also lead to anxiety or even to an anxiety disorder.
Next, I interviewed almost 11-year-old Charley, who is going into sixth grade. She was very clear about not at all being fearful or nervous during these drills and was confident that her classmates felt the same way. Then she explained that the school did a great job with a security officer and had locked doors all around that only opened from the inside. She was proud of the school and not fearful or worried at all.
The diverse views of these two young people surprised me but confirm that PTSD is not at all a given based on what is occurring in society. However, it should always be considered by clinicians if a child or adolescent begins to show signs consistent with PTSD.
These two interviews were quite short, but after I finished talking with Charley, she reported spontaneously that while she and her classmates were neither worried nor scared, some of their teachers did look nervous and seemed scared.
I was quite impressed with her sharpness and nuanced observation, and as noted, adults as well may be adversely affected by the entire concept of school lockdowns, as the awareness of their purpose rests in the forefront of their minds.
The way forward
So how do we prepare kids and adolescents for potential emotional problems like PTSD arising from lockdowns, even though most children or adults will not suffer any of these PTSD issues?
First, I believe that Second, it is important that school children be aware that if they feel bad in any way emotionally, they should speak to their parents, guardians, teachers, or school nurses.
Clearly, communicating simple problems without embarrassment or shame can lead to solutions, often quickly. Larger, more complicated issues may need professional intervention. Equally important, many mental health interventions need not be long in duration but client-centered, focused, and short term.
But what needs to be emphasized is that speaking and addressing what’s going on, if your thoughts and emotions are troubling, are in themselves therapeutic. Talk therapy works – especially if you get a new perspective on the old set of problems.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
WOW! You spend that much time on the EHR?
Unlike many of you, maybe even most of you, I can recall when my office records were handwritten, some would say scribbled, on pieces of paper. They were decipherable by a select few. Some veteran assistants never mastered the skill. Pages were sometimes lavishly illustrated with drawings of body parts, often because I couldn’t remember or spell the correct anatomic term. When I needed to send a referring letter to another provider I typed it myself because dictating never quite suited my personality.
When I joined a small primary care group, the computer-savvy lead physician and a programmer developed our own homegrown EHR. It relied on scanning documents, as so many of us still generated handwritten notes. Even the most vociferous Luddites among us loved the system from day 2.
However, for a variety of reasons, some defensible some just plain bad, our beloved system needed to be replaced after 7 years. We then invested in an off-the-shelf EHR system that promised more capabilities. We were told there would be a learning curve but the plateau would come quickly and we would enjoy our new electronic assistant.
You’ve lived the rest of the story. The learning curve was steep and long and the plateau was a time gobbler. I was probably the most efficient provider in the group, and after 6 months I was leaving the office an hour later than I had been and was seeing the same number of patients. Most of my coworkers were staying and/or working on the computer at home for an extra 2 hours. This change could be easily documented by speaking with our spouses and children. I understand from my colleagues who have stayed in the business that over the ensuing decade and a half since my first experience with the EHR, its insatiable appetite for a clinician’s time has not abated.
The authors of a recent article in Annals of Family Medicine offer up some advice on how this tragic situation might be brought under control. First, the investigators point out that the phenomenon of after-hours EHR work, sometimes referred to as WOW (work outside of work), has not gone unnoticed by health system administrators and vendors who develop and sell the EHRs. However, analyzing the voluminous data necessary is not any easy task and for the most part has resulted in metrics that cannot be easily applied over a variety of practice scenarios. Many health care organizations, even large ones, have simply given up and rely on the WOW data and recommendations provided by the vendors, obviously lending the situation a faint odor of conflict of interest.
The bottom line is that . It would seem to me just asking the spouses and significant others of the clinicians would be sufficient. But, authors of the paper have more specific recommendations. First, they suggest that time working on the computer outside of scheduled time with patients should be separated from any other calculation of EHR usage. They encourage vendors and time-management researchers to develop standardized and validated methods for measuring active EHR use. And, finally they recommend that all EHR work done outside of time scheduled with patients be attributed to WOW. They feel that clearly labeling it work outside of work offers health care organizations a better chance of developing policies that will address the scourge of burnout.
This, unfortunately, is another tragic example of how clinicians have lost control of our work environments. The fact that 20 years have passed and there is still no standardized method for determining how much time we spend on the computer is more evidence we need to raise our voices.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Unlike many of you, maybe even most of you, I can recall when my office records were handwritten, some would say scribbled, on pieces of paper. They were decipherable by a select few. Some veteran assistants never mastered the skill. Pages were sometimes lavishly illustrated with drawings of body parts, often because I couldn’t remember or spell the correct anatomic term. When I needed to send a referring letter to another provider I typed it myself because dictating never quite suited my personality.
When I joined a small primary care group, the computer-savvy lead physician and a programmer developed our own homegrown EHR. It relied on scanning documents, as so many of us still generated handwritten notes. Even the most vociferous Luddites among us loved the system from day 2.
However, for a variety of reasons, some defensible some just plain bad, our beloved system needed to be replaced after 7 years. We then invested in an off-the-shelf EHR system that promised more capabilities. We were told there would be a learning curve but the plateau would come quickly and we would enjoy our new electronic assistant.
You’ve lived the rest of the story. The learning curve was steep and long and the plateau was a time gobbler. I was probably the most efficient provider in the group, and after 6 months I was leaving the office an hour later than I had been and was seeing the same number of patients. Most of my coworkers were staying and/or working on the computer at home for an extra 2 hours. This change could be easily documented by speaking with our spouses and children. I understand from my colleagues who have stayed in the business that over the ensuing decade and a half since my first experience with the EHR, its insatiable appetite for a clinician’s time has not abated.
The authors of a recent article in Annals of Family Medicine offer up some advice on how this tragic situation might be brought under control. First, the investigators point out that the phenomenon of after-hours EHR work, sometimes referred to as WOW (work outside of work), has not gone unnoticed by health system administrators and vendors who develop and sell the EHRs. However, analyzing the voluminous data necessary is not any easy task and for the most part has resulted in metrics that cannot be easily applied over a variety of practice scenarios. Many health care organizations, even large ones, have simply given up and rely on the WOW data and recommendations provided by the vendors, obviously lending the situation a faint odor of conflict of interest.
The bottom line is that . It would seem to me just asking the spouses and significant others of the clinicians would be sufficient. But, authors of the paper have more specific recommendations. First, they suggest that time working on the computer outside of scheduled time with patients should be separated from any other calculation of EHR usage. They encourage vendors and time-management researchers to develop standardized and validated methods for measuring active EHR use. And, finally they recommend that all EHR work done outside of time scheduled with patients be attributed to WOW. They feel that clearly labeling it work outside of work offers health care organizations a better chance of developing policies that will address the scourge of burnout.
This, unfortunately, is another tragic example of how clinicians have lost control of our work environments. The fact that 20 years have passed and there is still no standardized method for determining how much time we spend on the computer is more evidence we need to raise our voices.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Unlike many of you, maybe even most of you, I can recall when my office records were handwritten, some would say scribbled, on pieces of paper. They were decipherable by a select few. Some veteran assistants never mastered the skill. Pages were sometimes lavishly illustrated with drawings of body parts, often because I couldn’t remember or spell the correct anatomic term. When I needed to send a referring letter to another provider I typed it myself because dictating never quite suited my personality.
When I joined a small primary care group, the computer-savvy lead physician and a programmer developed our own homegrown EHR. It relied on scanning documents, as so many of us still generated handwritten notes. Even the most vociferous Luddites among us loved the system from day 2.
However, for a variety of reasons, some defensible some just plain bad, our beloved system needed to be replaced after 7 years. We then invested in an off-the-shelf EHR system that promised more capabilities. We were told there would be a learning curve but the plateau would come quickly and we would enjoy our new electronic assistant.
You’ve lived the rest of the story. The learning curve was steep and long and the plateau was a time gobbler. I was probably the most efficient provider in the group, and after 6 months I was leaving the office an hour later than I had been and was seeing the same number of patients. Most of my coworkers were staying and/or working on the computer at home for an extra 2 hours. This change could be easily documented by speaking with our spouses and children. I understand from my colleagues who have stayed in the business that over the ensuing decade and a half since my first experience with the EHR, its insatiable appetite for a clinician’s time has not abated.
The authors of a recent article in Annals of Family Medicine offer up some advice on how this tragic situation might be brought under control. First, the investigators point out that the phenomenon of after-hours EHR work, sometimes referred to as WOW (work outside of work), has not gone unnoticed by health system administrators and vendors who develop and sell the EHRs. However, analyzing the voluminous data necessary is not any easy task and for the most part has resulted in metrics that cannot be easily applied over a variety of practice scenarios. Many health care organizations, even large ones, have simply given up and rely on the WOW data and recommendations provided by the vendors, obviously lending the situation a faint odor of conflict of interest.
The bottom line is that . It would seem to me just asking the spouses and significant others of the clinicians would be sufficient. But, authors of the paper have more specific recommendations. First, they suggest that time working on the computer outside of scheduled time with patients should be separated from any other calculation of EHR usage. They encourage vendors and time-management researchers to develop standardized and validated methods for measuring active EHR use. And, finally they recommend that all EHR work done outside of time scheduled with patients be attributed to WOW. They feel that clearly labeling it work outside of work offers health care organizations a better chance of developing policies that will address the scourge of burnout.
This, unfortunately, is another tragic example of how clinicians have lost control of our work environments. The fact that 20 years have passed and there is still no standardized method for determining how much time we spend on the computer is more evidence we need to raise our voices.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].