Society News

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) just published an update to their guidelines on lung function interpretation (Stanojevic S, et al. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: 2101499). As with any update, the document builds on past work and integrates new advances the field has seen since 2005.

The current iteration comes at a time when academics, clinicians, and epidemiologists are re-analyzing what we think we know about the complex ways race and ethnicity intersect with the practice of medicine. Several experts on lung function testing, many if not most of whom are authors on the ERS/ATS guideline, have written letters or published reviews commenting on the way accounting for race or ethnicity affects lung function interpretation.

Race/ethnicity and lung function was also the topic of an excellent session at the recent CHEST 2022 Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. Here, we’ll provide a brief review and direct the reader to relevant sources for a more detailed analysis.

Spirometry is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of a wide range of pulmonary conditions. Dr. Aaron Baugh from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) lectured on the spirometer’s history at CHEST 2022 and detailed its interactions with race over the past 2 centuries. Other authors have chronicled this history, as well (Braun L, et al. Can J Respir Ther. 2015;51[4]:99-101). The short version is that since the British surgeon John Hutchinson created the first spirometer in 1846, race has been a part of the discussion of lung function interpretation.

In 2022, we know far more about the factors that determine lung function than we did in the 19th century. Age, height, and sex assigned at birth all explain a high percentage of the variability seen in FEV1 and FVC. When modeled, race also explains a portion of the variability, and the NHANES III investigators found its inclusion in regression equations, along with age, height, and sex, improved their precision. Case closed, right? Modern medicine is defined by phenotyping, precision, and individualized care, so why shouldn’t race be a part of lung function interpretation?

Well, it’s complicated. With the increasing recognition of health disparities across racial groups the way race is incorporated in medical practice is understandably being scrutinized. As clinicians and academics, we must analyze the root cause of differences in health outcomes between racial groups.

Publications on pulse oximetry (Gottlieb ER, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2022; 182:849-858) and glomerular filtration rate (Williams WW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1804-1806) have revealed some of the ways our use of instruments and equations may exacerbate or perpetuate current disparities. Even small differences in a measure like pulse oximetry could have a profound impact on clinical decisions at the individual and population levels.

The 2022 ERS/ATS lung function interpretation guidelines have abandoned the use of NHANES III as a reference set. They now recommend the equations developed by the Global Lung Initiative (GLI) for referencing to normal for spirometry, diffusion capacity, and lung volumes. For spirometry the GLI was able to integrate data from countries around the world. This allowed ethnicity to be included in their regression equations and, similar to NHANES III, they found ethnicity improved the precision of their equations. They also published an equation that did not account for country of origin that could be applied to individuals of any race/ethnicity (Quanjer PH, et al. Eur Respir J. 2014;43:505-512). This allowed for applying the GLI equations to external data sets with or without ethnicity included as a co-variate.

Given well-established discrepancies in spirometry, it should come as no surprise that applying the race/ethnicity-neutral GLI equations to non-White populations increases the percentage of patients with pulmonary defects (Moffett AT, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021; A1030). Other data suggest that elimination of race/ethnicity as a co-variate improves the association between percent predicted lung function and important outcomes like mortality (McCormack MC, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205:723-724). The first analysis implies that by adjusting for race/ethnicity we may be missing abnormalities, and the second suggests accuracy for outcomes is lost. So case closed, right? Let’s abandon race/ethnicity as a co- variate for our spirometry reference equations.

Perhaps, but a few caveats are in order. It’s important to note that doing so would result in a dramatic increase in abnormal findings in otherwise healthy and asymptomatic non-White individuals. This could negatively affect eligibility for employment and military service (Townsend MC, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;789-790). We’ve also yet to fully explain the factors driving differences in lung function between races. If socioeconomic factors explained the entirety of the difference, it would be easier to argue for elimination of using race/ethnicity in our equations. Currently, the etiology is thought to be multifactorial and is yet to be fully explained (Braun L, et al. Eur Respir J. 2013;41:1362-1370).

The more we look for institutional racism, the more we will find it. As we realize that attaining health and wellness is more difficult for the disenfranchised, we need to ensure our current practices are part of the solution.

The ERS/ATS guidelines suggest eliminating fixed correction factors for race but do not require elimination of race/ethnicity as a co-variate in the equations selected for use. This seems very reasonable given what we know now. As pulmonary medicine academics and researchers, we need to continue to study the impact integrating race/ethnicity has on precision, accuracy, and clinical outcomes. As pulmonary medicine clinicians, we need to be aware of the reference equations being used in our lab, understand how inclusion of race/ethnicity affects findings, and act accordingly, depending on the clinical situation.
 

Dr. Ghionni is a Pulmonary/Critical Care Fellow, and Dr. Woods is Program Director – PCCM Fellowship and Associate Program Director – IM Residency, Medstar Washington Hospital Center; Dr. Woods is Associate Professor of Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) just published an update to their guidelines on lung function interpretation (Stanojevic S, et al. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: 2101499). As with any update, the document builds on past work and integrates new advances the field has seen since 2005.

The current iteration comes at a time when academics, clinicians, and epidemiologists are re-analyzing what we think we know about the complex ways race and ethnicity intersect with the practice of medicine. Several experts on lung function testing, many if not most of whom are authors on the ERS/ATS guideline, have written letters or published reviews commenting on the way accounting for race or ethnicity affects lung function interpretation.

Race/ethnicity and lung function was also the topic of an excellent session at the recent CHEST 2022 Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. Here, we’ll provide a brief review and direct the reader to relevant sources for a more detailed analysis.

Spirometry is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of a wide range of pulmonary conditions. Dr. Aaron Baugh from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) lectured on the spirometer’s history at CHEST 2022 and detailed its interactions with race over the past 2 centuries. Other authors have chronicled this history, as well (Braun L, et al. Can J Respir Ther. 2015;51[4]:99-101). The short version is that since the British surgeon John Hutchinson created the first spirometer in 1846, race has been a part of the discussion of lung function interpretation.

In 2022, we know far more about the factors that determine lung function than we did in the 19th century. Age, height, and sex assigned at birth all explain a high percentage of the variability seen in FEV1 and FVC. When modeled, race also explains a portion of the variability, and the NHANES III investigators found its inclusion in regression equations, along with age, height, and sex, improved their precision. Case closed, right? Modern medicine is defined by phenotyping, precision, and individualized care, so why shouldn’t race be a part of lung function interpretation?

Well, it’s complicated. With the increasing recognition of health disparities across racial groups the way race is incorporated in medical practice is understandably being scrutinized. As clinicians and academics, we must analyze the root cause of differences in health outcomes between racial groups.

Publications on pulse oximetry (Gottlieb ER, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2022; 182:849-858) and glomerular filtration rate (Williams WW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1804-1806) have revealed some of the ways our use of instruments and equations may exacerbate or perpetuate current disparities. Even small differences in a measure like pulse oximetry could have a profound impact on clinical decisions at the individual and population levels.

The 2022 ERS/ATS lung function interpretation guidelines have abandoned the use of NHANES III as a reference set. They now recommend the equations developed by the Global Lung Initiative (GLI) for referencing to normal for spirometry, diffusion capacity, and lung volumes. For spirometry the GLI was able to integrate data from countries around the world. This allowed ethnicity to be included in their regression equations and, similar to NHANES III, they found ethnicity improved the precision of their equations. They also published an equation that did not account for country of origin that could be applied to individuals of any race/ethnicity (Quanjer PH, et al. Eur Respir J. 2014;43:505-512). This allowed for applying the GLI equations to external data sets with or without ethnicity included as a co-variate.

Given well-established discrepancies in spirometry, it should come as no surprise that applying the race/ethnicity-neutral GLI equations to non-White populations increases the percentage of patients with pulmonary defects (Moffett AT, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021; A1030). Other data suggest that elimination of race/ethnicity as a co-variate improves the association between percent predicted lung function and important outcomes like mortality (McCormack MC, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205:723-724). The first analysis implies that by adjusting for race/ethnicity we may be missing abnormalities, and the second suggests accuracy for outcomes is lost. So case closed, right? Let’s abandon race/ethnicity as a co- variate for our spirometry reference equations.

Perhaps, but a few caveats are in order. It’s important to note that doing so would result in a dramatic increase in abnormal findings in otherwise healthy and asymptomatic non-White individuals. This could negatively affect eligibility for employment and military service (Townsend MC, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;789-790). We’ve also yet to fully explain the factors driving differences in lung function between races. If socioeconomic factors explained the entirety of the difference, it would be easier to argue for elimination of using race/ethnicity in our equations. Currently, the etiology is thought to be multifactorial and is yet to be fully explained (Braun L, et al. Eur Respir J. 2013;41:1362-1370).

The more we look for institutional racism, the more we will find it. As we realize that attaining health and wellness is more difficult for the disenfranchised, we need to ensure our current practices are part of the solution.

The ERS/ATS guidelines suggest eliminating fixed correction factors for race but do not require elimination of race/ethnicity as a co-variate in the equations selected for use. This seems very reasonable given what we know now. As pulmonary medicine academics and researchers, we need to continue to study the impact integrating race/ethnicity has on precision, accuracy, and clinical outcomes. As pulmonary medicine clinicians, we need to be aware of the reference equations being used in our lab, understand how inclusion of race/ethnicity affects findings, and act accordingly, depending on the clinical situation.
 

Dr. Ghionni is a Pulmonary/Critical Care Fellow, and Dr. Woods is Program Director – PCCM Fellowship and Associate Program Director – IM Residency, Medstar Washington Hospital Center; Dr. Woods is Associate Professor of Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) just published an update to their guidelines on lung function interpretation (Stanojevic S, et al. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: 2101499). As with any update, the document builds on past work and integrates new advances the field has seen since 2005.

The current iteration comes at a time when academics, clinicians, and epidemiologists are re-analyzing what we think we know about the complex ways race and ethnicity intersect with the practice of medicine. Several experts on lung function testing, many if not most of whom are authors on the ERS/ATS guideline, have written letters or published reviews commenting on the way accounting for race or ethnicity affects lung function interpretation.

Race/ethnicity and lung function was also the topic of an excellent session at the recent CHEST 2022 Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. Here, we’ll provide a brief review and direct the reader to relevant sources for a more detailed analysis.

Spirometry is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of a wide range of pulmonary conditions. Dr. Aaron Baugh from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) lectured on the spirometer’s history at CHEST 2022 and detailed its interactions with race over the past 2 centuries. Other authors have chronicled this history, as well (Braun L, et al. Can J Respir Ther. 2015;51[4]:99-101). The short version is that since the British surgeon John Hutchinson created the first spirometer in 1846, race has been a part of the discussion of lung function interpretation.

In 2022, we know far more about the factors that determine lung function than we did in the 19th century. Age, height, and sex assigned at birth all explain a high percentage of the variability seen in FEV1 and FVC. When modeled, race also explains a portion of the variability, and the NHANES III investigators found its inclusion in regression equations, along with age, height, and sex, improved their precision. Case closed, right? Modern medicine is defined by phenotyping, precision, and individualized care, so why shouldn’t race be a part of lung function interpretation?

Well, it’s complicated. With the increasing recognition of health disparities across racial groups the way race is incorporated in medical practice is understandably being scrutinized. As clinicians and academics, we must analyze the root cause of differences in health outcomes between racial groups.

Publications on pulse oximetry (Gottlieb ER, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2022; 182:849-858) and glomerular filtration rate (Williams WW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1804-1806) have revealed some of the ways our use of instruments and equations may exacerbate or perpetuate current disparities. Even small differences in a measure like pulse oximetry could have a profound impact on clinical decisions at the individual and population levels.

The 2022 ERS/ATS lung function interpretation guidelines have abandoned the use of NHANES III as a reference set. They now recommend the equations developed by the Global Lung Initiative (GLI) for referencing to normal for spirometry, diffusion capacity, and lung volumes. For spirometry the GLI was able to integrate data from countries around the world. This allowed ethnicity to be included in their regression equations and, similar to NHANES III, they found ethnicity improved the precision of their equations. They also published an equation that did not account for country of origin that could be applied to individuals of any race/ethnicity (Quanjer PH, et al. Eur Respir J. 2014;43:505-512). This allowed for applying the GLI equations to external data sets with or without ethnicity included as a co-variate.

Given well-established discrepancies in spirometry, it should come as no surprise that applying the race/ethnicity-neutral GLI equations to non-White populations increases the percentage of patients with pulmonary defects (Moffett AT, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021; A1030). Other data suggest that elimination of race/ethnicity as a co-variate improves the association between percent predicted lung function and important outcomes like mortality (McCormack MC, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205:723-724). The first analysis implies that by adjusting for race/ethnicity we may be missing abnormalities, and the second suggests accuracy for outcomes is lost. So case closed, right? Let’s abandon race/ethnicity as a co- variate for our spirometry reference equations.

Perhaps, but a few caveats are in order. It’s important to note that doing so would result in a dramatic increase in abnormal findings in otherwise healthy and asymptomatic non-White individuals. This could negatively affect eligibility for employment and military service (Townsend MC, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;789-790). We’ve also yet to fully explain the factors driving differences in lung function between races. If socioeconomic factors explained the entirety of the difference, it would be easier to argue for elimination of using race/ethnicity in our equations. Currently, the etiology is thought to be multifactorial and is yet to be fully explained (Braun L, et al. Eur Respir J. 2013;41:1362-1370).

The more we look for institutional racism, the more we will find it. As we realize that attaining health and wellness is more difficult for the disenfranchised, we need to ensure our current practices are part of the solution.

The ERS/ATS guidelines suggest eliminating fixed correction factors for race but do not require elimination of race/ethnicity as a co-variate in the equations selected for use. This seems very reasonable given what we know now. As pulmonary medicine academics and researchers, we need to continue to study the impact integrating race/ethnicity has on precision, accuracy, and clinical outcomes. As pulmonary medicine clinicians, we need to be aware of the reference equations being used in our lab, understand how inclusion of race/ethnicity affects findings, and act accordingly, depending on the clinical situation.
 

Dr. Ghionni is a Pulmonary/Critical Care Fellow, and Dr. Woods is Program Director – PCCM Fellowship and Associate Program Director – IM Residency, Medstar Washington Hospital Center; Dr. Woods is Associate Professor of Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented and unpredictable strain on health care systems worldwide, forcing rapid organizational modifications and innovations to ensure availability of critical care resources during acute surge events. Yet, while much attention has been paid to the availability of ICU beds and ventilators, COVID-19 has insidiously and significantly harmed the most precious critical care resource of all – the human beings who are the lifeblood of critical care delivery. We are now at a crucial moment in history to better understand the pandemic’s impact on our human resources and enact changes to reverse the damage that it has inflicted on our workforce.

To understand the impact of the pandemic on critical care clinicians, we must first acknowledge the context in which they work. ICUs, where critical care delivery predominantly occurs, increasingly utilize interprofessional staffing models in which clinicians from multiple disciplines – physicians, nurses, clinical pharmacists, respiratory therapists, and dieticians, among others – bring their unique expertise to team-based clinical decisions and care delivery. Such a multidisciplinary approach helps enable the provision of more comprehensive, higher-quality critical care. In this way, the interprofessional ICU care team is an embodiment of the notion that the “whole” is more than just the sum of its parts. Therefore, we must consider the impact of the pandemic on interprofessional critical care clinicians as the team that they are.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the well-being of critical care clinicians was compromised. Across multiple disciplines, they had among the highest rates of burnout syndrome of all health care professionals (Moss M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[1]:106-113). As the pandemic has dragged on, their well-being has only further declined. Burnout rates are at all-time highs, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression are common and have increased with each subsequent surge (Azoulay E, et al. Chest. 2021;160[3]:944-955). Offsets to burnout, such as fulfillment and recognition, have declined over time (Kerlin MP, et al. Ann Amer Thorac Soc. 2022;19[2]:329-331). These worrisome trends pose a significant threat to critical care delivery. Clinician burnout is associated with worse patient outcomes, increased medical errors, and lower patient satisfaction (Moss M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[1]:106-113; Poghosyan L, et al. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33[4]:288-298). It is also associated with mental illness and substance use disorders among clinicians (Dyrbye LN, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149[5]:334-341). Finally, it has contributed to a workforce crisis: nearly 500,000 health care workers have left the US health care sector since the beginning of the pandemic, and approximately two-thirds of acute and critical care nurses have considered doing so (Wong E. “Why Healthcare Workers are Quitting in Droves”. The Atlantic. Accessed November 7, 2022). Such a “brain drain” of clinicians – whose expertise cannot be easily replicated or replaced – represents a staffing crisis that threatens our ability to provide high-quality, safe care for the foreseeable future.

To combat burnout, it is first necessary to identify the mechanisms by which the pandemic has induced harm. Early during the pandemic, critical care clinicians feared for their own safety with little information of how the virus was spread. At a time when the world was under lockdown, vaccines were not yet available, and hospitals were overwhelmed with surges of critically ill patients, clinicians struggled like the rest of the world to meet their own basic needs such as childcare, grocery shopping, and time with family. They experienced distress from high volumes of patients with extreme mortality rates, helplessness due to lack of treatment options, and moral injury over restrictive visitation policies (Vranas KC, et al. Chest. 2022;162[2]:331-345; Vranas KC, et al. Chest. 2021;160[5]:1714-1728). Over time, critical care clinicians have no doubt experienced further exhaustion related to the duration of the pandemic, often without adequate time to recover and process the trauma they have experienced. More recently, a new source of distress for clinicians has emerged from variability in vaccine uptake among the public. Clinicians have experienced compassion fatigue and even moral outrage toward those who chose not to receive a vaccine that is highly effective at preventing severe illness. They also suffered from ethical conflicts over how to treat unvaccinated patients and whether they should be given equal priority and access to limited therapies (Shaw D. Bioethics. 2022;36[8]:883-890).

Furthermore, the pandemic has damaged the relationship between clinicians and their institutions. Early in the pandemic, the widespread shortages of personal protective equipment harmed trust among clinicians due to their perception that their safety was not prioritized. Hospitals have also struggled with having to make rapid decisions on how to equitably allocate fixed resources in response to unanticipated and unpredictable demands, while also maintaining financial solvency. In some cases, these challenging policy decisions (eg, whether to continue elective procedures during acute surge events) lacked transparency and input from the team at the frontlines of patient care. As a result, clinicians have felt undervalued and without a voice in decisions that directly impact both the care they can provide their patients and their own well-being.

It is incumbent upon us now to take steps to repair the damage inflicted on our critical care workforce by the pandemic. To this end, there have been calls for the urgent implementation of strategies to mitigate the psychological burden experienced by critical care clinicians. However, many of these focus on interventions to increase coping strategies and resilience among individual clinicians. While programs such as mindfulness apps and resilience training are valuable, they are not sufficient. The very nature of these solutions implies that the solution (and therefore, the problem) of burnout lies in the individual clinician. Yet, as described above, many of the mechanisms of harm to clinicians’ well-being are systems-level issues that will necessarily require systems-level solutions.

Therefore, we propose a comprehensive, layered approach to begin to reverse the damage inflicted by the pandemic on critical care clinicians’ well-being, with solutions organized by ecological levels of individual clinicians, departments, institutions, and society. With this approach, we hope to address specific aspects of our critical care delivery system that, taken together, will fortify the well-being of our critical care workforce as a whole. We offer suggestions below that are both informed by existing evidence, as well as our own opinions as intensivists and researchers.
 

At the level of the individual clinician:

• Proactively provide access to mental health resources. Clinicians have limited time or energy to navigate mental health and support services and find it helpful when others proactively reach out to them.
• Provide opportunities for clinicians to experience community and support among peers. Clinicians find benefit in town halls, debrief sessions, and peer support groups, particularly during times of acute strain.

At the level of the department:

• Allow more flexibility in work schedules. Even prior to the pandemic, the lack of scheduling flexibility and the number of consecutive days worked had been identified as key contributors to burnout; these have been exacerbated during times of caseload surges, when clinicians have been asked or even required to increase their hours and work extra shifts.
• Promote a culture of psychological safety in which clinicians feel empowered to say “I cannot work” for whatever reason. This will require the establishment of formalized backup systems that easily accommodate call-outs without relying on individual clinicians to find their own coverage.

At the level of the health care system:

• Prioritize transparency, and bring administrators and clinicians together for policy decisions. Break down silos between the frontline workers involved in direct patient care and hospital executives, both to inform those decisions and demonstrate the value of clinicians’ perspectives.
• Compensate clinicians for extra work. Consider hazard pay or ensure extra time off for extra time worked.
• Make it “easier” for clinicians to do their jobs by helping them meet their basic needs. Create schedules with designated breaks during shifts. Provide adequate office space and call rooms. Facilitate access to childcare. Provide parking.
• Minimize moral injury. Develop protocols for scarce resource allocation that exclude the treatment team from making decisions about allocation of scarce resources. Avoid visitor restrictions given the harm these policies inflict on patients, families, and members of the care team.

At the level of society:

• Study mechanisms to improve communication about public health with the public. Both science and communication are essential to promoting and protecting public health; more research is needed to improve the way scientific knowledge and evidence-based recommendations are communicated to the public.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed our critical care workforce and the way we deliver care. The time is now to act on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic through implementation of systems-level solutions to combat burnout and ensure both the health and sustainability of our critical care workforce for the season ahead.
 

Dr. Vranas is with the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Oregon Health & Science University; Portland, OR; and the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Kerlin is with the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented and unpredictable strain on health care systems worldwide, forcing rapid organizational modifications and innovations to ensure availability of critical care resources during acute surge events. Yet, while much attention has been paid to the availability of ICU beds and ventilators, COVID-19 has insidiously and significantly harmed the most precious critical care resource of all – the human beings who are the lifeblood of critical care delivery. We are now at a crucial moment in history to better understand the pandemic’s impact on our human resources and enact changes to reverse the damage that it has inflicted on our workforce.

To understand the impact of the pandemic on critical care clinicians, we must first acknowledge the context in which they work. ICUs, where critical care delivery predominantly occurs, increasingly utilize interprofessional staffing models in which clinicians from multiple disciplines – physicians, nurses, clinical pharmacists, respiratory therapists, and dieticians, among others – bring their unique expertise to team-based clinical decisions and care delivery. Such a multidisciplinary approach helps enable the provision of more comprehensive, higher-quality critical care. In this way, the interprofessional ICU care team is an embodiment of the notion that the “whole” is more than just the sum of its parts. Therefore, we must consider the impact of the pandemic on interprofessional critical care clinicians as the team that they are.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the well-being of critical care clinicians was compromised. Across multiple disciplines, they had among the highest rates of burnout syndrome of all health care professionals (Moss M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[1]:106-113). As the pandemic has dragged on, their well-being has only further declined. Burnout rates are at all-time highs, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression are common and have increased with each subsequent surge (Azoulay E, et al. Chest. 2021;160[3]:944-955). Offsets to burnout, such as fulfillment and recognition, have declined over time (Kerlin MP, et al. Ann Amer Thorac Soc. 2022;19[2]:329-331). These worrisome trends pose a significant threat to critical care delivery. Clinician burnout is associated with worse patient outcomes, increased medical errors, and lower patient satisfaction (Moss M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[1]:106-113; Poghosyan L, et al. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33[4]:288-298). It is also associated with mental illness and substance use disorders among clinicians (Dyrbye LN, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149[5]:334-341). Finally, it has contributed to a workforce crisis: nearly 500,000 health care workers have left the US health care sector since the beginning of the pandemic, and approximately two-thirds of acute and critical care nurses have considered doing so (Wong E. “Why Healthcare Workers are Quitting in Droves”. The Atlantic. Accessed November 7, 2022). Such a “brain drain” of clinicians – whose expertise cannot be easily replicated or replaced – represents a staffing crisis that threatens our ability to provide high-quality, safe care for the foreseeable future.

To combat burnout, it is first necessary to identify the mechanisms by which the pandemic has induced harm. Early during the pandemic, critical care clinicians feared for their own safety with little information of how the virus was spread. At a time when the world was under lockdown, vaccines were not yet available, and hospitals were overwhelmed with surges of critically ill patients, clinicians struggled like the rest of the world to meet their own basic needs such as childcare, grocery shopping, and time with family. They experienced distress from high volumes of patients with extreme mortality rates, helplessness due to lack of treatment options, and moral injury over restrictive visitation policies (Vranas KC, et al. Chest. 2022;162[2]:331-345; Vranas KC, et al. Chest. 2021;160[5]:1714-1728). Over time, critical care clinicians have no doubt experienced further exhaustion related to the duration of the pandemic, often without adequate time to recover and process the trauma they have experienced. More recently, a new source of distress for clinicians has emerged from variability in vaccine uptake among the public. Clinicians have experienced compassion fatigue and even moral outrage toward those who chose not to receive a vaccine that is highly effective at preventing severe illness. They also suffered from ethical conflicts over how to treat unvaccinated patients and whether they should be given equal priority and access to limited therapies (Shaw D. Bioethics. 2022;36[8]:883-890).

Furthermore, the pandemic has damaged the relationship between clinicians and their institutions. Early in the pandemic, the widespread shortages of personal protective equipment harmed trust among clinicians due to their perception that their safety was not prioritized. Hospitals have also struggled with having to make rapid decisions on how to equitably allocate fixed resources in response to unanticipated and unpredictable demands, while also maintaining financial solvency. In some cases, these challenging policy decisions (eg, whether to continue elective procedures during acute surge events) lacked transparency and input from the team at the frontlines of patient care. As a result, clinicians have felt undervalued and without a voice in decisions that directly impact both the care they can provide their patients and their own well-being.

It is incumbent upon us now to take steps to repair the damage inflicted on our critical care workforce by the pandemic. To this end, there have been calls for the urgent implementation of strategies to mitigate the psychological burden experienced by critical care clinicians. However, many of these focus on interventions to increase coping strategies and resilience among individual clinicians. While programs such as mindfulness apps and resilience training are valuable, they are not sufficient. The very nature of these solutions implies that the solution (and therefore, the problem) of burnout lies in the individual clinician. Yet, as described above, many of the mechanisms of harm to clinicians’ well-being are systems-level issues that will necessarily require systems-level solutions.

Therefore, we propose a comprehensive, layered approach to begin to reverse the damage inflicted by the pandemic on critical care clinicians’ well-being, with solutions organized by ecological levels of individual clinicians, departments, institutions, and society. With this approach, we hope to address specific aspects of our critical care delivery system that, taken together, will fortify the well-being of our critical care workforce as a whole. We offer suggestions below that are both informed by existing evidence, as well as our own opinions as intensivists and researchers.
 

At the level of the individual clinician:

• Proactively provide access to mental health resources. Clinicians have limited time or energy to navigate mental health and support services and find it helpful when others proactively reach out to them.
• Provide opportunities for clinicians to experience community and support among peers. Clinicians find benefit in town halls, debrief sessions, and peer support groups, particularly during times of acute strain.

At the level of the department:

• Allow more flexibility in work schedules. Even prior to the pandemic, the lack of scheduling flexibility and the number of consecutive days worked had been identified as key contributors to burnout; these have been exacerbated during times of caseload surges, when clinicians have been asked or even required to increase their hours and work extra shifts.
• Promote a culture of psychological safety in which clinicians feel empowered to say “I cannot work” for whatever reason. This will require the establishment of formalized backup systems that easily accommodate call-outs without relying on individual clinicians to find their own coverage.

At the level of the health care system:

• Prioritize transparency, and bring administrators and clinicians together for policy decisions. Break down silos between the frontline workers involved in direct patient care and hospital executives, both to inform those decisions and demonstrate the value of clinicians’ perspectives.
• Compensate clinicians for extra work. Consider hazard pay or ensure extra time off for extra time worked.
• Make it “easier” for clinicians to do their jobs by helping them meet their basic needs. Create schedules with designated breaks during shifts. Provide adequate office space and call rooms. Facilitate access to childcare. Provide parking.
• Minimize moral injury. Develop protocols for scarce resource allocation that exclude the treatment team from making decisions about allocation of scarce resources. Avoid visitor restrictions given the harm these policies inflict on patients, families, and members of the care team.

At the level of society:

• Study mechanisms to improve communication about public health with the public. Both science and communication are essential to promoting and protecting public health; more research is needed to improve the way scientific knowledge and evidence-based recommendations are communicated to the public.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed our critical care workforce and the way we deliver care. The time is now to act on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic through implementation of systems-level solutions to combat burnout and ensure both the health and sustainability of our critical care workforce for the season ahead.
 

Dr. Vranas is with the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Oregon Health & Science University; Portland, OR; and the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Kerlin is with the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented and unpredictable strain on health care systems worldwide, forcing rapid organizational modifications and innovations to ensure availability of critical care resources during acute surge events. Yet, while much attention has been paid to the availability of ICU beds and ventilators, COVID-19 has insidiously and significantly harmed the most precious critical care resource of all – the human beings who are the lifeblood of critical care delivery. We are now at a crucial moment in history to better understand the pandemic’s impact on our human resources and enact changes to reverse the damage that it has inflicted on our workforce.

To understand the impact of the pandemic on critical care clinicians, we must first acknowledge the context in which they work. ICUs, where critical care delivery predominantly occurs, increasingly utilize interprofessional staffing models in which clinicians from multiple disciplines – physicians, nurses, clinical pharmacists, respiratory therapists, and dieticians, among others – bring their unique expertise to team-based clinical decisions and care delivery. Such a multidisciplinary approach helps enable the provision of more comprehensive, higher-quality critical care. In this way, the interprofessional ICU care team is an embodiment of the notion that the “whole” is more than just the sum of its parts. Therefore, we must consider the impact of the pandemic on interprofessional critical care clinicians as the team that they are.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the well-being of critical care clinicians was compromised. Across multiple disciplines, they had among the highest rates of burnout syndrome of all health care professionals (Moss M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[1]:106-113). As the pandemic has dragged on, their well-being has only further declined. Burnout rates are at all-time highs, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression are common and have increased with each subsequent surge (Azoulay E, et al. Chest. 2021;160[3]:944-955). Offsets to burnout, such as fulfillment and recognition, have declined over time (Kerlin MP, et al. Ann Amer Thorac Soc. 2022;19[2]:329-331). These worrisome trends pose a significant threat to critical care delivery. Clinician burnout is associated with worse patient outcomes, increased medical errors, and lower patient satisfaction (Moss M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[1]:106-113; Poghosyan L, et al. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33[4]:288-298). It is also associated with mental illness and substance use disorders among clinicians (Dyrbye LN, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149[5]:334-341). Finally, it has contributed to a workforce crisis: nearly 500,000 health care workers have left the US health care sector since the beginning of the pandemic, and approximately two-thirds of acute and critical care nurses have considered doing so (Wong E. “Why Healthcare Workers are Quitting in Droves”. The Atlantic. Accessed November 7, 2022). Such a “brain drain” of clinicians – whose expertise cannot be easily replicated or replaced – represents a staffing crisis that threatens our ability to provide high-quality, safe care for the foreseeable future.

To combat burnout, it is first necessary to identify the mechanisms by which the pandemic has induced harm. Early during the pandemic, critical care clinicians feared for their own safety with little information of how the virus was spread. At a time when the world was under lockdown, vaccines were not yet available, and hospitals were overwhelmed with surges of critically ill patients, clinicians struggled like the rest of the world to meet their own basic needs such as childcare, grocery shopping, and time with family. They experienced distress from high volumes of patients with extreme mortality rates, helplessness due to lack of treatment options, and moral injury over restrictive visitation policies (Vranas KC, et al. Chest. 2022;162[2]:331-345; Vranas KC, et al. Chest. 2021;160[5]:1714-1728). Over time, critical care clinicians have no doubt experienced further exhaustion related to the duration of the pandemic, often without adequate time to recover and process the trauma they have experienced. More recently, a new source of distress for clinicians has emerged from variability in vaccine uptake among the public. Clinicians have experienced compassion fatigue and even moral outrage toward those who chose not to receive a vaccine that is highly effective at preventing severe illness. They also suffered from ethical conflicts over how to treat unvaccinated patients and whether they should be given equal priority and access to limited therapies (Shaw D. Bioethics. 2022;36[8]:883-890).

Furthermore, the pandemic has damaged the relationship between clinicians and their institutions. Early in the pandemic, the widespread shortages of personal protective equipment harmed trust among clinicians due to their perception that their safety was not prioritized. Hospitals have also struggled with having to make rapid decisions on how to equitably allocate fixed resources in response to unanticipated and unpredictable demands, while also maintaining financial solvency. In some cases, these challenging policy decisions (eg, whether to continue elective procedures during acute surge events) lacked transparency and input from the team at the frontlines of patient care. As a result, clinicians have felt undervalued and without a voice in decisions that directly impact both the care they can provide their patients and their own well-being.

It is incumbent upon us now to take steps to repair the damage inflicted on our critical care workforce by the pandemic. To this end, there have been calls for the urgent implementation of strategies to mitigate the psychological burden experienced by critical care clinicians. However, many of these focus on interventions to increase coping strategies and resilience among individual clinicians. While programs such as mindfulness apps and resilience training are valuable, they are not sufficient. The very nature of these solutions implies that the solution (and therefore, the problem) of burnout lies in the individual clinician. Yet, as described above, many of the mechanisms of harm to clinicians’ well-being are systems-level issues that will necessarily require systems-level solutions.

Therefore, we propose a comprehensive, layered approach to begin to reverse the damage inflicted by the pandemic on critical care clinicians’ well-being, with solutions organized by ecological levels of individual clinicians, departments, institutions, and society. With this approach, we hope to address specific aspects of our critical care delivery system that, taken together, will fortify the well-being of our critical care workforce as a whole. We offer suggestions below that are both informed by existing evidence, as well as our own opinions as intensivists and researchers.
 

At the level of the individual clinician:

• Proactively provide access to mental health resources. Clinicians have limited time or energy to navigate mental health and support services and find it helpful when others proactively reach out to them.
• Provide opportunities for clinicians to experience community and support among peers. Clinicians find benefit in town halls, debrief sessions, and peer support groups, particularly during times of acute strain.

At the level of the department:

• Allow more flexibility in work schedules. Even prior to the pandemic, the lack of scheduling flexibility and the number of consecutive days worked had been identified as key contributors to burnout; these have been exacerbated during times of caseload surges, when clinicians have been asked or even required to increase their hours and work extra shifts.
• Promote a culture of psychological safety in which clinicians feel empowered to say “I cannot work” for whatever reason. This will require the establishment of formalized backup systems that easily accommodate call-outs without relying on individual clinicians to find their own coverage.

At the level of the health care system:

• Prioritize transparency, and bring administrators and clinicians together for policy decisions. Break down silos between the frontline workers involved in direct patient care and hospital executives, both to inform those decisions and demonstrate the value of clinicians’ perspectives.
• Compensate clinicians for extra work. Consider hazard pay or ensure extra time off for extra time worked.
• Make it “easier” for clinicians to do their jobs by helping them meet their basic needs. Create schedules with designated breaks during shifts. Provide adequate office space and call rooms. Facilitate access to childcare. Provide parking.
• Minimize moral injury. Develop protocols for scarce resource allocation that exclude the treatment team from making decisions about allocation of scarce resources. Avoid visitor restrictions given the harm these policies inflict on patients, families, and members of the care team.

At the level of society:

• Study mechanisms to improve communication about public health with the public. Both science and communication are essential to promoting and protecting public health; more research is needed to improve the way scientific knowledge and evidence-based recommendations are communicated to the public.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed our critical care workforce and the way we deliver care. The time is now to act on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic through implementation of systems-level solutions to combat burnout and ensure both the health and sustainability of our critical care workforce for the season ahead.
 

Dr. Vranas is with the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Oregon Health & Science University; Portland, OR; and the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Kerlin is with the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA.

In the Senate, Democrats clinched the majority with 50 seats. Only one race, Georgia, is still undecided where a December runoff is planned. This race will not flip the majority since Vice President Kamala Harris casts tie-breaking votes as the President of the Senate.

Republicans recaptured control of the House after reaching 218 seats – enough to take control but the sweeping flip “red wave” did not occur as predicted. Republicans currently hold 220 seats to 213 Democratic seats, while two seats remain undecided. Margins in both chambers are slim, reflecting the division in the country.
 

What does this mean? 

The majorities in both chambers are razor thin and compromises will need to be made to pass funding bills and other priorities.

AGA will continue to prioritize our bipartisan efforts with congressional champions on both sides of the aisle, including Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). For the remainder of this Congress, we will fight to:

• Encourage the Senate to take a vote on the House-passed prior authorization reform bill.
• Support robust federal research funding for gastroenterology.
• Reduce dangerous cuts in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

In the Senate, Democrats clinched the majority with 50 seats. Only one race, Georgia, is still undecided where a December runoff is planned. This race will not flip the majority since Vice President Kamala Harris casts tie-breaking votes as the President of the Senate.

Republicans recaptured control of the House after reaching 218 seats – enough to take control but the sweeping flip “red wave” did not occur as predicted. Republicans currently hold 220 seats to 213 Democratic seats, while two seats remain undecided. Margins in both chambers are slim, reflecting the division in the country.
 

What does this mean? 

The majorities in both chambers are razor thin and compromises will need to be made to pass funding bills and other priorities.

AGA will continue to prioritize our bipartisan efforts with congressional champions on both sides of the aisle, including Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). For the remainder of this Congress, we will fight to:

• Encourage the Senate to take a vote on the House-passed prior authorization reform bill.
• Support robust federal research funding for gastroenterology.
• Reduce dangerous cuts in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

In the Senate, Democrats clinched the majority with 50 seats. Only one race, Georgia, is still undecided where a December runoff is planned. This race will not flip the majority since Vice President Kamala Harris casts tie-breaking votes as the President of the Senate.

Republicans recaptured control of the House after reaching 218 seats – enough to take control but the sweeping flip “red wave” did not occur as predicted. Republicans currently hold 220 seats to 213 Democratic seats, while two seats remain undecided. Margins in both chambers are slim, reflecting the division in the country.
 

What does this mean? 

The majorities in both chambers are razor thin and compromises will need to be made to pass funding bills and other priorities.

AGA will continue to prioritize our bipartisan efforts with congressional champions on both sides of the aisle, including Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). For the remainder of this Congress, we will fight to:

• Encourage the Senate to take a vote on the House-passed prior authorization reform bill.
• Support robust federal research funding for gastroenterology.
• Reduce dangerous cuts in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

AGA has announced that the association’s new venture capital fund, GI Opportunity Fund 1, completed its first investment, rounding out the Series A financing of Virgo Surgical Video Solutions (“Virgo”) of Carlsbad, Calif.

Virgo provides gastroenterologists, clinical trial sponsors, and trial site investigators with artificial intelligence–fueled, always-on endoscopic procedure recording and patient recruitment tools for clinical trials in gastroenterology, starting with inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials.

AGA has announced that the association’s new venture capital fund, GI Opportunity Fund 1, completed its first investment, rounding out the Series A financing of Virgo Surgical Video Solutions (“Virgo”) of Carlsbad, Calif.

Virgo provides gastroenterologists, clinical trial sponsors, and trial site investigators with artificial intelligence–fueled, always-on endoscopic procedure recording and patient recruitment tools for clinical trials in gastroenterology, starting with inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials.

AGA has announced that the association’s new venture capital fund, GI Opportunity Fund 1, completed its first investment, rounding out the Series A financing of Virgo Surgical Video Solutions (“Virgo”) of Carlsbad, Calif.

Virgo provides gastroenterologists, clinical trial sponsors, and trial site investigators with artificial intelligence–fueled, always-on endoscopic procedure recording and patient recruitment tools for clinical trials in gastroenterology, starting with inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials.

A task force of GIs from the four major GI societies – AGA, AASLD, ACG, and ASGE – has released a multisociety strategic plan outlining goals and milestones the GI specialty needs to achieve to reduce the environmental impact of the practice.

Key takeaway: As a procedure-intense subspecialty, gastroenterology, and in particular endoscopy, is a major contributor to health care’s carbon footprint and other environmental impacts. Endoscopy is the third largest generator of medical waste in a hospital (2 kg total waste per procedure) with most ending in landfills. With this strategic plan, the participating societies are committed to promoting and supporting a sustainable, high-quality GI practice.

The U.S. GI multisociety strategic plan, which has also been endorsed by 23 GI societies globally, is a collaborative effort that invites members to undertake initiatives to establish an environmentally sustainable, high-quality practice and promote planetary health. Each society will prioritize and adapt their initiatives in accordance with their individual societal goals. Some initiatives may be undertaken by a single society, whereas other objectives and initiatives may be approached jointly. It is a 5-year plan that covers seven major domains:

• Clinical setting.
• Education.
• Research.
• Society efforts.
• Intersociety efforts.
• Industry.
• Advocacy.

The plan was developed by the U.S. Multi-GI Society Task Force on Climate Change, which is composed of leading experts from AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE.

For more information, view the full publication: GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability, published in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A task force of GIs from the four major GI societies – AGA, AASLD, ACG, and ASGE – has released a multisociety strategic plan outlining goals and milestones the GI specialty needs to achieve to reduce the environmental impact of the practice.

Key takeaway: As a procedure-intense subspecialty, gastroenterology, and in particular endoscopy, is a major contributor to health care’s carbon footprint and other environmental impacts. Endoscopy is the third largest generator of medical waste in a hospital (2 kg total waste per procedure) with most ending in landfills. With this strategic plan, the participating societies are committed to promoting and supporting a sustainable, high-quality GI practice.

The U.S. GI multisociety strategic plan, which has also been endorsed by 23 GI societies globally, is a collaborative effort that invites members to undertake initiatives to establish an environmentally sustainable, high-quality practice and promote planetary health. Each society will prioritize and adapt their initiatives in accordance with their individual societal goals. Some initiatives may be undertaken by a single society, whereas other objectives and initiatives may be approached jointly. It is a 5-year plan that covers seven major domains:

• Clinical setting.
• Education.
• Research.
• Society efforts.
• Intersociety efforts.
• Industry.
• Advocacy.

The plan was developed by the U.S. Multi-GI Society Task Force on Climate Change, which is composed of leading experts from AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE.

For more information, view the full publication: GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability, published in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A task force of GIs from the four major GI societies – AGA, AASLD, ACG, and ASGE – has released a multisociety strategic plan outlining goals and milestones the GI specialty needs to achieve to reduce the environmental impact of the practice.

Key takeaway: As a procedure-intense subspecialty, gastroenterology, and in particular endoscopy, is a major contributor to health care’s carbon footprint and other environmental impacts. Endoscopy is the third largest generator of medical waste in a hospital (2 kg total waste per procedure) with most ending in landfills. With this strategic plan, the participating societies are committed to promoting and supporting a sustainable, high-quality GI practice.

The U.S. GI multisociety strategic plan, which has also been endorsed by 23 GI societies globally, is a collaborative effort that invites members to undertake initiatives to establish an environmentally sustainable, high-quality practice and promote planetary health. Each society will prioritize and adapt their initiatives in accordance with their individual societal goals. Some initiatives may be undertaken by a single society, whereas other objectives and initiatives may be approached jointly. It is a 5-year plan that covers seven major domains:

• Clinical setting.
• Education.
• Research.
• Society efforts.
• Intersociety efforts.
• Industry.
• Advocacy.

The plan was developed by the U.S. Multi-GI Society Task Force on Climate Change, which is composed of leading experts from AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE.

For more information, view the full publication: GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability, published in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its final rules for 2023 Medicare payments.

Good news! The full CRC continuum will be covered in Medicare.

In a win for patients and thanks to our collective advocacy efforts from AGA and partner societies, CMS expanded the regulatory definition of “colorectal cancer screening tests” and will waive cost sharing for a necessary follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based screening test.

Bad news: Looming cuts on the horizon, GI societies to take action.

The rule finalizes more than 4% in mandated Medicare physician reimbursement cuts through decreases in the conversion factor and expiration of temporary fixes passed by Congress. The CY 2023 conversion factor is $33.06, an unacceptable cut for our members. The GI societies continue to work with a coalition of national and state medical societies to urge Congress to prevent these cuts before Jan. 1, 2023.

Good news: ASC + hospital payments on the rise.

ASC payments and facility fee payments increase 3.8% for institutions that meet quality reporting requirements. The CY 2023 ASC conversion factor is $51.854 and the hospital outpatient conversion factor is $85.585.

CMS removed motility codes 91117 and 91122 from APC 5731, where their payments would have been cut 21%, and finalized their placement in APC 5722, where they get a 3% payment increase beginning Jan. 1, 2023. Thank you to the motility community for helping us secure this win.

CMS raises the hospital payment for ESD code C9779 to $3,260.69, a $765.65 increase from 2022. We continue to work with CMS on our request for separate codes for lower ESD and upper ESD and payments that better reflect their unique resource costs.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its final rules for 2023 Medicare payments.

Good news! The full CRC continuum will be covered in Medicare.

In a win for patients and thanks to our collective advocacy efforts from AGA and partner societies, CMS expanded the regulatory definition of “colorectal cancer screening tests” and will waive cost sharing for a necessary follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based screening test.

Bad news: Looming cuts on the horizon, GI societies to take action.

The rule finalizes more than 4% in mandated Medicare physician reimbursement cuts through decreases in the conversion factor and expiration of temporary fixes passed by Congress. The CY 2023 conversion factor is $33.06, an unacceptable cut for our members. The GI societies continue to work with a coalition of national and state medical societies to urge Congress to prevent these cuts before Jan. 1, 2023.

Good news: ASC + hospital payments on the rise.

ASC payments and facility fee payments increase 3.8% for institutions that meet quality reporting requirements. The CY 2023 ASC conversion factor is $51.854 and the hospital outpatient conversion factor is $85.585.

CMS removed motility codes 91117 and 91122 from APC 5731, where their payments would have been cut 21%, and finalized their placement in APC 5722, where they get a 3% payment increase beginning Jan. 1, 2023. Thank you to the motility community for helping us secure this win.

CMS raises the hospital payment for ESD code C9779 to $3,260.69, a $765.65 increase from 2022. We continue to work with CMS on our request for separate codes for lower ESD and upper ESD and payments that better reflect their unique resource costs.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its final rules for 2023 Medicare payments.

Good news! The full CRC continuum will be covered in Medicare.

In a win for patients and thanks to our collective advocacy efforts from AGA and partner societies, CMS expanded the regulatory definition of “colorectal cancer screening tests” and will waive cost sharing for a necessary follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based screening test.

Bad news: Looming cuts on the horizon, GI societies to take action.

The rule finalizes more than 4% in mandated Medicare physician reimbursement cuts through decreases in the conversion factor and expiration of temporary fixes passed by Congress. The CY 2023 conversion factor is $33.06, an unacceptable cut for our members. The GI societies continue to work with a coalition of national and state medical societies to urge Congress to prevent these cuts before Jan. 1, 2023.

Good news: ASC + hospital payments on the rise.

ASC payments and facility fee payments increase 3.8% for institutions that meet quality reporting requirements. The CY 2023 ASC conversion factor is $51.854 and the hospital outpatient conversion factor is $85.585.

CMS removed motility codes 91117 and 91122 from APC 5731, where their payments would have been cut 21%, and finalized their placement in APC 5722, where they get a 3% payment increase beginning Jan. 1, 2023. Thank you to the motility community for helping us secure this win.

CMS raises the hospital payment for ESD code C9779 to $3,260.69, a $765.65 increase from 2022. We continue to work with CMS on our request for separate codes for lower ESD and upper ESD and payments that better reflect their unique resource costs.

AGA released new evidence-based guidelines strongly recommending patients with obesity use recently approved medications paired with lifestyle changes.

The following medications, paired with healthy eating and regular physical activity, are first-line medical options and result in moderate weight loss as noted as a percentage of body weight (reported as the difference compared to percent weight loss observed in the placebo group).

• Semaglutide (Wegovy®), weight loss percentage: 10.8%
• Phentermine-topiramate ER (Qsymia®), weight loss percentage: 8.5%
• Liraglutide (Saxenda®), weight loss percentage: 4.8%
• Naltrexone-bupropion ER (Contrave®), weight loss percentage: 3.0%

Read the AGA Clinical Guidelines on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults with Obesity for the complete recommendations.

AGA released new evidence-based guidelines strongly recommending patients with obesity use recently approved medications paired with lifestyle changes.

The following medications, paired with healthy eating and regular physical activity, are first-line medical options and result in moderate weight loss as noted as a percentage of body weight (reported as the difference compared to percent weight loss observed in the placebo group).

• Semaglutide (Wegovy®), weight loss percentage: 10.8%
• Phentermine-topiramate ER (Qsymia®), weight loss percentage: 8.5%
• Liraglutide (Saxenda®), weight loss percentage: 4.8%
• Naltrexone-bupropion ER (Contrave®), weight loss percentage: 3.0%

Read the AGA Clinical Guidelines on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults with Obesity for the complete recommendations.

AGA released new evidence-based guidelines strongly recommending patients with obesity use recently approved medications paired with lifestyle changes.

The following medications, paired with healthy eating and regular physical activity, are first-line medical options and result in moderate weight loss as noted as a percentage of body weight (reported as the difference compared to percent weight loss observed in the placebo group).

• Semaglutide (Wegovy®), weight loss percentage: 10.8%
• Phentermine-topiramate ER (Qsymia®), weight loss percentage: 8.5%
• Liraglutide (Saxenda®), weight loss percentage: 4.8%
• Naltrexone-bupropion ER (Contrave®), weight loss percentage: 3.0%

Read the AGA Clinical Guidelines on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults with Obesity for the complete recommendations.

This holiday season is a good time to reflect on our many blessings and thank those who have helped make our lives and careers worthwhile, successful, and prosperous. What better way than to pass on something to those who will ensure that gastroenterology will advance in decades to come?

Progress in this lifesaving work is made possible by the generosity of many supporters, like you, who understand the devastating physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. We simply cannot allow a slowdown in the pace of GI research, and we cannot afford to lose talent when research offers so much promise for the future.

You can make a difference to ensure the progress continues.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising young investigators who might not receive funding otherwise at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, if left unfunded, could end prematurely. That’s something the field can’t afford, and that’s why I’ve supported the AGA Research Foundation over the years through my donations.

We must maintain a robust pipeline of research that will help safeguard the success of clinical medicine. I urge you to support the future of GI with a generous donation to the AGA Research Foundation. Your investment of $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or any amount you can give today will make a difference.

Help close the gap in research funding and make a difference. Make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Thank you in advance for support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

Three easy ways to give

Online: www.gastro.org/donateonline



Through the mail:

AGA Research Foundation

4930 Del Ray Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814
 

Over the phone: 301-222-4002

Dr. Camilleri is chair of the AGA Research Foundation, past-president of the AGA Institute, and a consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

This holiday season is a good time to reflect on our many blessings and thank those who have helped make our lives and careers worthwhile, successful, and prosperous. What better way than to pass on something to those who will ensure that gastroenterology will advance in decades to come?

Progress in this lifesaving work is made possible by the generosity of many supporters, like you, who understand the devastating physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. We simply cannot allow a slowdown in the pace of GI research, and we cannot afford to lose talent when research offers so much promise for the future.

You can make a difference to ensure the progress continues.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising young investigators who might not receive funding otherwise at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, if left unfunded, could end prematurely. That’s something the field can’t afford, and that’s why I’ve supported the AGA Research Foundation over the years through my donations.

We must maintain a robust pipeline of research that will help safeguard the success of clinical medicine. I urge you to support the future of GI with a generous donation to the AGA Research Foundation. Your investment of $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or any amount you can give today will make a difference.

Help close the gap in research funding and make a difference. Make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Thank you in advance for support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

Three easy ways to give

Online: www.gastro.org/donateonline



Through the mail:

AGA Research Foundation

4930 Del Ray Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814
 

Over the phone: 301-222-4002

Dr. Camilleri is chair of the AGA Research Foundation, past-president of the AGA Institute, and a consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

This holiday season is a good time to reflect on our many blessings and thank those who have helped make our lives and careers worthwhile, successful, and prosperous. What better way than to pass on something to those who will ensure that gastroenterology will advance in decades to come?

Progress in this lifesaving work is made possible by the generosity of many supporters, like you, who understand the devastating physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. We simply cannot allow a slowdown in the pace of GI research, and we cannot afford to lose talent when research offers so much promise for the future.

You can make a difference to ensure the progress continues.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising young investigators who might not receive funding otherwise at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, if left unfunded, could end prematurely. That’s something the field can’t afford, and that’s why I’ve supported the AGA Research Foundation over the years through my donations.

We must maintain a robust pipeline of research that will help safeguard the success of clinical medicine. I urge you to support the future of GI with a generous donation to the AGA Research Foundation. Your investment of $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or any amount you can give today will make a difference.

Help close the gap in research funding and make a difference. Make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Thank you in advance for support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

Three easy ways to give

Online: www.gastro.org/donateonline



Through the mail:

AGA Research Foundation

4930 Del Ray Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814
 

Over the phone: 301-222-4002

Dr. Camilleri is chair of the AGA Research Foundation, past-president of the AGA Institute, and a consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section

VExUS scan: The missing piece of hemodynamic puzzle?

Volume status and tailoring the correct level of fluid resuscitation is challenging for the intensivist. Determining “fluid overload,” especially in the setting of acute kidney injury, can be difficult. While a Swan-Ganz catheter, central venous pressure, or inferior vena cava (IVC) ultrasound measurement can suggest elevated right atrial pressure, the effect on organ level hemodynamics is unknown.

Abdominal venous Doppler is a method to view the effects of venous pressure on abdominal organ venous flow. An application of this is the Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VExUS) (Rola, et al. Ultrasound J. 2021;13[1]:32). VExUS uses IVC diameter and pulse wave doppler waveforms from the hepatic, portal, and renal veins to grade venous congestion from none to severe. Studies demonstrate an association between venous congestion and renal dysfunction in cardiac surgery (Beaubien-Souligny, et al. Ultrasound J. 2020;12[1]:16) and general ICU patients (Spiegel, et al. Crit Care. 2020;24[1]:615).

This practice of identifying venous congestion and avoiding over-resuscitation could improve patient care. However, acquiring quality images and waveforms may prove to be difficult, and interpretation may be confounded by other disease states such as cirrhosis. Though it is postulated that removing fluid could be beneficial to patients with high VExUS scores, this has yet to be proven and may be difficult to prove. While the score estimates volume status well, the source of venous congestion is not identified such that it should be used as a clinical supplement to other data.

VExUS has a strong physiologic basis, and early clinical experience indicates a strong role in improving assessment of venous congestion, an important aspect of volume status. This is an area of ongoing research to ensure appropriate and effective use.

Kyle Swartz, DO
Fellow-in-Training

Steven Fox, MD
Fellow-in-Training

John Levasseur, DO

Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section

VExUS scan: The missing piece of hemodynamic puzzle?

Volume status and tailoring the correct level of fluid resuscitation is challenging for the intensivist. Determining “fluid overload,” especially in the setting of acute kidney injury, can be difficult. While a Swan-Ganz catheter, central venous pressure, or inferior vena cava (IVC) ultrasound measurement can suggest elevated right atrial pressure, the effect on organ level hemodynamics is unknown.

Abdominal venous Doppler is a method to view the effects of venous pressure on abdominal organ venous flow. An application of this is the Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VExUS) (Rola, et al. Ultrasound J. 2021;13[1]:32). VExUS uses IVC diameter and pulse wave doppler waveforms from the hepatic, portal, and renal veins to grade venous congestion from none to severe. Studies demonstrate an association between venous congestion and renal dysfunction in cardiac surgery (Beaubien-Souligny, et al. Ultrasound J. 2020;12[1]:16) and general ICU patients (Spiegel, et al. Crit Care. 2020;24[1]:615).

This practice of identifying venous congestion and avoiding over-resuscitation could improve patient care. However, acquiring quality images and waveforms may prove to be difficult, and interpretation may be confounded by other disease states such as cirrhosis. Though it is postulated that removing fluid could be beneficial to patients with high VExUS scores, this has yet to be proven and may be difficult to prove. While the score estimates volume status well, the source of venous congestion is not identified such that it should be used as a clinical supplement to other data.

VExUS has a strong physiologic basis, and early clinical experience indicates a strong role in improving assessment of venous congestion, an important aspect of volume status. This is an area of ongoing research to ensure appropriate and effective use.

Kyle Swartz, DO
Fellow-in-Training

Steven Fox, MD
Fellow-in-Training

John Levasseur, DO

Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section

VExUS scan: The missing piece of hemodynamic puzzle?

Volume status and tailoring the correct level of fluid resuscitation is challenging for the intensivist. Determining “fluid overload,” especially in the setting of acute kidney injury, can be difficult. While a Swan-Ganz catheter, central venous pressure, or inferior vena cava (IVC) ultrasound measurement can suggest elevated right atrial pressure, the effect on organ level hemodynamics is unknown.

Abdominal venous Doppler is a method to view the effects of venous pressure on abdominal organ venous flow. An application of this is the Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VExUS) (Rola, et al. Ultrasound J. 2021;13[1]:32). VExUS uses IVC diameter and pulse wave doppler waveforms from the hepatic, portal, and renal veins to grade venous congestion from none to severe. Studies demonstrate an association between venous congestion and renal dysfunction in cardiac surgery (Beaubien-Souligny, et al. Ultrasound J. 2020;12[1]:16) and general ICU patients (Spiegel, et al. Crit Care. 2020;24[1]:615).

This practice of identifying venous congestion and avoiding over-resuscitation could improve patient care. However, acquiring quality images and waveforms may prove to be difficult, and interpretation may be confounded by other disease states such as cirrhosis. Though it is postulated that removing fluid could be beneficial to patients with high VExUS scores, this has yet to be proven and may be difficult to prove. While the score estimates volume status well, the source of venous congestion is not identified such that it should be used as a clinical supplement to other data.

VExUS has a strong physiologic basis, and early clinical experience indicates a strong role in improving assessment of venous congestion, an important aspect of volume status. This is an area of ongoing research to ensure appropriate and effective use.

Kyle Swartz, DO
Fellow-in-Training

Steven Fox, MD
Fellow-in-Training

John Levasseur, DO

Sepsis/Shock Section

Fluid Resuscitation – Back to BaSICS

The age-old debate regarding the appropriate timing, volume, and type of fluid resuscitation for patients in septic shock rages on – or does it? In October 2021, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines for the management of sepsis. One of the biggest changes from prior versions was downgrading the recommendation for an initial 30mL/kg bolus of IV crystalloid for the initial resuscitation of a patient in septic shock to a suggestion, based on dynamic measures to assess individual patients’ fluid balance (Evans, et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:e1063-e1143).

Courtesy CHEST

Traditionally, 0.9% saline had been the resuscitative fluid of choice in sepsis. But it has a propensity to cause physiologic derangements such as hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, renal afferent vasoconstriction, and reduced glomerular filtration rate – not to mention, can be a signal for possibly increased mortality, as seen in the SMART trial (Semler, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378[9]:829-839). Normal saline had subsequently fallen from grace in favor of balanced crystalloids such as Lactated Ringer’s and Plasma-Lyte. However, the recent PLUS and BaSICS trials showed no significant difference in 90-day mortality or secondary outcomes of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or ICU mortality (Finfer, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[9]:815-826; Zampieri, et al. JAMA. 2021;326[9]:818-829). While these are large randomized controlled trials, a major weakness is the administration of uncontrolled resuscitative fluids prior to randomization and even postenrollment, which may have biased results.

Ultimately, does the choice between salt water or balanced crystalloids matter? Despite the limitations in the newest trials, probably less than the timely administration of antibiotics and pressors, unless your patient also has a traumatic TBI – then go with the saline. But, in the everlasting quest for medical excellence, choosing the balanced fluid that causes the least physiologic derangement seems to make the most sense.

LCDR Meredith Olsen, MD, USN
Fellow-in-Training

Ankita Agarwal, MD
Fellow-in-Training

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Sepsis/Shock Section

Fluid Resuscitation – Back to BaSICS

The age-old debate regarding the appropriate timing, volume, and type of fluid resuscitation for patients in septic shock rages on – or does it? In October 2021, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines for the management of sepsis. One of the biggest changes from prior versions was downgrading the recommendation for an initial 30mL/kg bolus of IV crystalloid for the initial resuscitation of a patient in septic shock to a suggestion, based on dynamic measures to assess individual patients’ fluid balance (Evans, et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:e1063-e1143).

Courtesy CHEST

Traditionally, 0.9% saline had been the resuscitative fluid of choice in sepsis. But it has a propensity to cause physiologic derangements such as hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, renal afferent vasoconstriction, and reduced glomerular filtration rate – not to mention, can be a signal for possibly increased mortality, as seen in the SMART trial (Semler, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378[9]:829-839). Normal saline had subsequently fallen from grace in favor of balanced crystalloids such as Lactated Ringer’s and Plasma-Lyte. However, the recent PLUS and BaSICS trials showed no significant difference in 90-day mortality or secondary outcomes of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or ICU mortality (Finfer, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[9]:815-826; Zampieri, et al. JAMA. 2021;326[9]:818-829). While these are large randomized controlled trials, a major weakness is the administration of uncontrolled resuscitative fluids prior to randomization and even postenrollment, which may have biased results.

Ultimately, does the choice between salt water or balanced crystalloids matter? Despite the limitations in the newest trials, probably less than the timely administration of antibiotics and pressors, unless your patient also has a traumatic TBI – then go with the saline. But, in the everlasting quest for medical excellence, choosing the balanced fluid that causes the least physiologic derangement seems to make the most sense.

LCDR Meredith Olsen, MD, USN
Fellow-in-Training

Ankita Agarwal, MD
Fellow-in-Training

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Sepsis/Shock Section

Fluid Resuscitation – Back to BaSICS

The age-old debate regarding the appropriate timing, volume, and type of fluid resuscitation for patients in septic shock rages on – or does it? In October 2021, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines for the management of sepsis. One of the biggest changes from prior versions was downgrading the recommendation for an initial 30mL/kg bolus of IV crystalloid for the initial resuscitation of a patient in septic shock to a suggestion, based on dynamic measures to assess individual patients’ fluid balance (Evans, et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:e1063-e1143).

Courtesy CHEST

Traditionally, 0.9% saline had been the resuscitative fluid of choice in sepsis. But it has a propensity to cause physiologic derangements such as hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, renal afferent vasoconstriction, and reduced glomerular filtration rate – not to mention, can be a signal for possibly increased mortality, as seen in the SMART trial (Semler, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378[9]:829-839). Normal saline had subsequently fallen from grace in favor of balanced crystalloids such as Lactated Ringer’s and Plasma-Lyte. However, the recent PLUS and BaSICS trials showed no significant difference in 90-day mortality or secondary outcomes of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or ICU mortality (Finfer, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[9]:815-826; Zampieri, et al. JAMA. 2021;326[9]:818-829). While these are large randomized controlled trials, a major weakness is the administration of uncontrolled resuscitative fluids prior to randomization and even postenrollment, which may have biased results.

Ultimately, does the choice between salt water or balanced crystalloids matter? Despite the limitations in the newest trials, probably less than the timely administration of antibiotics and pressors, unless your patient also has a traumatic TBI – then go with the saline. But, in the everlasting quest for medical excellence, choosing the balanced fluid that causes the least physiologic derangement seems to make the most sense.

LCDR Meredith Olsen, MD, USN
Fellow-in-Training

Ankita Agarwal, MD
Fellow-in-Training

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.