Opinion

Physician and advanced practice provider (APP) (collectively, “provider”) onboarding into health care delivery settings requires careful planning and systematic integration. Assimilation into health care settings and cultures necessitates more than a 1- or 2-day orientation. Rather, an intentional, longitudinal onboarding program (starting with orientation) needs to be designed to assimilate providers into the unique culture of a medical practice.

Establishing mutual expectations

Communication concerning mutual expectations is a vital component of the agreement between provider and practice. Items that should be included in provider onboarding (likely addressed in either the practice visit or amplified in a contract) include the following:

• Committees: Committee orientation should include a discussion of provider preferences/expectations and why getting the new provider involved in the business of the practice is a priority of the group.
• Operations: Key clinical operations details should be reviewed with the incoming provider and reinforced through follow-up discussions with a physician mentor/coach (for example, call distribution; role of the senior nonclinical leadership team/accountants, fellow practice/group partners, and IT support; role definitions and expectations for duties, transitioning call, and EHR charting; revenue-sharing; supplies/preferences/adaptability to scope type).
• Interests: Specific provider interests (for example, clinical research, infusion, hemorrhoidal banding, weight loss/nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel disease, pathology) and productivity expectations (for example, number of procedures, number of new and return patient visits per day) should be communicated.
• Miscellaneous: Discussion about marketing the practice, importance of growing satellite programs and nuance of major referral groups to the practice are also key components of the assimilation process.

Leadership self-awareness and cultural alignment

Leadership self-awareness is a key element of provider onboarding. Physicians and APPs are trained to think independently and may be challenged to share decision-making and rely on others. The following are some no-cost self-assessment and awareness resources:

• Myers-Briggs Personality Profile Preferences:
• VIA Strengths:
• VARK Analysis:

Cultural alignment is also a critical consideration to ensure orderly assimilation into the practice/health care setting and with stakeholders. A shared commitment to embed a culture with shared values has relevance to merging cultures – not only when organizations come together – but with individuals as well. Time spent developing a better understanding of the customs, culture and traditions of the practice will be helpful if a practice must change its trajectory based on meeting an unmovable obstruction (for example, market forces requiring practice consolidation).

Improved quality

Transitioning a new provider into an existing practice culture can have a ripple effect on support staff and patient satisfaction and is, therefore, an important consideration in provider onboarding. Written standards, procedures, expectations, and practices are always advisable when possible. Attention to the demographics of the recruited physician is also important with shifts in interests and priorities from a practice. Millennials will constitute most of the workforce by 2025 and arrive with a mindset that the tenure in a role will be shorter than providers before them. Accordingly, the intentionality of the relationship is critical for successful bonding.

If current physician leaders want to achieve simultaneous succession planning and maintain the legacy of a patient-centric and resilient practice, these leaders must consider bridging the “cultural knowledge acumen gap.” James S. Hernandez, MD, MS, FCAP, and colleagues suggest a “connector” role between new and experienced providers. Reverse mentoring/distance/reciprocal mentoring is also mentioned as a two-way learning process between mentor and mentee.
 

Process structure considerations

Each new hire affects the culture of the practice. Best practices for the onboarding and orientation process should be followed. A written project master list with a timeline for completion of onboarding tasks with responsible and accountable persons, target dates for completion, and measurement should be established. Establishing mutual expectations up front can help practices tailor committee roles and clinical responsibilities to maximize provider engagement and longevity. A robust onboarding process may take up to 2 years depending on the size of the practice and the complexity of its structure and associated duties.

Desired outcomes

The desired outcome of the onboarding process is a satisfied provider whose passion and enthusiasm for quality patient care is demonstrated objectively through excellent performance on clinical quality measures and metrics of patient and referral source satisfaction.

Periodic reviews of how the onboarding process is progressing should be undertaken. These reviews can be modeled after the After-Action Review (AAR) process used in the military for measuring progress. Simply stated, what items went well with onboarding and why? What items did not go well with onboarding and why not? (Consider something like the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ “5 Whys” assessment to determine root cause for items that need correction.) What elements of the onboarding process could be further improved? Using a Delphi method during the AAR session is an excellent way for the group to hear from all participants ranging from senior partners to recently recruited providers.
 

Conclusion

Medical practices must recognize that assimilating a new provider into the practice through a robust onboarding process is not lost effort but rather a force multiplier. Effective provider onboarding gives the incoming provider a sense of purpose and resolve, which results in optimized clinical productivity and engagement because the new provider is invested in the future of the practice. Once successfully onboarded and integrated into the practice, new providers need to understand that the work effort invested in their onboarding comes with a “pay it forward” obligation for the next provider recruited by the group. Group members also need to realize that the baseline is always changing–the provider onboarding process needs to continually evolve and adapt as the practice changes and new providers are hired.

Mr. Rudnick is a visiting professor and program director healthcare quality, innovation, and strategy at St Thomas University, Miami. Mr. Turner is regional vice president for the Midatlantic market of Covenant Physician Partners.

References

“Best practices for onboarding physicians.” The Rheumatologist. 2019 Sep 17. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/best-practices-for-onboarding-new-physicians/

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Five Whys Tool for Root Cause Analysis: QAPI. 2021. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/provider-enrollment-and-certification/qapi/downloads/fivewhys.pdf.

DeIuliis ET, Saylor E. Open J Occup Ther. 2021;9(1):1-13. 

Hernandez JS et al. “Discussion: Mentoring millennials for future leadership.” Physician Leadership Journal. 2018 May 14. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.physicianleaders.org/news/discussion-mentoring-millennials-future-leadership

Moore L et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Jun;78(6):1168-75..

Klein CJ et al. West J Nurs Res. 2021 Feb;43(2):105-114.

Weinburger T, Gordon J. Health Prog. Nov-Dec 2013;94(6):76-9.

Wentlandt K et al. Healthc Q. 2016;18(4):36-41.
 

Physician and advanced practice provider (APP) (collectively, “provider”) onboarding into health care delivery settings requires careful planning and systematic integration. Assimilation into health care settings and cultures necessitates more than a 1- or 2-day orientation. Rather, an intentional, longitudinal onboarding program (starting with orientation) needs to be designed to assimilate providers into the unique culture of a medical practice.

Establishing mutual expectations

Communication concerning mutual expectations is a vital component of the agreement between provider and practice. Items that should be included in provider onboarding (likely addressed in either the practice visit or amplified in a contract) include the following:

• Committees: Committee orientation should include a discussion of provider preferences/expectations and why getting the new provider involved in the business of the practice is a priority of the group.
• Operations: Key clinical operations details should be reviewed with the incoming provider and reinforced through follow-up discussions with a physician mentor/coach (for example, call distribution; role of the senior nonclinical leadership team/accountants, fellow practice/group partners, and IT support; role definitions and expectations for duties, transitioning call, and EHR charting; revenue-sharing; supplies/preferences/adaptability to scope type).
• Interests: Specific provider interests (for example, clinical research, infusion, hemorrhoidal banding, weight loss/nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel disease, pathology) and productivity expectations (for example, number of procedures, number of new and return patient visits per day) should be communicated.
• Miscellaneous: Discussion about marketing the practice, importance of growing satellite programs and nuance of major referral groups to the practice are also key components of the assimilation process.

Leadership self-awareness and cultural alignment

Leadership self-awareness is a key element of provider onboarding. Physicians and APPs are trained to think independently and may be challenged to share decision-making and rely on others. The following are some no-cost self-assessment and awareness resources:

• Myers-Briggs Personality Profile Preferences:
• VIA Strengths:
• VARK Analysis:

Cultural alignment is also a critical consideration to ensure orderly assimilation into the practice/health care setting and with stakeholders. A shared commitment to embed a culture with shared values has relevance to merging cultures – not only when organizations come together – but with individuals as well. Time spent developing a better understanding of the customs, culture and traditions of the practice will be helpful if a practice must change its trajectory based on meeting an unmovable obstruction (for example, market forces requiring practice consolidation).

Improved quality

Transitioning a new provider into an existing practice culture can have a ripple effect on support staff and patient satisfaction and is, therefore, an important consideration in provider onboarding. Written standards, procedures, expectations, and practices are always advisable when possible. Attention to the demographics of the recruited physician is also important with shifts in interests and priorities from a practice. Millennials will constitute most of the workforce by 2025 and arrive with a mindset that the tenure in a role will be shorter than providers before them. Accordingly, the intentionality of the relationship is critical for successful bonding.

If current physician leaders want to achieve simultaneous succession planning and maintain the legacy of a patient-centric and resilient practice, these leaders must consider bridging the “cultural knowledge acumen gap.” James S. Hernandez, MD, MS, FCAP, and colleagues suggest a “connector” role between new and experienced providers. Reverse mentoring/distance/reciprocal mentoring is also mentioned as a two-way learning process between mentor and mentee.
 

Process structure considerations

Each new hire affects the culture of the practice. Best practices for the onboarding and orientation process should be followed. A written project master list with a timeline for completion of onboarding tasks with responsible and accountable persons, target dates for completion, and measurement should be established. Establishing mutual expectations up front can help practices tailor committee roles and clinical responsibilities to maximize provider engagement and longevity. A robust onboarding process may take up to 2 years depending on the size of the practice and the complexity of its structure and associated duties.

Desired outcomes

The desired outcome of the onboarding process is a satisfied provider whose passion and enthusiasm for quality patient care is demonstrated objectively through excellent performance on clinical quality measures and metrics of patient and referral source satisfaction.

Periodic reviews of how the onboarding process is progressing should be undertaken. These reviews can be modeled after the After-Action Review (AAR) process used in the military for measuring progress. Simply stated, what items went well with onboarding and why? What items did not go well with onboarding and why not? (Consider something like the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ “5 Whys” assessment to determine root cause for items that need correction.) What elements of the onboarding process could be further improved? Using a Delphi method during the AAR session is an excellent way for the group to hear from all participants ranging from senior partners to recently recruited providers.
 

Conclusion

Medical practices must recognize that assimilating a new provider into the practice through a robust onboarding process is not lost effort but rather a force multiplier. Effective provider onboarding gives the incoming provider a sense of purpose and resolve, which results in optimized clinical productivity and engagement because the new provider is invested in the future of the practice. Once successfully onboarded and integrated into the practice, new providers need to understand that the work effort invested in their onboarding comes with a “pay it forward” obligation for the next provider recruited by the group. Group members also need to realize that the baseline is always changing–the provider onboarding process needs to continually evolve and adapt as the practice changes and new providers are hired.

Mr. Rudnick is a visiting professor and program director healthcare quality, innovation, and strategy at St Thomas University, Miami. Mr. Turner is regional vice president for the Midatlantic market of Covenant Physician Partners.

References

“Best practices for onboarding physicians.” The Rheumatologist. 2019 Sep 17. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/best-practices-for-onboarding-new-physicians/

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Five Whys Tool for Root Cause Analysis: QAPI. 2021. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/provider-enrollment-and-certification/qapi/downloads/fivewhys.pdf.

DeIuliis ET, Saylor E. Open J Occup Ther. 2021;9(1):1-13. 

Hernandez JS et al. “Discussion: Mentoring millennials for future leadership.” Physician Leadership Journal. 2018 May 14. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.physicianleaders.org/news/discussion-mentoring-millennials-future-leadership

Moore L et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Jun;78(6):1168-75..

Klein CJ et al. West J Nurs Res. 2021 Feb;43(2):105-114.

Weinburger T, Gordon J. Health Prog. Nov-Dec 2013;94(6):76-9.

Wentlandt K et al. Healthc Q. 2016;18(4):36-41.
 

Physician and advanced practice provider (APP) (collectively, “provider”) onboarding into health care delivery settings requires careful planning and systematic integration. Assimilation into health care settings and cultures necessitates more than a 1- or 2-day orientation. Rather, an intentional, longitudinal onboarding program (starting with orientation) needs to be designed to assimilate providers into the unique culture of a medical practice.

Establishing mutual expectations

Communication concerning mutual expectations is a vital component of the agreement between provider and practice. Items that should be included in provider onboarding (likely addressed in either the practice visit or amplified in a contract) include the following:

• Committees: Committee orientation should include a discussion of provider preferences/expectations and why getting the new provider involved in the business of the practice is a priority of the group.
• Operations: Key clinical operations details should be reviewed with the incoming provider and reinforced through follow-up discussions with a physician mentor/coach (for example, call distribution; role of the senior nonclinical leadership team/accountants, fellow practice/group partners, and IT support; role definitions and expectations for duties, transitioning call, and EHR charting; revenue-sharing; supplies/preferences/adaptability to scope type).
• Interests: Specific provider interests (for example, clinical research, infusion, hemorrhoidal banding, weight loss/nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel disease, pathology) and productivity expectations (for example, number of procedures, number of new and return patient visits per day) should be communicated.
• Miscellaneous: Discussion about marketing the practice, importance of growing satellite programs and nuance of major referral groups to the practice are also key components of the assimilation process.

Leadership self-awareness and cultural alignment

Leadership self-awareness is a key element of provider onboarding. Physicians and APPs are trained to think independently and may be challenged to share decision-making and rely on others. The following are some no-cost self-assessment and awareness resources:

• Myers-Briggs Personality Profile Preferences:
• VIA Strengths:
• VARK Analysis:

Cultural alignment is also a critical consideration to ensure orderly assimilation into the practice/health care setting and with stakeholders. A shared commitment to embed a culture with shared values has relevance to merging cultures – not only when organizations come together – but with individuals as well. Time spent developing a better understanding of the customs, culture and traditions of the practice will be helpful if a practice must change its trajectory based on meeting an unmovable obstruction (for example, market forces requiring practice consolidation).

Improved quality

Transitioning a new provider into an existing practice culture can have a ripple effect on support staff and patient satisfaction and is, therefore, an important consideration in provider onboarding. Written standards, procedures, expectations, and practices are always advisable when possible. Attention to the demographics of the recruited physician is also important with shifts in interests and priorities from a practice. Millennials will constitute most of the workforce by 2025 and arrive with a mindset that the tenure in a role will be shorter than providers before them. Accordingly, the intentionality of the relationship is critical for successful bonding.

If current physician leaders want to achieve simultaneous succession planning and maintain the legacy of a patient-centric and resilient practice, these leaders must consider bridging the “cultural knowledge acumen gap.” James S. Hernandez, MD, MS, FCAP, and colleagues suggest a “connector” role between new and experienced providers. Reverse mentoring/distance/reciprocal mentoring is also mentioned as a two-way learning process between mentor and mentee.
 

Process structure considerations

Each new hire affects the culture of the practice. Best practices for the onboarding and orientation process should be followed. A written project master list with a timeline for completion of onboarding tasks with responsible and accountable persons, target dates for completion, and measurement should be established. Establishing mutual expectations up front can help practices tailor committee roles and clinical responsibilities to maximize provider engagement and longevity. A robust onboarding process may take up to 2 years depending on the size of the practice and the complexity of its structure and associated duties.

Desired outcomes

The desired outcome of the onboarding process is a satisfied provider whose passion and enthusiasm for quality patient care is demonstrated objectively through excellent performance on clinical quality measures and metrics of patient and referral source satisfaction.

Periodic reviews of how the onboarding process is progressing should be undertaken. These reviews can be modeled after the After-Action Review (AAR) process used in the military for measuring progress. Simply stated, what items went well with onboarding and why? What items did not go well with onboarding and why not? (Consider something like the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ “5 Whys” assessment to determine root cause for items that need correction.) What elements of the onboarding process could be further improved? Using a Delphi method during the AAR session is an excellent way for the group to hear from all participants ranging from senior partners to recently recruited providers.
 

Conclusion

Medical practices must recognize that assimilating a new provider into the practice through a robust onboarding process is not lost effort but rather a force multiplier. Effective provider onboarding gives the incoming provider a sense of purpose and resolve, which results in optimized clinical productivity and engagement because the new provider is invested in the future of the practice. Once successfully onboarded and integrated into the practice, new providers need to understand that the work effort invested in their onboarding comes with a “pay it forward” obligation for the next provider recruited by the group. Group members also need to realize that the baseline is always changing–the provider onboarding process needs to continually evolve and adapt as the practice changes and new providers are hired.

Mr. Rudnick is a visiting professor and program director healthcare quality, innovation, and strategy at St Thomas University, Miami. Mr. Turner is regional vice president for the Midatlantic market of Covenant Physician Partners.

References

“Best practices for onboarding physicians.” The Rheumatologist. 2019 Sep 17. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/best-practices-for-onboarding-new-physicians/

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Five Whys Tool for Root Cause Analysis: QAPI. 2021. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/provider-enrollment-and-certification/qapi/downloads/fivewhys.pdf.

DeIuliis ET, Saylor E. Open J Occup Ther. 2021;9(1):1-13. 

Hernandez JS et al. “Discussion: Mentoring millennials for future leadership.” Physician Leadership Journal. 2018 May 14. Accessed 2021 Sep 6. https://www.physicianleaders.org/news/discussion-mentoring-millennials-future-leadership

Moore L et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Jun;78(6):1168-75..

Klein CJ et al. West J Nurs Res. 2021 Feb;43(2):105-114.

Weinburger T, Gordon J. Health Prog. Nov-Dec 2013;94(6):76-9.

Wentlandt K et al. Healthc Q. 2016;18(4):36-41.
 

On Sept. 1, Texas enacted astonishing legislation that effectively bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. In addition, it further empowers private citizens to sue anyone “aiding and abetting” patients who seek abortion services. Many organizations, including Planned Parenthood and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have issued formalized statements condemning the bill. While we as obstetrician/gynecologists try to remain as nonpartisan as humanly possible in our patient care, unfortunately our specialty is inarguably one of the few in the medical field that is routinely significantly affected by federal and state politics.

It is no secret that Texas Senate Bill 8, otherwise referred to the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” will have devastating consequences for women, particularly women of color, but it will also have potentially catastrophic repercussions for patients who identify as LGBTQ. Overall, the LGBTQ population faces higher rates of poverty, unemployment, insurance coverage barriers, and provider discrimination because of their gender identity or sexual orientation, which can make access to abortion services challenging. Furthermore, they are more susceptible to hate-motivated violence and sexual assault and as a result, may seek to terminate pregnancies that result from these traumatic experiences.

A survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examining rates of intimate partner violence and sexual violence found that 44% of lesbians and 61% of bisexual women experience rape and physical violence, compared with 35% of straight women.¹ A separate survey revealed that 47% of transgender people are sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime, with rates reaching as high as 65% among transgender people of color.² Furthermore, many members of the LGBTQ population are misinformed or have misconceptions regarding their need for contraceptives and experience unintended pregnancies. As discussed in a previous column, one-third of pregnancies in transgender men were unplanned, and 20% of those patients were amenorrheic on testosterone at the time of conception.³

Current studies estimate that approximately 25% of all cisgender women will have an abortion. No corresponding data exist to describe the abortion rates of transgender and gender diverse patients.^4,5 Bills such as Texas SB8 make accessing safe abortions for patients virtually impossible and interferes with the ability for physicians to provide patients with much needed health care services. It further delegitimizes rape and incest victims and is almost punitive in requiring such victims to carry the unintended pregnancies resulting from these heinous acts to term.

Regardless of a provider’s feelings toward abortion or even gender-affirming care, it is undeniable that access to these services is necessary and should be readily available to patients seeking them. As we all took an oath in medical school to “do no harm,” we must not only abide by that solemn decree in everyday patient interactions, but also live by those words to advocate for our patients when politics prohibit appropriate care. While discussions surrounding abortion are often limited to cisgender, heterosexual patients, providers must also be aware that abortion access spans across a wider spectrum that includes the LGBTQ community. Our patients, and all patients, deserve equal access to abortion. This harmful law sets a dangerous precedent that could continue to threaten these services with detrimental effects to our patients.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

2. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

3. Abern L, Maguire K. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131:65S.

4. Jones RK et al. Abortion incidence and service availability in the Unites States, 2017. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute: 2019.

5. Moseson H et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:376.e1-11.

On Sept. 1, Texas enacted astonishing legislation that effectively bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. In addition, it further empowers private citizens to sue anyone “aiding and abetting” patients who seek abortion services. Many organizations, including Planned Parenthood and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have issued formalized statements condemning the bill. While we as obstetrician/gynecologists try to remain as nonpartisan as humanly possible in our patient care, unfortunately our specialty is inarguably one of the few in the medical field that is routinely significantly affected by federal and state politics.

It is no secret that Texas Senate Bill 8, otherwise referred to the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” will have devastating consequences for women, particularly women of color, but it will also have potentially catastrophic repercussions for patients who identify as LGBTQ. Overall, the LGBTQ population faces higher rates of poverty, unemployment, insurance coverage barriers, and provider discrimination because of their gender identity or sexual orientation, which can make access to abortion services challenging. Furthermore, they are more susceptible to hate-motivated violence and sexual assault and as a result, may seek to terminate pregnancies that result from these traumatic experiences.

A survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examining rates of intimate partner violence and sexual violence found that 44% of lesbians and 61% of bisexual women experience rape and physical violence, compared with 35% of straight women.¹ A separate survey revealed that 47% of transgender people are sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime, with rates reaching as high as 65% among transgender people of color.² Furthermore, many members of the LGBTQ population are misinformed or have misconceptions regarding their need for contraceptives and experience unintended pregnancies. As discussed in a previous column, one-third of pregnancies in transgender men were unplanned, and 20% of those patients were amenorrheic on testosterone at the time of conception.³

Current studies estimate that approximately 25% of all cisgender women will have an abortion. No corresponding data exist to describe the abortion rates of transgender and gender diverse patients.^4,5 Bills such as Texas SB8 make accessing safe abortions for patients virtually impossible and interferes with the ability for physicians to provide patients with much needed health care services. It further delegitimizes rape and incest victims and is almost punitive in requiring such victims to carry the unintended pregnancies resulting from these heinous acts to term.

Regardless of a provider’s feelings toward abortion or even gender-affirming care, it is undeniable that access to these services is necessary and should be readily available to patients seeking them. As we all took an oath in medical school to “do no harm,” we must not only abide by that solemn decree in everyday patient interactions, but also live by those words to advocate for our patients when politics prohibit appropriate care. While discussions surrounding abortion are often limited to cisgender, heterosexual patients, providers must also be aware that abortion access spans across a wider spectrum that includes the LGBTQ community. Our patients, and all patients, deserve equal access to abortion. This harmful law sets a dangerous precedent that could continue to threaten these services with detrimental effects to our patients.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

2. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

3. Abern L, Maguire K. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131:65S.

4. Jones RK et al. Abortion incidence and service availability in the Unites States, 2017. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute: 2019.

5. Moseson H et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:376.e1-11.

On Sept. 1, Texas enacted astonishing legislation that effectively bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. In addition, it further empowers private citizens to sue anyone “aiding and abetting” patients who seek abortion services. Many organizations, including Planned Parenthood and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have issued formalized statements condemning the bill. While we as obstetrician/gynecologists try to remain as nonpartisan as humanly possible in our patient care, unfortunately our specialty is inarguably one of the few in the medical field that is routinely significantly affected by federal and state politics.

It is no secret that Texas Senate Bill 8, otherwise referred to the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” will have devastating consequences for women, particularly women of color, but it will also have potentially catastrophic repercussions for patients who identify as LGBTQ. Overall, the LGBTQ population faces higher rates of poverty, unemployment, insurance coverage barriers, and provider discrimination because of their gender identity or sexual orientation, which can make access to abortion services challenging. Furthermore, they are more susceptible to hate-motivated violence and sexual assault and as a result, may seek to terminate pregnancies that result from these traumatic experiences.

A survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examining rates of intimate partner violence and sexual violence found that 44% of lesbians and 61% of bisexual women experience rape and physical violence, compared with 35% of straight women.¹ A separate survey revealed that 47% of transgender people are sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime, with rates reaching as high as 65% among transgender people of color.² Furthermore, many members of the LGBTQ population are misinformed or have misconceptions regarding their need for contraceptives and experience unintended pregnancies. As discussed in a previous column, one-third of pregnancies in transgender men were unplanned, and 20% of those patients were amenorrheic on testosterone at the time of conception.³

Current studies estimate that approximately 25% of all cisgender women will have an abortion. No corresponding data exist to describe the abortion rates of transgender and gender diverse patients.^4,5 Bills such as Texas SB8 make accessing safe abortions for patients virtually impossible and interferes with the ability for physicians to provide patients with much needed health care services. It further delegitimizes rape and incest victims and is almost punitive in requiring such victims to carry the unintended pregnancies resulting from these heinous acts to term.

Regardless of a provider’s feelings toward abortion or even gender-affirming care, it is undeniable that access to these services is necessary and should be readily available to patients seeking them. As we all took an oath in medical school to “do no harm,” we must not only abide by that solemn decree in everyday patient interactions, but also live by those words to advocate for our patients when politics prohibit appropriate care. While discussions surrounding abortion are often limited to cisgender, heterosexual patients, providers must also be aware that abortion access spans across a wider spectrum that includes the LGBTQ community. Our patients, and all patients, deserve equal access to abortion. This harmful law sets a dangerous precedent that could continue to threaten these services with detrimental effects to our patients.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

2. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

3. Abern L, Maguire K. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131:65S.

4. Jones RK et al. Abortion incidence and service availability in the Unites States, 2017. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute: 2019.

5. Moseson H et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:376.e1-11.

Soccer is the most popular sport on Earth.

A recent JAMA Neurology article noted the incidence of neurodegenerative disease in retired professional soccer players. It found that, not surprisingly, the frequency of such was higher than in the general population, highest amongst defenders and lowest in goalkeepers (presumably because the latter can use their hands).

The point here shouldn’t surprise anyone: Repeatedly hitting your head on solid objects is a bad idea.

Somewhere, a long time ago, early vertebrates developed a bony case to protect their centralized nervous system. Its success is shown by the fact that skulls and spinal cords among vertebrates have more similarities than differences: They work. It’s true that some ungulates use their heads to fight, but their skulls are adapted for such, being thicker and having horns and antlers to lessen the impacts.

But humans? Nope. The skull can support up to nine tons of (slowly-applied) weight (don’t try this at home) but repeated impacts aren’t good for its contents.

There is no degree of external protection that will prevent this, either. We talk about helmets, but the reality is that, while they definitely reduce exterior injuries, they do very little to prevent the effects of rapid acceleration/deceleration on the brain inside. This is what results in concussions, coup & contra-coup injuries, and the shearing effects of diffuse axonal injury.

I’m not saying we should ban soccer, or football, or any of the other activities that clearly have a high risk of repeated head trauma. They’re ingrained into the cultures of our societies.

At this point it’s pretty much impossible for participants and their family members to not be aware of the risks posed by these sports. The popular press has covered it in great detail.

At some point there’s only so much you can warn people about. Like tobacco smoking or riding without a helmet, you accept the risks, fully aware of the serious potential consequences. For those who wish to participate, it’s their decision.

But it’s also time to stop blinding ourselves to the simple facts. Repeated head injuries can have serious repercussions. Minimizing them, pointing out their delayed onset, and turning a blind eye won’t change that.

If we’re going to continue enjoying contact sports, we have to accept that someone is going to pay the price for it, even if they’ve been forewarned. And no amount of protective gear, at today’s technology, is going to change that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Soccer is the most popular sport on Earth.

A recent JAMA Neurology article noted the incidence of neurodegenerative disease in retired professional soccer players. It found that, not surprisingly, the frequency of such was higher than in the general population, highest amongst defenders and lowest in goalkeepers (presumably because the latter can use their hands).

The point here shouldn’t surprise anyone: Repeatedly hitting your head on solid objects is a bad idea.

Somewhere, a long time ago, early vertebrates developed a bony case to protect their centralized nervous system. Its success is shown by the fact that skulls and spinal cords among vertebrates have more similarities than differences: They work. It’s true that some ungulates use their heads to fight, but their skulls are adapted for such, being thicker and having horns and antlers to lessen the impacts.

But humans? Nope. The skull can support up to nine tons of (slowly-applied) weight (don’t try this at home) but repeated impacts aren’t good for its contents.

There is no degree of external protection that will prevent this, either. We talk about helmets, but the reality is that, while they definitely reduce exterior injuries, they do very little to prevent the effects of rapid acceleration/deceleration on the brain inside. This is what results in concussions, coup & contra-coup injuries, and the shearing effects of diffuse axonal injury.

I’m not saying we should ban soccer, or football, or any of the other activities that clearly have a high risk of repeated head trauma. They’re ingrained into the cultures of our societies.

At this point it’s pretty much impossible for participants and their family members to not be aware of the risks posed by these sports. The popular press has covered it in great detail.

At some point there’s only so much you can warn people about. Like tobacco smoking or riding without a helmet, you accept the risks, fully aware of the serious potential consequences. For those who wish to participate, it’s their decision.

But it’s also time to stop blinding ourselves to the simple facts. Repeated head injuries can have serious repercussions. Minimizing them, pointing out their delayed onset, and turning a blind eye won’t change that.

If we’re going to continue enjoying contact sports, we have to accept that someone is going to pay the price for it, even if they’ve been forewarned. And no amount of protective gear, at today’s technology, is going to change that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Soccer is the most popular sport on Earth.

A recent JAMA Neurology article noted the incidence of neurodegenerative disease in retired professional soccer players. It found that, not surprisingly, the frequency of such was higher than in the general population, highest amongst defenders and lowest in goalkeepers (presumably because the latter can use their hands).

The point here shouldn’t surprise anyone: Repeatedly hitting your head on solid objects is a bad idea.

Somewhere, a long time ago, early vertebrates developed a bony case to protect their centralized nervous system. Its success is shown by the fact that skulls and spinal cords among vertebrates have more similarities than differences: They work. It’s true that some ungulates use their heads to fight, but their skulls are adapted for such, being thicker and having horns and antlers to lessen the impacts.

But humans? Nope. The skull can support up to nine tons of (slowly-applied) weight (don’t try this at home) but repeated impacts aren’t good for its contents.

There is no degree of external protection that will prevent this, either. We talk about helmets, but the reality is that, while they definitely reduce exterior injuries, they do very little to prevent the effects of rapid acceleration/deceleration on the brain inside. This is what results in concussions, coup & contra-coup injuries, and the shearing effects of diffuse axonal injury.

I’m not saying we should ban soccer, or football, or any of the other activities that clearly have a high risk of repeated head trauma. They’re ingrained into the cultures of our societies.

At this point it’s pretty much impossible for participants and their family members to not be aware of the risks posed by these sports. The popular press has covered it in great detail.

At some point there’s only so much you can warn people about. Like tobacco smoking or riding without a helmet, you accept the risks, fully aware of the serious potential consequences. For those who wish to participate, it’s their decision.

But it’s also time to stop blinding ourselves to the simple facts. Repeated head injuries can have serious repercussions. Minimizing them, pointing out their delayed onset, and turning a blind eye won’t change that.

If we’re going to continue enjoying contact sports, we have to accept that someone is going to pay the price for it, even if they’ve been forewarned. And no amount of protective gear, at today’s technology, is going to change that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Growth mindset is a well-established phenomenon in childhood education that is now starting to appear in health care education literature.¹ This concept emphasizes the capacity of individuals to change and grow through experience and that an individual’s basic qualities can be cultivated through hard work, open-mindedness, and help from others.²

Growth mindset opposes the concept of fixed mindset, which implies intelligence or other personal traits are set in stone, unable to be fundamentally changed.² Individuals with fixed mindsets are less adept at coping with perceived failures and critical feedback because they view these as attacks on their own abilities.² This oftentimes leads these individuals to avoid potential challenges and feedback because of fear of being exposed as incompetent or feeling inadequate. Conversely, individuals with a growth mindset embrace challenges and failures as learning opportunities and identify feedback as a critical element of growth.² These individuals maintain a sense of resilience in the face of adversity and strive to become lifelong learners.

As the field of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) continues to rapidly evolve, so too does the landscape of PHM fellowships. New programs are opening at a torrid pace to accommodate the increasing demand of residents looking to enter the field with new subspecialty accreditation. Most first-year PHM fellows in established programs enter with a clear precedent to follow, set forth by fellows who have come before them. For PHM fellows in new programs, however, there is often no beaten path to follow.

Entering fellowship as a first-year PHM fellow in a new program and blazing one’s own trail can be intriguing and exhilarating given the unique opportunities available. However, the potential challenges for both fellows and program directors during this transition cannot be understated. The role of new PHM fellows within the institutional framework may initially be unclear to others, which can lead to ambiguous expectations and disruptions to normal workflows. Furthermore, assessing and evaluating new fellows may prove difficult as a result of these unclear expectations and general uncertainties. Using the growth mindset can help both PHM fellows and program directors take a deliberate approach to the challenges and uncertainty that may accompany the creation of a new fellowship program.

One of the challenges new PHM fellows may encounter lies within the structure of the care team. Resident and medical student learners may express consternation that the new fellow role may limit their own autonomy. In addition, finding the right balance of autonomy and supervision between the attending-fellow dyad may prove to be difficult. However, using the growth mindset may allow fellows to see the inherent benefits of this new role.

Fellows should seize the opportunity to discuss the nuances and differing approaches to difficult clinical questions, managing a team and interpersonal dynamics, and balancing clinical and nonclinical responsibilities with an experienced supervising clinician; issues that are often less pressing as a resident. The fellow role also affords the opportunity to more carefully observe different clinical styles of practice to subsequently shape one’s own preferred style.

Finally, fellows should employ a growth mindset to optimize clinical time by discussing expectations with involved stakeholders prior to rotations and explicitly identifying goals for feedback and improvement. Program directors can also help stakeholders including faculty, residency programs, medical schools, and other health care professionals on the clinical teams prepare for this transition by providing expectations for the fellow role and by soliciting questions and feedback before and after fellows begin.

One of the key tenets of the growth mindset is actively seeking out constructive feedback and learning from failures to grow and improve. This can be a particularly useful practice for fellows during the course of their scholarly pursuits in clinical research, quality improvement, and medical education. From initial stages of idea development through the final steps of manuscript submission and peer review, fellows will undoubtedly navigate a plethora of challenges and setbacks along the way. Program directors and other core faculty members can promote a growth mindset culture by honestly discussing their own challenges and failures in career endeavors in addition to giving thoughtful constructive feedback.

Fellows should routinely practice explicitly identifying knowledge and skills gaps that represent areas for potential improvement. But perhaps most importantly, fellows must strive to see all feedback and perceived failures not as personal affronts or as commentaries on personal abilities, but rather as opportunities to strengthen their scholarly products and gain valuable experience for future endeavors.

Not all learners will come equipped with a growth mindset. So, what can fellows and program directors in new programs do to develop this practice and mitigate some of the inevitable uncertainty? To begin, program directors should think about how to create cultures of growth and development as the fixed and growth mindsets are not just limited to individuals.³ Program directors can strive to augment this process by committing to solicit feedback for themselves and acknowledging their own vulnerabilities and perceived weaknesses.

Fellows must have early, honest discussions with program directors and other stakeholders about expectations and goals. Program directors should consider creating lists of “must meet” individuals within the institution that can help fellows begin to carve out their roles in the clinical, educational, and research realms. Deliberately crafting a mentorship team that will encourage a commitment to growth and improvement is critical. Seeking out growth feedback, particularly in areas that prove challenging, should become common practice for fellows from the onset.

Most importantly, fellows should reframe uncertainty as opportunity for growth and progression. Seeing oneself as a work in progress provides a new perspective that prioritizes learning and emphasizes improvement potential.

Embodying this approach requires patience and practice. Being part of a newly created fellowship represents an opportunity to learn from personal challenges rather than leaning on the precedent set by previous fellows. And although fellows will often face uncertainty as a part of the novelty within a new program, they can ultimately succeed by practicing the principles of Dweck’s Growth Mindset: embracing challenges and failure as learning experiences, seeking out feedback, and pursuing the opportunities among ambiguity.
 

Dr. Herchline is a pediatric hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and recent fellow graduate of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. During fellowship, he completed a master’s degree in medical education at the University of Pennsylvania. His academic interests include graduate medical education, interprofessional collaboration and teamwork, and quality improvement.

References

1. Klein J et al. A growth mindset approach to preparing trainees for medical error. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Sep;26(9):771-4. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006416.

2. Dweck C. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books; 2006.

3. Murphy MC, Dweck CS. A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Mar;36(3):283-96. doi: 10.1177/0146167209347380.

Growth mindset is a well-established phenomenon in childhood education that is now starting to appear in health care education literature.¹ This concept emphasizes the capacity of individuals to change and grow through experience and that an individual’s basic qualities can be cultivated through hard work, open-mindedness, and help from others.²

Growth mindset opposes the concept of fixed mindset, which implies intelligence or other personal traits are set in stone, unable to be fundamentally changed.² Individuals with fixed mindsets are less adept at coping with perceived failures and critical feedback because they view these as attacks on their own abilities.² This oftentimes leads these individuals to avoid potential challenges and feedback because of fear of being exposed as incompetent or feeling inadequate. Conversely, individuals with a growth mindset embrace challenges and failures as learning opportunities and identify feedback as a critical element of growth.² These individuals maintain a sense of resilience in the face of adversity and strive to become lifelong learners.

As the field of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) continues to rapidly evolve, so too does the landscape of PHM fellowships. New programs are opening at a torrid pace to accommodate the increasing demand of residents looking to enter the field with new subspecialty accreditation. Most first-year PHM fellows in established programs enter with a clear precedent to follow, set forth by fellows who have come before them. For PHM fellows in new programs, however, there is often no beaten path to follow.

Entering fellowship as a first-year PHM fellow in a new program and blazing one’s own trail can be intriguing and exhilarating given the unique opportunities available. However, the potential challenges for both fellows and program directors during this transition cannot be understated. The role of new PHM fellows within the institutional framework may initially be unclear to others, which can lead to ambiguous expectations and disruptions to normal workflows. Furthermore, assessing and evaluating new fellows may prove difficult as a result of these unclear expectations and general uncertainties. Using the growth mindset can help both PHM fellows and program directors take a deliberate approach to the challenges and uncertainty that may accompany the creation of a new fellowship program.

One of the challenges new PHM fellows may encounter lies within the structure of the care team. Resident and medical student learners may express consternation that the new fellow role may limit their own autonomy. In addition, finding the right balance of autonomy and supervision between the attending-fellow dyad may prove to be difficult. However, using the growth mindset may allow fellows to see the inherent benefits of this new role.

Fellows should seize the opportunity to discuss the nuances and differing approaches to difficult clinical questions, managing a team and interpersonal dynamics, and balancing clinical and nonclinical responsibilities with an experienced supervising clinician; issues that are often less pressing as a resident. The fellow role also affords the opportunity to more carefully observe different clinical styles of practice to subsequently shape one’s own preferred style.

Finally, fellows should employ a growth mindset to optimize clinical time by discussing expectations with involved stakeholders prior to rotations and explicitly identifying goals for feedback and improvement. Program directors can also help stakeholders including faculty, residency programs, medical schools, and other health care professionals on the clinical teams prepare for this transition by providing expectations for the fellow role and by soliciting questions and feedback before and after fellows begin.

One of the key tenets of the growth mindset is actively seeking out constructive feedback and learning from failures to grow and improve. This can be a particularly useful practice for fellows during the course of their scholarly pursuits in clinical research, quality improvement, and medical education. From initial stages of idea development through the final steps of manuscript submission and peer review, fellows will undoubtedly navigate a plethora of challenges and setbacks along the way. Program directors and other core faculty members can promote a growth mindset culture by honestly discussing their own challenges and failures in career endeavors in addition to giving thoughtful constructive feedback.

Fellows should routinely practice explicitly identifying knowledge and skills gaps that represent areas for potential improvement. But perhaps most importantly, fellows must strive to see all feedback and perceived failures not as personal affronts or as commentaries on personal abilities, but rather as opportunities to strengthen their scholarly products and gain valuable experience for future endeavors.

Not all learners will come equipped with a growth mindset. So, what can fellows and program directors in new programs do to develop this practice and mitigate some of the inevitable uncertainty? To begin, program directors should think about how to create cultures of growth and development as the fixed and growth mindsets are not just limited to individuals.³ Program directors can strive to augment this process by committing to solicit feedback for themselves and acknowledging their own vulnerabilities and perceived weaknesses.

Fellows must have early, honest discussions with program directors and other stakeholders about expectations and goals. Program directors should consider creating lists of “must meet” individuals within the institution that can help fellows begin to carve out their roles in the clinical, educational, and research realms. Deliberately crafting a mentorship team that will encourage a commitment to growth and improvement is critical. Seeking out growth feedback, particularly in areas that prove challenging, should become common practice for fellows from the onset.

Most importantly, fellows should reframe uncertainty as opportunity for growth and progression. Seeing oneself as a work in progress provides a new perspective that prioritizes learning and emphasizes improvement potential.

Embodying this approach requires patience and practice. Being part of a newly created fellowship represents an opportunity to learn from personal challenges rather than leaning on the precedent set by previous fellows. And although fellows will often face uncertainty as a part of the novelty within a new program, they can ultimately succeed by practicing the principles of Dweck’s Growth Mindset: embracing challenges and failure as learning experiences, seeking out feedback, and pursuing the opportunities among ambiguity.
 

Dr. Herchline is a pediatric hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and recent fellow graduate of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. During fellowship, he completed a master’s degree in medical education at the University of Pennsylvania. His academic interests include graduate medical education, interprofessional collaboration and teamwork, and quality improvement.

References

1. Klein J et al. A growth mindset approach to preparing trainees for medical error. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Sep;26(9):771-4. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006416.

2. Dweck C. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books; 2006.

3. Murphy MC, Dweck CS. A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Mar;36(3):283-96. doi: 10.1177/0146167209347380.

Growth mindset is a well-established phenomenon in childhood education that is now starting to appear in health care education literature.¹ This concept emphasizes the capacity of individuals to change and grow through experience and that an individual’s basic qualities can be cultivated through hard work, open-mindedness, and help from others.²

Growth mindset opposes the concept of fixed mindset, which implies intelligence or other personal traits are set in stone, unable to be fundamentally changed.² Individuals with fixed mindsets are less adept at coping with perceived failures and critical feedback because they view these as attacks on their own abilities.² This oftentimes leads these individuals to avoid potential challenges and feedback because of fear of being exposed as incompetent or feeling inadequate. Conversely, individuals with a growth mindset embrace challenges and failures as learning opportunities and identify feedback as a critical element of growth.² These individuals maintain a sense of resilience in the face of adversity and strive to become lifelong learners.

As the field of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) continues to rapidly evolve, so too does the landscape of PHM fellowships. New programs are opening at a torrid pace to accommodate the increasing demand of residents looking to enter the field with new subspecialty accreditation. Most first-year PHM fellows in established programs enter with a clear precedent to follow, set forth by fellows who have come before them. For PHM fellows in new programs, however, there is often no beaten path to follow.

Entering fellowship as a first-year PHM fellow in a new program and blazing one’s own trail can be intriguing and exhilarating given the unique opportunities available. However, the potential challenges for both fellows and program directors during this transition cannot be understated. The role of new PHM fellows within the institutional framework may initially be unclear to others, which can lead to ambiguous expectations and disruptions to normal workflows. Furthermore, assessing and evaluating new fellows may prove difficult as a result of these unclear expectations and general uncertainties. Using the growth mindset can help both PHM fellows and program directors take a deliberate approach to the challenges and uncertainty that may accompany the creation of a new fellowship program.

One of the challenges new PHM fellows may encounter lies within the structure of the care team. Resident and medical student learners may express consternation that the new fellow role may limit their own autonomy. In addition, finding the right balance of autonomy and supervision between the attending-fellow dyad may prove to be difficult. However, using the growth mindset may allow fellows to see the inherent benefits of this new role.

Fellows should seize the opportunity to discuss the nuances and differing approaches to difficult clinical questions, managing a team and interpersonal dynamics, and balancing clinical and nonclinical responsibilities with an experienced supervising clinician; issues that are often less pressing as a resident. The fellow role also affords the opportunity to more carefully observe different clinical styles of practice to subsequently shape one’s own preferred style.

Finally, fellows should employ a growth mindset to optimize clinical time by discussing expectations with involved stakeholders prior to rotations and explicitly identifying goals for feedback and improvement. Program directors can also help stakeholders including faculty, residency programs, medical schools, and other health care professionals on the clinical teams prepare for this transition by providing expectations for the fellow role and by soliciting questions and feedback before and after fellows begin.

One of the key tenets of the growth mindset is actively seeking out constructive feedback and learning from failures to grow and improve. This can be a particularly useful practice for fellows during the course of their scholarly pursuits in clinical research, quality improvement, and medical education. From initial stages of idea development through the final steps of manuscript submission and peer review, fellows will undoubtedly navigate a plethora of challenges and setbacks along the way. Program directors and other core faculty members can promote a growth mindset culture by honestly discussing their own challenges and failures in career endeavors in addition to giving thoughtful constructive feedback.

Fellows should routinely practice explicitly identifying knowledge and skills gaps that represent areas for potential improvement. But perhaps most importantly, fellows must strive to see all feedback and perceived failures not as personal affronts or as commentaries on personal abilities, but rather as opportunities to strengthen their scholarly products and gain valuable experience for future endeavors.

Not all learners will come equipped with a growth mindset. So, what can fellows and program directors in new programs do to develop this practice and mitigate some of the inevitable uncertainty? To begin, program directors should think about how to create cultures of growth and development as the fixed and growth mindsets are not just limited to individuals.³ Program directors can strive to augment this process by committing to solicit feedback for themselves and acknowledging their own vulnerabilities and perceived weaknesses.

Fellows must have early, honest discussions with program directors and other stakeholders about expectations and goals. Program directors should consider creating lists of “must meet” individuals within the institution that can help fellows begin to carve out their roles in the clinical, educational, and research realms. Deliberately crafting a mentorship team that will encourage a commitment to growth and improvement is critical. Seeking out growth feedback, particularly in areas that prove challenging, should become common practice for fellows from the onset.

Most importantly, fellows should reframe uncertainty as opportunity for growth and progression. Seeing oneself as a work in progress provides a new perspective that prioritizes learning and emphasizes improvement potential.

Embodying this approach requires patience and practice. Being part of a newly created fellowship represents an opportunity to learn from personal challenges rather than leaning on the precedent set by previous fellows. And although fellows will often face uncertainty as a part of the novelty within a new program, they can ultimately succeed by practicing the principles of Dweck’s Growth Mindset: embracing challenges and failure as learning experiences, seeking out feedback, and pursuing the opportunities among ambiguity.
 

Dr. Herchline is a pediatric hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and recent fellow graduate of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. During fellowship, he completed a master’s degree in medical education at the University of Pennsylvania. His academic interests include graduate medical education, interprofessional collaboration and teamwork, and quality improvement.

References

1. Klein J et al. A growth mindset approach to preparing trainees for medical error. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Sep;26(9):771-4. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006416.

2. Dweck C. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books; 2006.

3. Murphy MC, Dweck CS. A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Mar;36(3):283-96. doi: 10.1177/0146167209347380.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman.” – Martin Luther King Jr., March 25, 1966. ¹

This single disparity – health care injustice – too often results in needless mental anguish, physical suffering, or death. In the spring of 2020, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the convergence of injustices in health care and policing led to the disproportionate preventable physical deaths of Black men and women. This became the watershed moment for 11 gastroenterologists and hepatologists who collectively grieved but heeded the call of social responsibility to form the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists.

The mission of ABGH is laser focused. It is to promote health equity in Black communities, advance science, and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists. The vision is to improve gastrointestinal health outcomes in Black communities; to develop the pipeline of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists given that currently only 4% in the United States identify as Black; to foster networking, mentoring, and sponsorship among Black students, clinical trainees, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists; and to promote the scholarship of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists.

Through community engagement, ABGH stands to empower the Black community with knowledge and choices, which inherently strengthens the physician-patient relationship. ABGH also exists to implement positive change in long term outcome statistics in Black communities. Black Americans are 20% more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. In addition to colorectal cancer, rates of esophageal squamous cancer, as well as cancer of the small bowel and pancreas, are highest in Black people.² Through scientific research and clinical care, we aim to eradicate digestive health disparities. 

Yet in this space, we know first-hand that, in the United States, the wellness of a community is not measured by the medical fitness of its members alone but also by the availability of equitable opportunities for fulfillment of nonmedical but health-impacting social needs. These needs, also known as social determinants of health, are made inaccessible to vulnerable populations because of systemic racism. Importantly, we recognize that dismantling racist systems is not a singular effort, nor are we pioneers in this work, but we look forward to executing health equity goals collaboratively with our fellow gastrointestinal national societies and other leading community and grassroots organizations.

The founders of ABGH are a distinctive group of practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists from across the United States with a strong track record in DEI work through their community, clinical, and research activities. The board of directors reflects only the depth of talent shared throughout the ABGH membership. The strength of the organization lies in its diverse and energetic constituents who all exemplify outstanding training and the readiness to redefine the standard of health care delivery to the Black community. From medical students to senior level gastroenterologists, we collectively embody a considerable momentum for formation of this organization at this point in our history.

ABGH fulfills a professional career development need for budding gastroenterologists not so readily available from other organizations. The compelling impact of representing the embodiment of what many of us were told we could not become is limitless. The personal and professional growth enabled by our networking and learning from each other is both motivating and empowering since, even after overcoming the obstacles needed to become a medical provider, Black professionals are often not afforded the bandwidth, range of emotion, and protection to reveal their specific needs. For this author personally, the ABGH provides a psychological safety that allows authentic self-identity without code-switching.³ Through this authenticity has arisen formidable strength, creativity, and productivity. The leadership and innovation cultivated in ABGH stands to benefit many generations to come, both within and outside the organization. 
 

Reflections from a junior member of ABGH: Dr. Kafayat Busari

My desire to pursue gastroenterology was bolstered by determination, curiosity, and passion, yet ironically was often met with skepticism by many in position to help advance this goal. Although projections of incertitude on members of a community that are often made to feel inadequate can diminish even the brightest of lights, conversely it can fuel the creation of an organization emboldened to specifically address GI-related health disparities. When I was a second-year internal medicine resident, I encountered a GI physician who told me GI “wasn’t something I wanted to do”—despite me expressing my interest.

Confused by the statement, I reached out to Renee L. Williams, MD, of NYU Langone Health, who I had met during my medical school training. She suggested I join a conference call later that week. On that call and the many that took place thereafter, I was introduced to Black gastroenterologists who are luminal disease experts, chair members, journal editors, transplant hepatologists, interventional endoscopists, researchers, and professors (in other words, GI professional leaders). My time on the initial call lasted perhaps less than 20 minutes, but the impact has been immeasurable. 

I was provided the emotional reassurance that GI was indeed for me and told “there’s always a seat, and if it feels like there’s not, we just need to get more chairs.” Little did I know, but those metaphorical chairs were being gathered so that I and other aspiring gastroenterologists will be able to sit comfortably at these tables one day. I was witnessing these GI professional leaders set in motion the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a pivotal component in the way I approach my career as a gastroenterologist. The experience reignited my mental determination to one day attain the level of success represented by the ABGH board members and to persevere in my quest to help redefine how Black medical students and residents serve their communities as physicians.

The creation of the ABGH could not have come at a better time in my training. In the wake of recent public protests for equity of African Americans within every institution (academia, housing, banks, policing, health care, and beyond), which were fundamentally built on racism, being a junior member of ABGH has not only given me a platform to speak my truth but has also provided me with tools to help others do so as well. As someone very passionate about research, primarily in colorectal cancer, I have been given an opportunity to connect with a dream team of mentors who have taken research ideas to new levels and have challenged me to dig deeper and expand my curiosity to investigate what still needs to be uncovered. It has created opportunity after opportunity for actively building relationships, leading to meaningful collaborations and the sharing of innovative ideas and discoveries. 

It is important to emphasize that ABGH is not an organization wanting to exclude themselves on the basis of ethnicity. ABGH is an example of how shared health goals within a medical discipline can be achieved when inclusion and equity is at the helm. ABGH led and represented events that raise awareness of diseases affecting all patients and aim to make the GI community more culturally competent. ABGH is future-oriented and embraces all members who align with the mission regardless of ethnicity, gender, orientation, or disability. The institution that is and will be the ABGH impresses upon me a feeling of excitement, gratitude, and humility. I look forward to continuing the mission created by the founding members and being to others what ABGH is to me. 

For more information on this organization, please visit blackingastro.org. 

Dr. Busari is a resident physician at Florida State University-SMH and a junior member of ABGH. Dr. Guillaume director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Center at Stony Brook (New York) University Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. They have no disclosures.
 

References 

1. Galarneau C. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(1):5-8.

2. Ashktorab H et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Oct;153(4):910-923.

3. Blanchard AK. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):e87.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman.” – Martin Luther King Jr., March 25, 1966. ¹

This single disparity – health care injustice – too often results in needless mental anguish, physical suffering, or death. In the spring of 2020, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the convergence of injustices in health care and policing led to the disproportionate preventable physical deaths of Black men and women. This became the watershed moment for 11 gastroenterologists and hepatologists who collectively grieved but heeded the call of social responsibility to form the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists.

The mission of ABGH is laser focused. It is to promote health equity in Black communities, advance science, and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists. The vision is to improve gastrointestinal health outcomes in Black communities; to develop the pipeline of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists given that currently only 4% in the United States identify as Black; to foster networking, mentoring, and sponsorship among Black students, clinical trainees, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists; and to promote the scholarship of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists.

Through community engagement, ABGH stands to empower the Black community with knowledge and choices, which inherently strengthens the physician-patient relationship. ABGH also exists to implement positive change in long term outcome statistics in Black communities. Black Americans are 20% more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. In addition to colorectal cancer, rates of esophageal squamous cancer, as well as cancer of the small bowel and pancreas, are highest in Black people.² Through scientific research and clinical care, we aim to eradicate digestive health disparities. 

Yet in this space, we know first-hand that, in the United States, the wellness of a community is not measured by the medical fitness of its members alone but also by the availability of equitable opportunities for fulfillment of nonmedical but health-impacting social needs. These needs, also known as social determinants of health, are made inaccessible to vulnerable populations because of systemic racism. Importantly, we recognize that dismantling racist systems is not a singular effort, nor are we pioneers in this work, but we look forward to executing health equity goals collaboratively with our fellow gastrointestinal national societies and other leading community and grassroots organizations.

The founders of ABGH are a distinctive group of practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists from across the United States with a strong track record in DEI work through their community, clinical, and research activities. The board of directors reflects only the depth of talent shared throughout the ABGH membership. The strength of the organization lies in its diverse and energetic constituents who all exemplify outstanding training and the readiness to redefine the standard of health care delivery to the Black community. From medical students to senior level gastroenterologists, we collectively embody a considerable momentum for formation of this organization at this point in our history.

ABGH fulfills a professional career development need for budding gastroenterologists not so readily available from other organizations. The compelling impact of representing the embodiment of what many of us were told we could not become is limitless. The personal and professional growth enabled by our networking and learning from each other is both motivating and empowering since, even after overcoming the obstacles needed to become a medical provider, Black professionals are often not afforded the bandwidth, range of emotion, and protection to reveal their specific needs. For this author personally, the ABGH provides a psychological safety that allows authentic self-identity without code-switching.³ Through this authenticity has arisen formidable strength, creativity, and productivity. The leadership and innovation cultivated in ABGH stands to benefit many generations to come, both within and outside the organization. 
 

Reflections from a junior member of ABGH: Dr. Kafayat Busari

My desire to pursue gastroenterology was bolstered by determination, curiosity, and passion, yet ironically was often met with skepticism by many in position to help advance this goal. Although projections of incertitude on members of a community that are often made to feel inadequate can diminish even the brightest of lights, conversely it can fuel the creation of an organization emboldened to specifically address GI-related health disparities. When I was a second-year internal medicine resident, I encountered a GI physician who told me GI “wasn’t something I wanted to do”—despite me expressing my interest.

Confused by the statement, I reached out to Renee L. Williams, MD, of NYU Langone Health, who I had met during my medical school training. She suggested I join a conference call later that week. On that call and the many that took place thereafter, I was introduced to Black gastroenterologists who are luminal disease experts, chair members, journal editors, transplant hepatologists, interventional endoscopists, researchers, and professors (in other words, GI professional leaders). My time on the initial call lasted perhaps less than 20 minutes, but the impact has been immeasurable. 

I was provided the emotional reassurance that GI was indeed for me and told “there’s always a seat, and if it feels like there’s not, we just need to get more chairs.” Little did I know, but those metaphorical chairs were being gathered so that I and other aspiring gastroenterologists will be able to sit comfortably at these tables one day. I was witnessing these GI professional leaders set in motion the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a pivotal component in the way I approach my career as a gastroenterologist. The experience reignited my mental determination to one day attain the level of success represented by the ABGH board members and to persevere in my quest to help redefine how Black medical students and residents serve their communities as physicians.

The creation of the ABGH could not have come at a better time in my training. In the wake of recent public protests for equity of African Americans within every institution (academia, housing, banks, policing, health care, and beyond), which were fundamentally built on racism, being a junior member of ABGH has not only given me a platform to speak my truth but has also provided me with tools to help others do so as well. As someone very passionate about research, primarily in colorectal cancer, I have been given an opportunity to connect with a dream team of mentors who have taken research ideas to new levels and have challenged me to dig deeper and expand my curiosity to investigate what still needs to be uncovered. It has created opportunity after opportunity for actively building relationships, leading to meaningful collaborations and the sharing of innovative ideas and discoveries. 

It is important to emphasize that ABGH is not an organization wanting to exclude themselves on the basis of ethnicity. ABGH is an example of how shared health goals within a medical discipline can be achieved when inclusion and equity is at the helm. ABGH led and represented events that raise awareness of diseases affecting all patients and aim to make the GI community more culturally competent. ABGH is future-oriented and embraces all members who align with the mission regardless of ethnicity, gender, orientation, or disability. The institution that is and will be the ABGH impresses upon me a feeling of excitement, gratitude, and humility. I look forward to continuing the mission created by the founding members and being to others what ABGH is to me. 

For more information on this organization, please visit blackingastro.org. 

Dr. Busari is a resident physician at Florida State University-SMH and a junior member of ABGH. Dr. Guillaume director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Center at Stony Brook (New York) University Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. They have no disclosures.
 

References 

1. Galarneau C. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(1):5-8.

2. Ashktorab H et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Oct;153(4):910-923.

3. Blanchard AK. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):e87.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman.” – Martin Luther King Jr., March 25, 1966. ¹

This single disparity – health care injustice – too often results in needless mental anguish, physical suffering, or death. In the spring of 2020, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the convergence of injustices in health care and policing led to the disproportionate preventable physical deaths of Black men and women. This became the watershed moment for 11 gastroenterologists and hepatologists who collectively grieved but heeded the call of social responsibility to form the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists.

The mission of ABGH is laser focused. It is to promote health equity in Black communities, advance science, and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists. The vision is to improve gastrointestinal health outcomes in Black communities; to develop the pipeline of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists given that currently only 4% in the United States identify as Black; to foster networking, mentoring, and sponsorship among Black students, clinical trainees, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists; and to promote the scholarship of Black gastroenterologists and hepatologists.

Through community engagement, ABGH stands to empower the Black community with knowledge and choices, which inherently strengthens the physician-patient relationship. ABGH also exists to implement positive change in long term outcome statistics in Black communities. Black Americans are 20% more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. In addition to colorectal cancer, rates of esophageal squamous cancer, as well as cancer of the small bowel and pancreas, are highest in Black people.² Through scientific research and clinical care, we aim to eradicate digestive health disparities. 

Yet in this space, we know first-hand that, in the United States, the wellness of a community is not measured by the medical fitness of its members alone but also by the availability of equitable opportunities for fulfillment of nonmedical but health-impacting social needs. These needs, also known as social determinants of health, are made inaccessible to vulnerable populations because of systemic racism. Importantly, we recognize that dismantling racist systems is not a singular effort, nor are we pioneers in this work, but we look forward to executing health equity goals collaboratively with our fellow gastrointestinal national societies and other leading community and grassroots organizations.

The founders of ABGH are a distinctive group of practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists from across the United States with a strong track record in DEI work through their community, clinical, and research activities. The board of directors reflects only the depth of talent shared throughout the ABGH membership. The strength of the organization lies in its diverse and energetic constituents who all exemplify outstanding training and the readiness to redefine the standard of health care delivery to the Black community. From medical students to senior level gastroenterologists, we collectively embody a considerable momentum for formation of this organization at this point in our history.

ABGH fulfills a professional career development need for budding gastroenterologists not so readily available from other organizations. The compelling impact of representing the embodiment of what many of us were told we could not become is limitless. The personal and professional growth enabled by our networking and learning from each other is both motivating and empowering since, even after overcoming the obstacles needed to become a medical provider, Black professionals are often not afforded the bandwidth, range of emotion, and protection to reveal their specific needs. For this author personally, the ABGH provides a psychological safety that allows authentic self-identity without code-switching.³ Through this authenticity has arisen formidable strength, creativity, and productivity. The leadership and innovation cultivated in ABGH stands to benefit many generations to come, both within and outside the organization. 
 

Reflections from a junior member of ABGH: Dr. Kafayat Busari

My desire to pursue gastroenterology was bolstered by determination, curiosity, and passion, yet ironically was often met with skepticism by many in position to help advance this goal. Although projections of incertitude on members of a community that are often made to feel inadequate can diminish even the brightest of lights, conversely it can fuel the creation of an organization emboldened to specifically address GI-related health disparities. When I was a second-year internal medicine resident, I encountered a GI physician who told me GI “wasn’t something I wanted to do”—despite me expressing my interest.

Confused by the statement, I reached out to Renee L. Williams, MD, of NYU Langone Health, who I had met during my medical school training. She suggested I join a conference call later that week. On that call and the many that took place thereafter, I was introduced to Black gastroenterologists who are luminal disease experts, chair members, journal editors, transplant hepatologists, interventional endoscopists, researchers, and professors (in other words, GI professional leaders). My time on the initial call lasted perhaps less than 20 minutes, but the impact has been immeasurable. 

I was provided the emotional reassurance that GI was indeed for me and told “there’s always a seat, and if it feels like there’s not, we just need to get more chairs.” Little did I know, but those metaphorical chairs were being gathered so that I and other aspiring gastroenterologists will be able to sit comfortably at these tables one day. I was witnessing these GI professional leaders set in motion the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a pivotal component in the way I approach my career as a gastroenterologist. The experience reignited my mental determination to one day attain the level of success represented by the ABGH board members and to persevere in my quest to help redefine how Black medical students and residents serve their communities as physicians.

The creation of the ABGH could not have come at a better time in my training. In the wake of recent public protests for equity of African Americans within every institution (academia, housing, banks, policing, health care, and beyond), which were fundamentally built on racism, being a junior member of ABGH has not only given me a platform to speak my truth but has also provided me with tools to help others do so as well. As someone very passionate about research, primarily in colorectal cancer, I have been given an opportunity to connect with a dream team of mentors who have taken research ideas to new levels and have challenged me to dig deeper and expand my curiosity to investigate what still needs to be uncovered. It has created opportunity after opportunity for actively building relationships, leading to meaningful collaborations and the sharing of innovative ideas and discoveries. 

It is important to emphasize that ABGH is not an organization wanting to exclude themselves on the basis of ethnicity. ABGH is an example of how shared health goals within a medical discipline can be achieved when inclusion and equity is at the helm. ABGH led and represented events that raise awareness of diseases affecting all patients and aim to make the GI community more culturally competent. ABGH is future-oriented and embraces all members who align with the mission regardless of ethnicity, gender, orientation, or disability. The institution that is and will be the ABGH impresses upon me a feeling of excitement, gratitude, and humility. I look forward to continuing the mission created by the founding members and being to others what ABGH is to me. 

For more information on this organization, please visit blackingastro.org. 

Dr. Busari is a resident physician at Florida State University-SMH and a junior member of ABGH. Dr. Guillaume director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Center at Stony Brook (New York) University Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. They have no disclosures.
 

References 

1. Galarneau C. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(1):5-8.

2. Ashktorab H et al. Gastroenterology. 2017 Oct;153(4):910-923.

3. Blanchard AK. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):e87.

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.