Opinion

As medical school faculty members – and our students – know well, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to become creative and shift much of our curricula online. Many hospitals chose to limit medical student rotations because of safety concerns. Students fell victim to canceled psychiatry rotations and electives during the pandemic’s early days. Privacy issues, combined with stigma tied to mental illness, made this shift to virtual instruction particularly challenging. But as a field, we persevered! And, as we learned during our shift toward telemedicine, many of the changes we made in medical education are probably here to stay.

Our team at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM) was able to implement a novel curriculum that allowed our students to learn psychiatry and maintain high-quality medical school education.

We developed an online course for third-year students’ rotation in psychiatry, with several modules that focused on a variety of psychiatric topics and disorders, including the basic classifications and categories of depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. There were also video encounters available showing actual patient encounters. On completion of the online module, a faculty session was held to discuss topics of concern/confusion to the students, areas of interest, and a variety of related topics, such as professionalism in psychiatry, essentials of the mental status exam, management of diverse populations, and COVID repercussions in psychiatry.

For fourth-year students, we developed a telemedicine psychiatry elective, which allowed the students to observe psychiatric evaluations, psychiatric medication review visits, and even follow-up psychotherapy sessions, with the school’s clinical psychologists. The new method was minimally invasive, and it was accepted by patients and welcomed by the students.

During a time when hospitals were limiting onsite student rotations and discouraging patient contact, medical students still needed to experience patient interactions. As the director of the school’s Center for Behavioral Health, I designed an additional program that allowed students to participate in observing patients who presented with psychiatric complaints and symptoms. It had to be confidential in nature, accessible, and safe.

I recalled my own training in a hospital setting, where students and residents were allowed to observe a patient being evaluated by an attending, through a one-way mirror. It was a method that was acceptable at the time in a hospital, but unfortunately, not in a private office setting. As such, students and residents experienced such an interaction in acute inpatient and/or outpatient clinics of a hospital. The experience was invaluable.

I started to envision a one-way mirror, 2.0, so to speak, for the current times. The concept was simple, yet very efficient. The clinicians in the Center for Behavioral Health were seeing all patients with psychiatric needs via a HIPAA-compliant telemedicine platform. Access was granted for students – with the patient’s consent – and they “entered the session” without being seen or heard. This presented little to no distraction to the patient, and the student was able to observe a range of clinical sessions.

The course also provided online supplemental modules, including essential psychiatric topics, psychopharmacology, and a psychotherapeutic module that discussed a myriad of therapeutic interventions. In addition, the student was supervised weekly by the course director, the psychopharmacologist, and the clinical psychologist. The course director provided daily wrap-up reviews as well.

Originally, this new approach was envisioned as a temporary solution for use during the pandemic. But it has become clear that this approach would be beneficial post pandemic as well. Most of the students who participated in the course were actually interested in pursuing psychiatry as their future specialty. It allowed them to observe a population of patients firsthand that they might encounter in private practice, as opposed to only hospital settings.

Being present in a session with a patient with psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses has always been a challenge. Many patients refuse to have another medical professional in the room because of the intimate details being discussed and their associated stigma. The patients’ inability to see or hear the student during the sessions allows them to ignore the students’ presence – or at least not be intimidated by it. This, therefore, allows the students access and affords them a unique and memorable educational experience.

The pandemic curtailed and altered medical students’ traditional exposure to patients, but we found innovative ways to redefine it. As difficult as COVID-19 has been for the health care community, we have been able to use the restrictions forced by the pandemic to identify innovative ways to improve the education of our medical students.
 

In addition to serving as director of the Center for Behavioral Health at NYITCOM in Old Westbury, N.Y., Dr. Jarkon is assistant professor in the department of family medicine. She has no disclosures.

As medical school faculty members – and our students – know well, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to become creative and shift much of our curricula online. Many hospitals chose to limit medical student rotations because of safety concerns. Students fell victim to canceled psychiatry rotations and electives during the pandemic’s early days. Privacy issues, combined with stigma tied to mental illness, made this shift to virtual instruction particularly challenging. But as a field, we persevered! And, as we learned during our shift toward telemedicine, many of the changes we made in medical education are probably here to stay.

Our team at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM) was able to implement a novel curriculum that allowed our students to learn psychiatry and maintain high-quality medical school education.

We developed an online course for third-year students’ rotation in psychiatry, with several modules that focused on a variety of psychiatric topics and disorders, including the basic classifications and categories of depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. There were also video encounters available showing actual patient encounters. On completion of the online module, a faculty session was held to discuss topics of concern/confusion to the students, areas of interest, and a variety of related topics, such as professionalism in psychiatry, essentials of the mental status exam, management of diverse populations, and COVID repercussions in psychiatry.

For fourth-year students, we developed a telemedicine psychiatry elective, which allowed the students to observe psychiatric evaluations, psychiatric medication review visits, and even follow-up psychotherapy sessions, with the school’s clinical psychologists. The new method was minimally invasive, and it was accepted by patients and welcomed by the students.

During a time when hospitals were limiting onsite student rotations and discouraging patient contact, medical students still needed to experience patient interactions. As the director of the school’s Center for Behavioral Health, I designed an additional program that allowed students to participate in observing patients who presented with psychiatric complaints and symptoms. It had to be confidential in nature, accessible, and safe.

I recalled my own training in a hospital setting, where students and residents were allowed to observe a patient being evaluated by an attending, through a one-way mirror. It was a method that was acceptable at the time in a hospital, but unfortunately, not in a private office setting. As such, students and residents experienced such an interaction in acute inpatient and/or outpatient clinics of a hospital. The experience was invaluable.

I started to envision a one-way mirror, 2.0, so to speak, for the current times. The concept was simple, yet very efficient. The clinicians in the Center for Behavioral Health were seeing all patients with psychiatric needs via a HIPAA-compliant telemedicine platform. Access was granted for students – with the patient’s consent – and they “entered the session” without being seen or heard. This presented little to no distraction to the patient, and the student was able to observe a range of clinical sessions.

The course also provided online supplemental modules, including essential psychiatric topics, psychopharmacology, and a psychotherapeutic module that discussed a myriad of therapeutic interventions. In addition, the student was supervised weekly by the course director, the psychopharmacologist, and the clinical psychologist. The course director provided daily wrap-up reviews as well.

Originally, this new approach was envisioned as a temporary solution for use during the pandemic. But it has become clear that this approach would be beneficial post pandemic as well. Most of the students who participated in the course were actually interested in pursuing psychiatry as their future specialty. It allowed them to observe a population of patients firsthand that they might encounter in private practice, as opposed to only hospital settings.

Being present in a session with a patient with psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses has always been a challenge. Many patients refuse to have another medical professional in the room because of the intimate details being discussed and their associated stigma. The patients’ inability to see or hear the student during the sessions allows them to ignore the students’ presence – or at least not be intimidated by it. This, therefore, allows the students access and affords them a unique and memorable educational experience.

The pandemic curtailed and altered medical students’ traditional exposure to patients, but we found innovative ways to redefine it. As difficult as COVID-19 has been for the health care community, we have been able to use the restrictions forced by the pandemic to identify innovative ways to improve the education of our medical students.
 

In addition to serving as director of the Center for Behavioral Health at NYITCOM in Old Westbury, N.Y., Dr. Jarkon is assistant professor in the department of family medicine. She has no disclosures.

As medical school faculty members – and our students – know well, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to become creative and shift much of our curricula online. Many hospitals chose to limit medical student rotations because of safety concerns. Students fell victim to canceled psychiatry rotations and electives during the pandemic’s early days. Privacy issues, combined with stigma tied to mental illness, made this shift to virtual instruction particularly challenging. But as a field, we persevered! And, as we learned during our shift toward telemedicine, many of the changes we made in medical education are probably here to stay.

Our team at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM) was able to implement a novel curriculum that allowed our students to learn psychiatry and maintain high-quality medical school education.

We developed an online course for third-year students’ rotation in psychiatry, with several modules that focused on a variety of psychiatric topics and disorders, including the basic classifications and categories of depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. There were also video encounters available showing actual patient encounters. On completion of the online module, a faculty session was held to discuss topics of concern/confusion to the students, areas of interest, and a variety of related topics, such as professionalism in psychiatry, essentials of the mental status exam, management of diverse populations, and COVID repercussions in psychiatry.

For fourth-year students, we developed a telemedicine psychiatry elective, which allowed the students to observe psychiatric evaluations, psychiatric medication review visits, and even follow-up psychotherapy sessions, with the school’s clinical psychologists. The new method was minimally invasive, and it was accepted by patients and welcomed by the students.

During a time when hospitals were limiting onsite student rotations and discouraging patient contact, medical students still needed to experience patient interactions. As the director of the school’s Center for Behavioral Health, I designed an additional program that allowed students to participate in observing patients who presented with psychiatric complaints and symptoms. It had to be confidential in nature, accessible, and safe.

I recalled my own training in a hospital setting, where students and residents were allowed to observe a patient being evaluated by an attending, through a one-way mirror. It was a method that was acceptable at the time in a hospital, but unfortunately, not in a private office setting. As such, students and residents experienced such an interaction in acute inpatient and/or outpatient clinics of a hospital. The experience was invaluable.

I started to envision a one-way mirror, 2.0, so to speak, for the current times. The concept was simple, yet very efficient. The clinicians in the Center for Behavioral Health were seeing all patients with psychiatric needs via a HIPAA-compliant telemedicine platform. Access was granted for students – with the patient’s consent – and they “entered the session” without being seen or heard. This presented little to no distraction to the patient, and the student was able to observe a range of clinical sessions.

The course also provided online supplemental modules, including essential psychiatric topics, psychopharmacology, and a psychotherapeutic module that discussed a myriad of therapeutic interventions. In addition, the student was supervised weekly by the course director, the psychopharmacologist, and the clinical psychologist. The course director provided daily wrap-up reviews as well.

Originally, this new approach was envisioned as a temporary solution for use during the pandemic. But it has become clear that this approach would be beneficial post pandemic as well. Most of the students who participated in the course were actually interested in pursuing psychiatry as their future specialty. It allowed them to observe a population of patients firsthand that they might encounter in private practice, as opposed to only hospital settings.

Being present in a session with a patient with psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses has always been a challenge. Many patients refuse to have another medical professional in the room because of the intimate details being discussed and their associated stigma. The patients’ inability to see or hear the student during the sessions allows them to ignore the students’ presence – or at least not be intimidated by it. This, therefore, allows the students access and affords them a unique and memorable educational experience.

The pandemic curtailed and altered medical students’ traditional exposure to patients, but we found innovative ways to redefine it. As difficult as COVID-19 has been for the health care community, we have been able to use the restrictions forced by the pandemic to identify innovative ways to improve the education of our medical students.
 

In addition to serving as director of the Center for Behavioral Health at NYITCOM in Old Westbury, N.Y., Dr. Jarkon is assistant professor in the department of family medicine. She has no disclosures.

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

In July, 2021, JAMA published a study about physicians’ sartorial habits, basically saying that people prefer doctors to dress “professionally.” Even today the white coat still carries some weight.

And I still don’t care.

Today, like every workday since June 2006, I put on my standard patient-seeing attire: shorts, sneakers, and a Hawaiian shirt. The only significant change has been the addition of a face mask since March 2020.

I have no plans to change anytime between now and retirement. I live in Phoenix, the hottest major city in the U.S., and have no desire to be uncomfortable because someone doesn’t think I look professional. It’s even become, albeit unintentionally, a trademark of sorts.

Now, as always, I let my patients be the judge. If someone isn’t happy with my appearance, or feels it makes me less competent, they certainly have the right to feel that way. There are plenty of other neurologists here who dress to higher standards (though jackets and ties, outside of the Mayo Clinic down the road, are getting pretty hard to find).

This is one of the things I like about having a small solo practice. I can be who I am, not who some administrator or dress code specialist says I have to be.

I do my best for my patients, and those who know me are aware that my complete lack of fashion sense doesn’t represent (I hope) an equal lack of medical care. Most of them seem to come back, so I guess I’m doing something right.

But it brings up the question of what should a doctor look like? In a world of changing demographics the stereotype of a neatly-dressed middle-aged white male certainly isn’t it anymore. With increasing numbers of women and people of color entering the field, the fact is that there isn’t a stereotypical doctor anymore.

Nor should there be. Medicine should be open to all with the drive, brains, and talent who want to follow to path of Hippocrates. Maybe I’m naive, but I still see this as a calling more than a job. Judging someone’s medical competence solely on their sex, race, appearance, or fashion sense is foolhardy.

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

In July, 2021, JAMA published a study about physicians’ sartorial habits, basically saying that people prefer doctors to dress “professionally.” Even today the white coat still carries some weight.

And I still don’t care.

Today, like every workday since June 2006, I put on my standard patient-seeing attire: shorts, sneakers, and a Hawaiian shirt. The only significant change has been the addition of a face mask since March 2020.

I have no plans to change anytime between now and retirement. I live in Phoenix, the hottest major city in the U.S., and have no desire to be uncomfortable because someone doesn’t think I look professional. It’s even become, albeit unintentionally, a trademark of sorts.

Now, as always, I let my patients be the judge. If someone isn’t happy with my appearance, or feels it makes me less competent, they certainly have the right to feel that way. There are plenty of other neurologists here who dress to higher standards (though jackets and ties, outside of the Mayo Clinic down the road, are getting pretty hard to find).

This is one of the things I like about having a small solo practice. I can be who I am, not who some administrator or dress code specialist says I have to be.

I do my best for my patients, and those who know me are aware that my complete lack of fashion sense doesn’t represent (I hope) an equal lack of medical care. Most of them seem to come back, so I guess I’m doing something right.

But it brings up the question of what should a doctor look like? In a world of changing demographics the stereotype of a neatly-dressed middle-aged white male certainly isn’t it anymore. With increasing numbers of women and people of color entering the field, the fact is that there isn’t a stereotypical doctor anymore.

Nor should there be. Medicine should be open to all with the drive, brains, and talent who want to follow to path of Hippocrates. Maybe I’m naive, but I still see this as a calling more than a job. Judging someone’s medical competence solely on their sex, race, appearance, or fashion sense is foolhardy.

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

In July, 2021, JAMA published a study about physicians’ sartorial habits, basically saying that people prefer doctors to dress “professionally.” Even today the white coat still carries some weight.

And I still don’t care.

Today, like every workday since June 2006, I put on my standard patient-seeing attire: shorts, sneakers, and a Hawaiian shirt. The only significant change has been the addition of a face mask since March 2020.

I have no plans to change anytime between now and retirement. I live in Phoenix, the hottest major city in the U.S., and have no desire to be uncomfortable because someone doesn’t think I look professional. It’s even become, albeit unintentionally, a trademark of sorts.

Now, as always, I let my patients be the judge. If someone isn’t happy with my appearance, or feels it makes me less competent, they certainly have the right to feel that way. There are plenty of other neurologists here who dress to higher standards (though jackets and ties, outside of the Mayo Clinic down the road, are getting pretty hard to find).

This is one of the things I like about having a small solo practice. I can be who I am, not who some administrator or dress code specialist says I have to be.

I do my best for my patients, and those who know me are aware that my complete lack of fashion sense doesn’t represent (I hope) an equal lack of medical care. Most of them seem to come back, so I guess I’m doing something right.

But it brings up the question of what should a doctor look like? In a world of changing demographics the stereotype of a neatly-dressed middle-aged white male certainly isn’t it anymore. With increasing numbers of women and people of color entering the field, the fact is that there isn’t a stereotypical doctor anymore.

Nor should there be. Medicine should be open to all with the drive, brains, and talent who want to follow to path of Hippocrates. Maybe I’m naive, but I still see this as a calling more than a job. Judging someone’s medical competence solely on their sex, race, appearance, or fashion sense is foolhardy.

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

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

There is a dangerous trend in our country in which employers, seeking to reduce health plan costs they pay, enter into agreements with small third-party administrators that “carve out” specialty drug benefits from their self-funded health insurance plan. What employers are not told is that these spending reductions are accomplished by risking the health of their employees. It is the self-funded businesses that are being preyed upon by these administrators because there is a lot of money to be made by carving out the specialty drugs in their self-funded health plan.

Let’s start with a little primer on “fully insured” versus “self-funded” health plans. As a small business owner, I understand the need to make sure that expenses don’t outpace revenue if I want to keep my doors open. One of the largest expenses for any business is health insurance. My private rheumatology practice uses a fully insured health plan. In a fully insured plan, the insurer is the party taking the financial risk. We pay the premiums, and the insurance company pays the bills after the deductible is met. It may cost more in premiums than a self-funded plan, but if an employee has an accident or severe illness, our practice is not responsible for the cost of care.

On the other hand, large and small businesses that are self-funded cover the health costs of their employees themselves. These businesses will hire a third-party administrator to pay the bills out of an account that is supplied with money from the business owner. Looking at the insurance card of your patient is one way to tell if they are covered by a fully insured or self-funded plan. If the insurance card says the plan is “administered by” the insurer or “administrative services only,” it is most likely a self-funded plan. If their insurance card states “underwritten by” the insurer on the card then it is likely a fully insured plan. This becomes important because self-funded plans are not subject to the jurisdiction of state laws such as utilization management reform. These state laws are preempted from applying to self-funded plans by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Supreme Court case took up the question of whether certain state laws impermissibly applied or were connected to self-funded plans. The ruling in favor of Rutledge opens the door that certain state legislation may one day apply to self-funded plans.
 

Specialty drug benefit carve outs are not in best interests of employees, employers

This piece is not about Rutledge but about the small third-party administrators that are convincing self-funded businesses to let them “carve out” specialty drug benefits from the larger administrator of the plan by promising huge savings in the employer’s specialty drug spending. Two such companies that have come to the attention of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations are Vivio Health and Archimedes. CSRO has received numerous complaints from rheumatologists regarding interference from these two entities with their clinical decision making and disregard for standard of care.

Vivio’s website reveals a disturbing approach to cost reduction. The website states that Vivio profiles physicians through ProPublica and Open Payments to determine if they are prescribing for the right reason and not for self-interest. This serves as an attempt to set up mistrust of the physician by the employer. Vivio’s website also states that the Food and Drug Administration has declining standards for approval of drugs, and consequently many approved drugs should be considered “experimental.” They say that business owners should not have to pay for “experimental” treatments. Through conversation with Vivio, it appears they believe that oncologists could be replaced by a primary care physician with the right algorithm.

Many of Vivio’s egregious behaviors are enumerated in our letter to Vivio: outrageous nonmedical switches, mandatory biologic tapering, and site of care changes. In all of the complaints that we received, Vivio attempted to switch patients to the same infusible medication, Renflexis, and also mandated white bagging, which means the payer has a specialty pharmacy ship a patient’s medication directly to the physician’s office for administration. This switch was made regardless of the mechanism of action or route of administration of the drug that had stabilized the patient. Peer-to-peer reviews with a retired radiologist led to routinely denied appeals and would even force the patient to a different site of care if the rheumatologist refused the new treatment or the mandated white bagging.

Our letter resulted in two conversations with Vivio. Vivio insisted that it was using American College of Rheumatology guidelines and comparisons between drug studies to make these decisions. The company stated that patients can be switched to any drug that has the same ACR 20, 50, and 70 response criteria outcomes as the drug that they are presently taking, even though these sorts of comparisons of results across completely different studies are invalid for a number of reasons, including because they do not have the same patient populations, protocols, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. These are dangerous policies and thus far we have not been able to find any rheumatologists who have gone along with these demands.

Companies such as Vivio are spreading, and employers are unaware that their policies are only paying lip service to “individualized care” while maintaining an approach to patient care that is focused only on cost cutting. Indeed, Archimedes represents one such metastasis. Their practices are similar to those of Vivio and of which CSRO has received complaints. Archimedes has similarly attempted to mandate white-bagging for the enrollees it manages and switch stable patients for nonmedical reasons to an entirely different molecule and mechanism of action.

Business owners do not understand the harm that these policies can cause their employees. This harm increases downstream medical spending as a result of loss of control of disease activity.

This is a call to action for all advocates and advocacy groups to get in the room with employer/business groups and explain how these third-party administrators, carving out specialty drug benefits, can ultimately cause physical harm to employees and increase monetary cost to the employer in the long run. Rheumatology as a specialty needs to educate employers and work out ways to save money for them and, at the same time, maintain excellence in care for their employees. CSRO has a letter it used successfully with the human resources department of Edward Jones to effect a change in its policies on this matter, which you are welcome to use to craft your own to businesses.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

There is a dangerous trend in our country in which employers, seeking to reduce health plan costs they pay, enter into agreements with small third-party administrators that “carve out” specialty drug benefits from their self-funded health insurance plan. What employers are not told is that these spending reductions are accomplished by risking the health of their employees. It is the self-funded businesses that are being preyed upon by these administrators because there is a lot of money to be made by carving out the specialty drugs in their self-funded health plan.

Let’s start with a little primer on “fully insured” versus “self-funded” health plans. As a small business owner, I understand the need to make sure that expenses don’t outpace revenue if I want to keep my doors open. One of the largest expenses for any business is health insurance. My private rheumatology practice uses a fully insured health plan. In a fully insured plan, the insurer is the party taking the financial risk. We pay the premiums, and the insurance company pays the bills after the deductible is met. It may cost more in premiums than a self-funded plan, but if an employee has an accident or severe illness, our practice is not responsible for the cost of care.

On the other hand, large and small businesses that are self-funded cover the health costs of their employees themselves. These businesses will hire a third-party administrator to pay the bills out of an account that is supplied with money from the business owner. Looking at the insurance card of your patient is one way to tell if they are covered by a fully insured or self-funded plan. If the insurance card says the plan is “administered by” the insurer or “administrative services only,” it is most likely a self-funded plan. If their insurance card states “underwritten by” the insurer on the card then it is likely a fully insured plan. This becomes important because self-funded plans are not subject to the jurisdiction of state laws such as utilization management reform. These state laws are preempted from applying to self-funded plans by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Supreme Court case took up the question of whether certain state laws impermissibly applied or were connected to self-funded plans. The ruling in favor of Rutledge opens the door that certain state legislation may one day apply to self-funded plans.
 

Specialty drug benefit carve outs are not in best interests of employees, employers

This piece is not about Rutledge but about the small third-party administrators that are convincing self-funded businesses to let them “carve out” specialty drug benefits from the larger administrator of the plan by promising huge savings in the employer’s specialty drug spending. Two such companies that have come to the attention of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations are Vivio Health and Archimedes. CSRO has received numerous complaints from rheumatologists regarding interference from these two entities with their clinical decision making and disregard for standard of care.

Vivio’s website reveals a disturbing approach to cost reduction. The website states that Vivio profiles physicians through ProPublica and Open Payments to determine if they are prescribing for the right reason and not for self-interest. This serves as an attempt to set up mistrust of the physician by the employer. Vivio’s website also states that the Food and Drug Administration has declining standards for approval of drugs, and consequently many approved drugs should be considered “experimental.” They say that business owners should not have to pay for “experimental” treatments. Through conversation with Vivio, it appears they believe that oncologists could be replaced by a primary care physician with the right algorithm.

Many of Vivio’s egregious behaviors are enumerated in our letter to Vivio: outrageous nonmedical switches, mandatory biologic tapering, and site of care changes. In all of the complaints that we received, Vivio attempted to switch patients to the same infusible medication, Renflexis, and also mandated white bagging, which means the payer has a specialty pharmacy ship a patient’s medication directly to the physician’s office for administration. This switch was made regardless of the mechanism of action or route of administration of the drug that had stabilized the patient. Peer-to-peer reviews with a retired radiologist led to routinely denied appeals and would even force the patient to a different site of care if the rheumatologist refused the new treatment or the mandated white bagging.

Our letter resulted in two conversations with Vivio. Vivio insisted that it was using American College of Rheumatology guidelines and comparisons between drug studies to make these decisions. The company stated that patients can be switched to any drug that has the same ACR 20, 50, and 70 response criteria outcomes as the drug that they are presently taking, even though these sorts of comparisons of results across completely different studies are invalid for a number of reasons, including because they do not have the same patient populations, protocols, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. These are dangerous policies and thus far we have not been able to find any rheumatologists who have gone along with these demands.

Companies such as Vivio are spreading, and employers are unaware that their policies are only paying lip service to “individualized care” while maintaining an approach to patient care that is focused only on cost cutting. Indeed, Archimedes represents one such metastasis. Their practices are similar to those of Vivio and of which CSRO has received complaints. Archimedes has similarly attempted to mandate white-bagging for the enrollees it manages and switch stable patients for nonmedical reasons to an entirely different molecule and mechanism of action.

Business owners do not understand the harm that these policies can cause their employees. This harm increases downstream medical spending as a result of loss of control of disease activity.

This is a call to action for all advocates and advocacy groups to get in the room with employer/business groups and explain how these third-party administrators, carving out specialty drug benefits, can ultimately cause physical harm to employees and increase monetary cost to the employer in the long run. Rheumatology as a specialty needs to educate employers and work out ways to save money for them and, at the same time, maintain excellence in care for their employees. CSRO has a letter it used successfully with the human resources department of Edward Jones to effect a change in its policies on this matter, which you are welcome to use to craft your own to businesses.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

There is a dangerous trend in our country in which employers, seeking to reduce health plan costs they pay, enter into agreements with small third-party administrators that “carve out” specialty drug benefits from their self-funded health insurance plan. What employers are not told is that these spending reductions are accomplished by risking the health of their employees. It is the self-funded businesses that are being preyed upon by these administrators because there is a lot of money to be made by carving out the specialty drugs in their self-funded health plan.

Let’s start with a little primer on “fully insured” versus “self-funded” health plans. As a small business owner, I understand the need to make sure that expenses don’t outpace revenue if I want to keep my doors open. One of the largest expenses for any business is health insurance. My private rheumatology practice uses a fully insured health plan. In a fully insured plan, the insurer is the party taking the financial risk. We pay the premiums, and the insurance company pays the bills after the deductible is met. It may cost more in premiums than a self-funded plan, but if an employee has an accident or severe illness, our practice is not responsible for the cost of care.

On the other hand, large and small businesses that are self-funded cover the health costs of their employees themselves. These businesses will hire a third-party administrator to pay the bills out of an account that is supplied with money from the business owner. Looking at the insurance card of your patient is one way to tell if they are covered by a fully insured or self-funded plan. If the insurance card says the plan is “administered by” the insurer or “administrative services only,” it is most likely a self-funded plan. If their insurance card states “underwritten by” the insurer on the card then it is likely a fully insured plan. This becomes important because self-funded plans are not subject to the jurisdiction of state laws such as utilization management reform. These state laws are preempted from applying to self-funded plans by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Supreme Court case took up the question of whether certain state laws impermissibly applied or were connected to self-funded plans. The ruling in favor of Rutledge opens the door that certain state legislation may one day apply to self-funded plans.
 

Specialty drug benefit carve outs are not in best interests of employees, employers

This piece is not about Rutledge but about the small third-party administrators that are convincing self-funded businesses to let them “carve out” specialty drug benefits from the larger administrator of the plan by promising huge savings in the employer’s specialty drug spending. Two such companies that have come to the attention of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations are Vivio Health and Archimedes. CSRO has received numerous complaints from rheumatologists regarding interference from these two entities with their clinical decision making and disregard for standard of care.

Vivio’s website reveals a disturbing approach to cost reduction. The website states that Vivio profiles physicians through ProPublica and Open Payments to determine if they are prescribing for the right reason and not for self-interest. This serves as an attempt to set up mistrust of the physician by the employer. Vivio’s website also states that the Food and Drug Administration has declining standards for approval of drugs, and consequently many approved drugs should be considered “experimental.” They say that business owners should not have to pay for “experimental” treatments. Through conversation with Vivio, it appears they believe that oncologists could be replaced by a primary care physician with the right algorithm.

Many of Vivio’s egregious behaviors are enumerated in our letter to Vivio: outrageous nonmedical switches, mandatory biologic tapering, and site of care changes. In all of the complaints that we received, Vivio attempted to switch patients to the same infusible medication, Renflexis, and also mandated white bagging, which means the payer has a specialty pharmacy ship a patient’s medication directly to the physician’s office for administration. This switch was made regardless of the mechanism of action or route of administration of the drug that had stabilized the patient. Peer-to-peer reviews with a retired radiologist led to routinely denied appeals and would even force the patient to a different site of care if the rheumatologist refused the new treatment or the mandated white bagging.

Our letter resulted in two conversations with Vivio. Vivio insisted that it was using American College of Rheumatology guidelines and comparisons between drug studies to make these decisions. The company stated that patients can be switched to any drug that has the same ACR 20, 50, and 70 response criteria outcomes as the drug that they are presently taking, even though these sorts of comparisons of results across completely different studies are invalid for a number of reasons, including because they do not have the same patient populations, protocols, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. These are dangerous policies and thus far we have not been able to find any rheumatologists who have gone along with these demands.

Companies such as Vivio are spreading, and employers are unaware that their policies are only paying lip service to “individualized care” while maintaining an approach to patient care that is focused only on cost cutting. Indeed, Archimedes represents one such metastasis. Their practices are similar to those of Vivio and of which CSRO has received complaints. Archimedes has similarly attempted to mandate white-bagging for the enrollees it manages and switch stable patients for nonmedical reasons to an entirely different molecule and mechanism of action.

Business owners do not understand the harm that these policies can cause their employees. This harm increases downstream medical spending as a result of loss of control of disease activity.

This is a call to action for all advocates and advocacy groups to get in the room with employer/business groups and explain how these third-party administrators, carving out specialty drug benefits, can ultimately cause physical harm to employees and increase monetary cost to the employer in the long run. Rheumatology as a specialty needs to educate employers and work out ways to save money for them and, at the same time, maintain excellence in care for their employees. CSRO has a letter it used successfully with the human resources department of Edward Jones to effect a change in its policies on this matter, which you are welcome to use to craft your own to businesses.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

One of the most commonly used organic acids used on the skin, lactic acid, has been used for over 3 decades. Originally derived from milk or plant-derived sugars, this gentle exfoliating acid can be used in peels, serums, masks, and toners, and has the additional benefit of hydrating the skin. Lactic acid is formulated in concentrations from 2% to 50%; however, because of its large molecular size, it doesn’t penetrate the deeper layers of the dermis to the same extent as the other alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs), such as glycolic acid. Thus, it is one of the gentler exfoliants and one that can be used in sensitive skin or darker skin types.

Similar to other AHAs, lactic acid is used topically to treat hyperpigmentation, textural abnormalities, acne scars, enlarged pores, and acne. Despite its mild peeling effects, lactic acid is best used to treat xerotic skin because of its function as a humectant, drawing moisture into the stratum corneum. Similar to the other AHAs, lactic acid has also been shown to decrease melanogenesis and is a gentle treatment for skin hyperpigmentation, particularly in skin of color. Side effects include peeling, stinging, erythema, photosensitivity, and hyperpigmentation when improperly used.

Very little clinical research has been reported in the last 20 years as to the uses and benefits of lactic acid in skincare. In my clinical experience, daily use of lactic acid is more effective and has more long-term benefits for hydration and rejuvenation of the skin than the other AHAs. Concentrations of 10%-15% used daily on the skin as a mild exfoliant and humectant have shown to improve texture, decrease pigmentation and improve fine lines – without thinning of the skin seen with the deeper dermal penetrating acids.

Confusion in the market has also risen as many over-the-counter brands have included ammonium lactate in their portfolio of moisturizers. Ammonium lactate is a combination of ammonium hydroxide and lactic acid, or the salt of lactic acid. A comparative study evaluating the difference between 5% lactic acid and 12% ammonium lactate for the treatment of xerosis showed that ammonium lactate was significantly more effective at reducing xerosis. It is widely used in the treatment of keratosis pilaris, calluses, xerosis, and ichthyosis.

Widespread use of lactic acid has not gotten as much glory as that of glycolic acid. However, in clinical practice, its functions are more widespread. It is a much safer acid to use, and its added benefit of increasing hydration of the skin is crucial in its long-term use for both photoaging and the prevention of wrinkles. With any acid, the exfoliating properties must be treated with adequate hydration and barrier repair.

The intrinsic moisturizing effect of lactic acid makes it a much more well-rounded acid and that can be used for longer periods of time in a broader spectrum of patients.

Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

One of the most commonly used organic acids used on the skin, lactic acid, has been used for over 3 decades. Originally derived from milk or plant-derived sugars, this gentle exfoliating acid can be used in peels, serums, masks, and toners, and has the additional benefit of hydrating the skin. Lactic acid is formulated in concentrations from 2% to 50%; however, because of its large molecular size, it doesn’t penetrate the deeper layers of the dermis to the same extent as the other alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs), such as glycolic acid. Thus, it is one of the gentler exfoliants and one that can be used in sensitive skin or darker skin types.

Similar to other AHAs, lactic acid is used topically to treat hyperpigmentation, textural abnormalities, acne scars, enlarged pores, and acne. Despite its mild peeling effects, lactic acid is best used to treat xerotic skin because of its function as a humectant, drawing moisture into the stratum corneum. Similar to the other AHAs, lactic acid has also been shown to decrease melanogenesis and is a gentle treatment for skin hyperpigmentation, particularly in skin of color. Side effects include peeling, stinging, erythema, photosensitivity, and hyperpigmentation when improperly used.

Very little clinical research has been reported in the last 20 years as to the uses and benefits of lactic acid in skincare. In my clinical experience, daily use of lactic acid is more effective and has more long-term benefits for hydration and rejuvenation of the skin than the other AHAs. Concentrations of 10%-15% used daily on the skin as a mild exfoliant and humectant have shown to improve texture, decrease pigmentation and improve fine lines – without thinning of the skin seen with the deeper dermal penetrating acids.

Confusion in the market has also risen as many over-the-counter brands have included ammonium lactate in their portfolio of moisturizers. Ammonium lactate is a combination of ammonium hydroxide and lactic acid, or the salt of lactic acid. A comparative study evaluating the difference between 5% lactic acid and 12% ammonium lactate for the treatment of xerosis showed that ammonium lactate was significantly more effective at reducing xerosis. It is widely used in the treatment of keratosis pilaris, calluses, xerosis, and ichthyosis.

Widespread use of lactic acid has not gotten as much glory as that of glycolic acid. However, in clinical practice, its functions are more widespread. It is a much safer acid to use, and its added benefit of increasing hydration of the skin is crucial in its long-term use for both photoaging and the prevention of wrinkles. With any acid, the exfoliating properties must be treated with adequate hydration and barrier repair.

The intrinsic moisturizing effect of lactic acid makes it a much more well-rounded acid and that can be used for longer periods of time in a broader spectrum of patients.

Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

One of the most commonly used organic acids used on the skin, lactic acid, has been used for over 3 decades. Originally derived from milk or plant-derived sugars, this gentle exfoliating acid can be used in peels, serums, masks, and toners, and has the additional benefit of hydrating the skin. Lactic acid is formulated in concentrations from 2% to 50%; however, because of its large molecular size, it doesn’t penetrate the deeper layers of the dermis to the same extent as the other alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs), such as glycolic acid. Thus, it is one of the gentler exfoliants and one that can be used in sensitive skin or darker skin types.

Similar to other AHAs, lactic acid is used topically to treat hyperpigmentation, textural abnormalities, acne scars, enlarged pores, and acne. Despite its mild peeling effects, lactic acid is best used to treat xerotic skin because of its function as a humectant, drawing moisture into the stratum corneum. Similar to the other AHAs, lactic acid has also been shown to decrease melanogenesis and is a gentle treatment for skin hyperpigmentation, particularly in skin of color. Side effects include peeling, stinging, erythema, photosensitivity, and hyperpigmentation when improperly used.

Very little clinical research has been reported in the last 20 years as to the uses and benefits of lactic acid in skincare. In my clinical experience, daily use of lactic acid is more effective and has more long-term benefits for hydration and rejuvenation of the skin than the other AHAs. Concentrations of 10%-15% used daily on the skin as a mild exfoliant and humectant have shown to improve texture, decrease pigmentation and improve fine lines – without thinning of the skin seen with the deeper dermal penetrating acids.

Confusion in the market has also risen as many over-the-counter brands have included ammonium lactate in their portfolio of moisturizers. Ammonium lactate is a combination of ammonium hydroxide and lactic acid, or the salt of lactic acid. A comparative study evaluating the difference between 5% lactic acid and 12% ammonium lactate for the treatment of xerosis showed that ammonium lactate was significantly more effective at reducing xerosis. It is widely used in the treatment of keratosis pilaris, calluses, xerosis, and ichthyosis.

Widespread use of lactic acid has not gotten as much glory as that of glycolic acid. However, in clinical practice, its functions are more widespread. It is a much safer acid to use, and its added benefit of increasing hydration of the skin is crucial in its long-term use for both photoaging and the prevention of wrinkles. With any acid, the exfoliating properties must be treated with adequate hydration and barrier repair.

The intrinsic moisturizing effect of lactic acid makes it a much more well-rounded acid and that can be used for longer periods of time in a broader spectrum of patients.

Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.