John Hickner, MD, MSc

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

Reading the excellent article on urine drug screening by Drs. Hayes and Fox reminds me of 2 important aspects of primary care: (1) Diagnosing and treating patients with drug addiction is an important service we provide, and (2) interpreting laboratory tests requires training, skill, and clinical judgment.

Drs. Hayes and Fox describe the proper use of urine drug testing in the management of patients for whom we prescribe opioids, whether for chronic pain or for addiction treatment. Combining a review of the literature with their own professional experience treating these patients, Drs. Hayes and Fox highlight the potential pitfalls in interpreting urine drug screening results and admonish us to use good clinical judgment in applying those results to patient care. They emphasize the need to avoid racial bias and blaming the patient.

Use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.

This article is very timely because, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid epidemic has continued unabated. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the estimated number of opioid overdose deaths increased by a whopping 32%, from 47,772 for the 1-year period ending August 2019 to 62,972 for the 1-year period ending August 2020.¹ Although this increase began in fall 2019, there can be little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is partly responsible. A positive sign, however, is that opioid prescribing in the United States is trending downward, reaching its lowest level in 14 years in 2019.² In fact, use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.¹

Despite this positive news, the number of deaths associated with opioid use remains sobering. The statistics continue to underscore the fact that there simply are not enough addiction treatment centers to manage all of those who need and want help. All primary care physicians are eligible to prescribe suboxone to treat patients with opioid addiction—a treatment that can be highly effective in reducing the use of street opioids and, therefore, reducing deaths from overdose. Fewer than 10% of primary care physicians prescribed suboxone in 2017.³ I hope that more of you will take the required training and become involved in assisting your patients who struggle with opioid addiction.

Reading the excellent article on urine drug screening by Drs. Hayes and Fox reminds me of 2 important aspects of primary care: (1) Diagnosing and treating patients with drug addiction is an important service we provide, and (2) interpreting laboratory tests requires training, skill, and clinical judgment.

Drs. Hayes and Fox describe the proper use of urine drug testing in the management of patients for whom we prescribe opioids, whether for chronic pain or for addiction treatment. Combining a review of the literature with their own professional experience treating these patients, Drs. Hayes and Fox highlight the potential pitfalls in interpreting urine drug screening results and admonish us to use good clinical judgment in applying those results to patient care. They emphasize the need to avoid racial bias and blaming the patient.

Use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.

This article is very timely because, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid epidemic has continued unabated. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the estimated number of opioid overdose deaths increased by a whopping 32%, from 47,772 for the 1-year period ending August 2019 to 62,972 for the 1-year period ending August 2020.¹ Although this increase began in fall 2019, there can be little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is partly responsible. A positive sign, however, is that opioid prescribing in the United States is trending downward, reaching its lowest level in 14 years in 2019.² In fact, use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.¹

Despite this positive news, the number of deaths associated with opioid use remains sobering. The statistics continue to underscore the fact that there simply are not enough addiction treatment centers to manage all of those who need and want help. All primary care physicians are eligible to prescribe suboxone to treat patients with opioid addiction—a treatment that can be highly effective in reducing the use of street opioids and, therefore, reducing deaths from overdose. Fewer than 10% of primary care physicians prescribed suboxone in 2017.³ I hope that more of you will take the required training and become involved in assisting your patients who struggle with opioid addiction.

Reading the excellent article on urine drug screening by Drs. Hayes and Fox reminds me of 2 important aspects of primary care: (1) Diagnosing and treating patients with drug addiction is an important service we provide, and (2) interpreting laboratory tests requires training, skill, and clinical judgment.

Drs. Hayes and Fox describe the proper use of urine drug testing in the management of patients for whom we prescribe opioids, whether for chronic pain or for addiction treatment. Combining a review of the literature with their own professional experience treating these patients, Drs. Hayes and Fox highlight the potential pitfalls in interpreting urine drug screening results and admonish us to use good clinical judgment in applying those results to patient care. They emphasize the need to avoid racial bias and blaming the patient.

Use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.

This article is very timely because, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid epidemic has continued unabated. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the estimated number of opioid overdose deaths increased by a whopping 32%, from 47,772 for the 1-year period ending August 2019 to 62,972 for the 1-year period ending August 2020.¹ Although this increase began in fall 2019, there can be little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is partly responsible. A positive sign, however, is that opioid prescribing in the United States is trending downward, reaching its lowest level in 14 years in 2019.² In fact, use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.¹

Despite this positive news, the number of deaths associated with opioid use remains sobering. The statistics continue to underscore the fact that there simply are not enough addiction treatment centers to manage all of those who need and want help. All primary care physicians are eligible to prescribe suboxone to treat patients with opioid addiction—a treatment that can be highly effective in reducing the use of street opioids and, therefore, reducing deaths from overdose. Fewer than 10% of primary care physicians prescribed suboxone in 2017.³ I hope that more of you will take the required training and become involved in assisting your patients who struggle with opioid addiction.

This month’s editorial was jointly written by the editors of 10 prominent family medicine publications, including JFP, and is being published simultaneously in all 10 publications. In addition to this statement, each editor has developed action steps for their respective journals. At JFP, we plan to take the steps detailed here to help eliminate systemic racism. We will:

• continue to seek Black, Latino, and Native American physicians to serve on the JFP editorial advisory board.
• solicit manuscripts from these underrepresented groups of physicians.
• recruit peer reviewers from underrepresented communities.
• re-evaluate the thoroughness of manuscripts; where there are racial or ethnic differences in presentation of diseases or treatment outcomes, we will ensure that these differences are highlighted.

If you are interested in helping us to achieve these goals, I encourage you to contact me at jfp.eic@gmail.com.

We must all band together to eliminate disparities and biases in medical education and medical care so that all people receive the same high standard of respect and care that every human being deserves.

This month’s editorial was jointly written by the editors of 10 prominent family medicine publications, including JFP, and is being published simultaneously in all 10 publications. In addition to this statement, each editor has developed action steps for their respective journals. At JFP, we plan to take the steps detailed here to help eliminate systemic racism. We will:

• continue to seek Black, Latino, and Native American physicians to serve on the JFP editorial advisory board.
• solicit manuscripts from these underrepresented groups of physicians.
• recruit peer reviewers from underrepresented communities.
• re-evaluate the thoroughness of manuscripts; where there are racial or ethnic differences in presentation of diseases or treatment outcomes, we will ensure that these differences are highlighted.

If you are interested in helping us to achieve these goals, I encourage you to contact me at jfp.eic@gmail.com.

We must all band together to eliminate disparities and biases in medical education and medical care so that all people receive the same high standard of respect and care that every human being deserves.

This month’s editorial was jointly written by the editors of 10 prominent family medicine publications, including JFP, and is being published simultaneously in all 10 publications. In addition to this statement, each editor has developed action steps for their respective journals. At JFP, we plan to take the steps detailed here to help eliminate systemic racism. We will:

• continue to seek Black, Latino, and Native American physicians to serve on the JFP editorial advisory board.
• solicit manuscripts from these underrepresented groups of physicians.
• recruit peer reviewers from underrepresented communities.
• re-evaluate the thoroughness of manuscripts; where there are racial or ethnic differences in presentation of diseases or treatment outcomes, we will ensure that these differences are highlighted.

If you are interested in helping us to achieve these goals, I encourage you to contact me at jfp.eic@gmail.com.

We must all band together to eliminate disparities and biases in medical education and medical care so that all people receive the same high standard of respect and care that every human being deserves.

In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.

The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).¹ Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!

Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care.

The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.

Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it. 

PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
 

In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.

The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).¹ Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!

Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care.

The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.

Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it. 

PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
 

In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.

The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).¹ Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!

Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care.

The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.

Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it. 

PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all primary care clinicians have been engaged in telemedicine. Telemedicine visits have certain ­advantages—especially convenience to patients. But there are dangers, as well. The ­following true story illustrates one of the important dangers.

The outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

“I had an interesting experience late last week that reminded me how important it is to be one’s own advocate in health care. I cut my foot going for an outdoor swim. It got infected so I had a telehealth visit with a physician assistant. She prescribed an antibiotic. The next day, Friday, the swelling and redness were rapidly moving up my foot. I called the office twice. I sent a picture of my foot. No call-back.

I texted my podiatrist the same photo with the question: Do I sit tight or go to the ED? A half hour later, he called me: Go to the hospital. I did. I got IV antibiotics and a tetanus shot. I was also told by the ED doc that my itchy palms were a reaction to the antibiotic I’d been prescribed, and that the physician assistant shouldn’t have prescribed a sulfa drug, given that my chart listed a past reaction to sulfa eye drops.”

The patient is a top-flight triathlete and the editor of JFP, Marya Ostrowski. She was gracious to share her story with us, and she did recover uneventfully, although the outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

Her story has 3 important teaching points:

1. We must ensure that our office phone system prioritizes calls from patients. If there is any hint that the problem is urgent, it must be handled immediately.^a
2. CAREFULLY check for allergies before prescribing medication. Perhaps the physician assistant did check the medication list and noted an allergy to eye drops but did not zero in on the fact that they were sulfa. Medication allergy lists can be misleading because they can be too specific. Had her medication allergy been listed as “sulfa medications,” rather than the specific eye drop, the physician assistant may have recognized the allergy correctly.
3. Finally, and most important in my estimation: Patients must act as their own health advocates. Patients are the final common barrier against medical ­errors and we must learn to listen to them carefully. We should encourage our patients to report problems and irregularities in care.

^a The physician assistant returned Marya’s calls at 4:30 that Friday afternoon—8 hours after her first outreach. Marya was already in an ED bed and the nursing staff was starting her IV.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all primary care clinicians have been engaged in telemedicine. Telemedicine visits have certain ­advantages—especially convenience to patients. But there are dangers, as well. The ­following true story illustrates one of the important dangers.

The outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

“I had an interesting experience late last week that reminded me how important it is to be one’s own advocate in health care. I cut my foot going for an outdoor swim. It got infected so I had a telehealth visit with a physician assistant. She prescribed an antibiotic. The next day, Friday, the swelling and redness were rapidly moving up my foot. I called the office twice. I sent a picture of my foot. No call-back.

I texted my podiatrist the same photo with the question: Do I sit tight or go to the ED? A half hour later, he called me: Go to the hospital. I did. I got IV antibiotics and a tetanus shot. I was also told by the ED doc that my itchy palms were a reaction to the antibiotic I’d been prescribed, and that the physician assistant shouldn’t have prescribed a sulfa drug, given that my chart listed a past reaction to sulfa eye drops.”

The patient is a top-flight triathlete and the editor of JFP, Marya Ostrowski. She was gracious to share her story with us, and she did recover uneventfully, although the outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

Her story has 3 important teaching points:

1. We must ensure that our office phone system prioritizes calls from patients. If there is any hint that the problem is urgent, it must be handled immediately.^a
2. CAREFULLY check for allergies before prescribing medication. Perhaps the physician assistant did check the medication list and noted an allergy to eye drops but did not zero in on the fact that they were sulfa. Medication allergy lists can be misleading because they can be too specific. Had her medication allergy been listed as “sulfa medications,” rather than the specific eye drop, the physician assistant may have recognized the allergy correctly.
3. Finally, and most important in my estimation: Patients must act as their own health advocates. Patients are the final common barrier against medical ­errors and we must learn to listen to them carefully. We should encourage our patients to report problems and irregularities in care.

^a The physician assistant returned Marya’s calls at 4:30 that Friday afternoon—8 hours after her first outreach. Marya was already in an ED bed and the nursing staff was starting her IV.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all primary care clinicians have been engaged in telemedicine. Telemedicine visits have certain ­advantages—especially convenience to patients. But there are dangers, as well. The ­following true story illustrates one of the important dangers.

The outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

“I had an interesting experience late last week that reminded me how important it is to be one’s own advocate in health care. I cut my foot going for an outdoor swim. It got infected so I had a telehealth visit with a physician assistant. She prescribed an antibiotic. The next day, Friday, the swelling and redness were rapidly moving up my foot. I called the office twice. I sent a picture of my foot. No call-back.

I texted my podiatrist the same photo with the question: Do I sit tight or go to the ED? A half hour later, he called me: Go to the hospital. I did. I got IV antibiotics and a tetanus shot. I was also told by the ED doc that my itchy palms were a reaction to the antibiotic I’d been prescribed, and that the physician assistant shouldn’t have prescribed a sulfa drug, given that my chart listed a past reaction to sulfa eye drops.”

The patient is a top-flight triathlete and the editor of JFP, Marya Ostrowski. She was gracious to share her story with us, and she did recover uneventfully, although the outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

Her story has 3 important teaching points:

1. We must ensure that our office phone system prioritizes calls from patients. If there is any hint that the problem is urgent, it must be handled immediately.^a
2. CAREFULLY check for allergies before prescribing medication. Perhaps the physician assistant did check the medication list and noted an allergy to eye drops but did not zero in on the fact that they were sulfa. Medication allergy lists can be misleading because they can be too specific. Had her medication allergy been listed as “sulfa medications,” rather than the specific eye drop, the physician assistant may have recognized the allergy correctly.
3. Finally, and most important in my estimation: Patients must act as their own health advocates. Patients are the final common barrier against medical ­errors and we must learn to listen to them carefully. We should encourage our patients to report problems and irregularities in care.

^a The physician assistant returned Marya’s calls at 4:30 that Friday afternoon—8 hours after her first outreach. Marya was already in an ED bed and the nursing staff was starting her IV.

The year 2020 was marked by historic protests across the United States and the globe sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many other Black people. The protests heightened awareness of racism as a public health crisis and triggered an antiracism movement. Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.^1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.^3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.^5,6,7,8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. Today there is a renewed call to action for family medicine, a specialty that emerged as a counterculture to reform mainstream medicine,⁹ to both confront systemic racism and eliminate health disparities. This effort will require collaboration, commitment, education, and transformative conversations around racism, health inequity, and advocacy so that we can better serve our patients and our communities.

The editors of several North American family medicine publications have come together to address this call to action and share resources on racism across our readerships. We acknowledge those members of the family medicine scholar community who have been fighting for equity consistent with the Black Lives Matter movement by writing about racism, health inequities, and personal experiences of practicing as Black family physicians. While we recognize that much more work is needed, we want to amplify these voices. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarship generated by the family medicine community on the topic of racism in medicine.

The collection can be accessed here.

While this list is likely not complete, it does include over 250 published manuscripts and demonstrates expertise as well as a commitment to addressing these complex issues. For example, in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.¹⁰ In January of 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.¹¹ Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, co-authored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. His recent 2020 article builds on that theme and describes the disproportionate deaths of Black people due to racial injustice and the COVID-19 pandemic as converging public health emergencies.^12,13 In the wake of these emergencies a fundamental transformation is warranted, and family physicians can play a key role.

We, the editors of family medicine journals, commit to actively examine the effects of racism on society and health and to take action to eliminate structural racism in our editorial processes. As an intellectual home for our profession, we have a unique responsibility and opportunity to educate and continue the conversation about institutional racism, health inequities, and antiracism in medicine. We will take immediate steps to enact tangible advances on these fronts. We will encourage and mentor authors from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will ensure that content includes an emphasis on cultural humility, diversity and inclusion, implicit bias, and the impact of racism on medicine and health. We will recruit editors and editorial board members from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will encourage collaboration and accountability within our specialty to confront systemic racism through content and processes in all of our individual publications. We recognize that these are small steps in an ongoing process of active antiracism, but we believe these steps are crucial. As editors in family medicine, we are committed to progress toward equity and justice.

Simultaneously published in American Family Physician, Annals of Family Medicine, Canadian Family Physician, Family Medicine, FP Essentials, FPIN/Evidence Based Practice, FPM, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, The Journal of Family Practice, and PRiMER.

Acknowledgement –

The authors thank Renee Crichlow, MD, Byron Jasper, MD, MPH, and Victoria Murrain, DO, for their insightful comments on this editorial.

The year 2020 was marked by historic protests across the United States and the globe sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many other Black people. The protests heightened awareness of racism as a public health crisis and triggered an antiracism movement. Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.^1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.^3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.^5,6,7,8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. Today there is a renewed call to action for family medicine, a specialty that emerged as a counterculture to reform mainstream medicine,⁹ to both confront systemic racism and eliminate health disparities. This effort will require collaboration, commitment, education, and transformative conversations around racism, health inequity, and advocacy so that we can better serve our patients and our communities.

The editors of several North American family medicine publications have come together to address this call to action and share resources on racism across our readerships. We acknowledge those members of the family medicine scholar community who have been fighting for equity consistent with the Black Lives Matter movement by writing about racism, health inequities, and personal experiences of practicing as Black family physicians. While we recognize that much more work is needed, we want to amplify these voices. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarship generated by the family medicine community on the topic of racism in medicine.

The collection can be accessed here.

While this list is likely not complete, it does include over 250 published manuscripts and demonstrates expertise as well as a commitment to addressing these complex issues. For example, in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.¹⁰ In January of 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.¹¹ Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, co-authored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. His recent 2020 article builds on that theme and describes the disproportionate deaths of Black people due to racial injustice and the COVID-19 pandemic as converging public health emergencies.^12,13 In the wake of these emergencies a fundamental transformation is warranted, and family physicians can play a key role.

We, the editors of family medicine journals, commit to actively examine the effects of racism on society and health and to take action to eliminate structural racism in our editorial processes. As an intellectual home for our profession, we have a unique responsibility and opportunity to educate and continue the conversation about institutional racism, health inequities, and antiracism in medicine. We will take immediate steps to enact tangible advances on these fronts. We will encourage and mentor authors from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will ensure that content includes an emphasis on cultural humility, diversity and inclusion, implicit bias, and the impact of racism on medicine and health. We will recruit editors and editorial board members from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will encourage collaboration and accountability within our specialty to confront systemic racism through content and processes in all of our individual publications. We recognize that these are small steps in an ongoing process of active antiracism, but we believe these steps are crucial. As editors in family medicine, we are committed to progress toward equity and justice.

Simultaneously published in American Family Physician, Annals of Family Medicine, Canadian Family Physician, Family Medicine, FP Essentials, FPIN/Evidence Based Practice, FPM, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, The Journal of Family Practice, and PRiMER.

Acknowledgement –

The authors thank Renee Crichlow, MD, Byron Jasper, MD, MPH, and Victoria Murrain, DO, for their insightful comments on this editorial.

The year 2020 was marked by historic protests across the United States and the globe sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many other Black people. The protests heightened awareness of racism as a public health crisis and triggered an antiracism movement. Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.^1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.^3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.^5,6,7,8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. Today there is a renewed call to action for family medicine, a specialty that emerged as a counterculture to reform mainstream medicine,⁹ to both confront systemic racism and eliminate health disparities. This effort will require collaboration, commitment, education, and transformative conversations around racism, health inequity, and advocacy so that we can better serve our patients and our communities.

The editors of several North American family medicine publications have come together to address this call to action and share resources on racism across our readerships. We acknowledge those members of the family medicine scholar community who have been fighting for equity consistent with the Black Lives Matter movement by writing about racism, health inequities, and personal experiences of practicing as Black family physicians. While we recognize that much more work is needed, we want to amplify these voices. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarship generated by the family medicine community on the topic of racism in medicine.

The collection can be accessed here.

While this list is likely not complete, it does include over 250 published manuscripts and demonstrates expertise as well as a commitment to addressing these complex issues. For example, in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.¹⁰ In January of 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.¹¹ Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, co-authored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. His recent 2020 article builds on that theme and describes the disproportionate deaths of Black people due to racial injustice and the COVID-19 pandemic as converging public health emergencies.^12,13 In the wake of these emergencies a fundamental transformation is warranted, and family physicians can play a key role.

We, the editors of family medicine journals, commit to actively examine the effects of racism on society and health and to take action to eliminate structural racism in our editorial processes. As an intellectual home for our profession, we have a unique responsibility and opportunity to educate and continue the conversation about institutional racism, health inequities, and antiracism in medicine. We will take immediate steps to enact tangible advances on these fronts. We will encourage and mentor authors from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will ensure that content includes an emphasis on cultural humility, diversity and inclusion, implicit bias, and the impact of racism on medicine and health. We will recruit editors and editorial board members from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will encourage collaboration and accountability within our specialty to confront systemic racism through content and processes in all of our individual publications. We recognize that these are small steps in an ongoing process of active antiracism, but we believe these steps are crucial. As editors in family medicine, we are committed to progress toward equity and justice.

Simultaneously published in American Family Physician, Annals of Family Medicine, Canadian Family Physician, Family Medicine, FP Essentials, FPIN/Evidence Based Practice, FPM, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, The Journal of Family Practice, and PRiMER.

Acknowledgement –

The authors thank Renee Crichlow, MD, Byron Jasper, MD, MPH, and Victoria Murrain, DO, for their insightful comments on this editorial.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

In this issue of JFP, there is an extraordinarily valuable PURL (Priority Updates from the Research Literature) for you. PURLs^® are written by academic family physicians who comb through volumes of research to identify and then summarize for JFP important studies we believe should change your practice. After reading a PURL, you may find that you have already implemented this new evidence into your practice. In that case, the PURL confirms that you are doing the right thing.

We should all tell our patients to take their BP medication in the evening from now on. What could be an easier way to reduce CV morbidity and mortality?

Here is the good news from this month’s PURL: Having patients take their blood pressure (BP) medication in the evening, rather than in the morning, leads not only to better BP control but also to a reduction in cardiovascular events.¹ How large is this effect? This simple intervention nearly cut in half the number of major cardiovascular events—including myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure—and the risk for death from a cardiovascular event was reduced 56%. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 major cardiovascular event over the course of 6.3 years was 20. That means this intervention is more powerful than taking a statin!

The investigators, who call this intervention “chronotherapy” since it takes into account the body’s circadian rhythms, have been studying the effect of this simple intervention for many years, and this large randomized trial provides very strong evidence that it’s effective. Despite the excellent trial design and execution, some cardiovascular researchers have questioned the integrity of the trial and believe patients should continue to take their antihypertensives in the morning.² The main investigator of the study, however, has provided a very strong rebuttal in print.³

I am delighted to see the positive results of this definitive trial of chronotherapy for hypertension. When these investigators published their first randomized trial of chronotherapy in 2010,⁴ which demonstrated a significant BP reduction with evening dosing of antihypertensives, I began telling all of my patients to take at least 1 of their antihypertensive meds in the evening. Maybe I was jumping the gun at that time, but we should all tell our patients to take their BP medication in the evening from now on. What could be an easier way to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality?

In this issue of JFP, there is an extraordinarily valuable PURL (Priority Updates from the Research Literature) for you. PURLs^® are written by academic family physicians who comb through volumes of research to identify and then summarize for JFP important studies we believe should change your practice. After reading a PURL, you may find that you have already implemented this new evidence into your practice. In that case, the PURL confirms that you are doing the right thing.

We should all tell our patients to take their BP medication in the evening from now on. What could be an easier way to reduce CV morbidity and mortality?

Here is the good news from this month’s PURL: Having patients take their blood pressure (BP) medication in the evening, rather than in the morning, leads not only to better BP control but also to a reduction in cardiovascular events.¹ How large is this effect? This simple intervention nearly cut in half the number of major cardiovascular events—including myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure—and the risk for death from a cardiovascular event was reduced 56%. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 major cardiovascular event over the course of 6.3 years was 20. That means this intervention is more powerful than taking a statin!

The investigators, who call this intervention “chronotherapy” since it takes into account the body’s circadian rhythms, have been studying the effect of this simple intervention for many years, and this large randomized trial provides very strong evidence that it’s effective. Despite the excellent trial design and execution, some cardiovascular researchers have questioned the integrity of the trial and believe patients should continue to take their antihypertensives in the morning.² The main investigator of the study, however, has provided a very strong rebuttal in print.³

I am delighted to see the positive results of this definitive trial of chronotherapy for hypertension. When these investigators published their first randomized trial of chronotherapy in 2010,⁴ which demonstrated a significant BP reduction with evening dosing of antihypertensives, I began telling all of my patients to take at least 1 of their antihypertensive meds in the evening. Maybe I was jumping the gun at that time, but we should all tell our patients to take their BP medication in the evening from now on. What could be an easier way to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality?

In this issue of JFP, there is an extraordinarily valuable PURL (Priority Updates from the Research Literature) for you. PURLs^® are written by academic family physicians who comb through volumes of research to identify and then summarize for JFP important studies we believe should change your practice. After reading a PURL, you may find that you have already implemented this new evidence into your practice. In that case, the PURL confirms that you are doing the right thing.

We should all tell our patients to take their BP medication in the evening from now on. What could be an easier way to reduce CV morbidity and mortality?

Here is the good news from this month’s PURL: Having patients take their blood pressure (BP) medication in the evening, rather than in the morning, leads not only to better BP control but also to a reduction in cardiovascular events.¹ How large is this effect? This simple intervention nearly cut in half the number of major cardiovascular events—including myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure—and the risk for death from a cardiovascular event was reduced 56%. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 major cardiovascular event over the course of 6.3 years was 20. That means this intervention is more powerful than taking a statin!

The investigators, who call this intervention “chronotherapy” since it takes into account the body’s circadian rhythms, have been studying the effect of this simple intervention for many years, and this large randomized trial provides very strong evidence that it’s effective. Despite the excellent trial design and execution, some cardiovascular researchers have questioned the integrity of the trial and believe patients should continue to take their antihypertensives in the morning.² The main investigator of the study, however, has provided a very strong rebuttal in print.³

I am delighted to see the positive results of this definitive trial of chronotherapy for hypertension. When these investigators published their first randomized trial of chronotherapy in 2010,⁴ which demonstrated a significant BP reduction with evening dosing of antihypertensives, I began telling all of my patients to take at least 1 of their antihypertensive meds in the evening. Maybe I was jumping the gun at that time, but we should all tell our patients to take their BP medication in the evening from now on. What could be an easier way to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality?

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

More and more, the streets of America are looking like those of Eastern countries (such as China) during previous public health crises. Americans are wearing face masks.

The best homemade masks are those with 2 layers of high-quality, heavyweight “quilter’s cotton” with a thread count of 180 or more.

In addition to social distancing and hand washing, face masks are a primary defense against COVID-19. N95 face masks protect against 95% of the particles that are likely to transmit respiratory infection microbes. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that we all use masks, in addition to social distancing, in public settings. Since there will not be a sufficient supply of N95 masks for the general public (and they are difficult to fit and wear properly), we are left with surgical masks and so-called DIY (do-it-yourself) masks. But do DIY face masks protect against COVID-19?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine published a scientific review of fabric face masks last month.¹ They found 7 studies that evaluated either the ability of the mask to protect the wearer or to prevent the spread of infectious particles from a wearer. Performance ranged from very poor to 50% filtration depending on the material used. Jayaraman² found a filtration rate of 50% for 4 layers of polyester knitted cut-pile fabric, the best material he tested. Davies³ compared a 2-layer cotton DIY mask with a surgical face mask and found that the cotton mask was 3 times less effective. And in the only randomized trial of cotton masks, the cotton 2-layer masks performed much worse than medical masks in protecting from respiratory infection (relative risk [RR] = 13).⁴ A study of COVID-19-infected patients found that neither surgical nor cotton masks were effective at blocking the virus from disseminating during coughing.⁵

The most recent lab testing of DIY masks was done at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, where they tested a variety of materials; the results were somewhat encouraging.⁶ The best homemade masks were those with “2 layers of high-quality, heavyweight ‘quilter’s cotton’ with a thread count of 180 or more, and those with especially tight weave and thicker thread such as batiks.”⁶ The best homemade masks achieved 79% filtration. But single-layer masks or double-layer designs of lower quality, lightweight cotton achieved as little as 1% filtration.

The bottom line: Mass production and use of N95-type masks would be most effective in preventing transmission in general public settings, but this seems unlikely. Surgical masks are next best. Well-constructed DIY masks are the last resort but can provide some protection against infection.

More and more, the streets of America are looking like those of Eastern countries (such as China) during previous public health crises. Americans are wearing face masks.

The best homemade masks are those with 2 layers of high-quality, heavyweight “quilter’s cotton” with a thread count of 180 or more.

In addition to social distancing and hand washing, face masks are a primary defense against COVID-19. N95 face masks protect against 95% of the particles that are likely to transmit respiratory infection microbes. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that we all use masks, in addition to social distancing, in public settings. Since there will not be a sufficient supply of N95 masks for the general public (and they are difficult to fit and wear properly), we are left with surgical masks and so-called DIY (do-it-yourself) masks. But do DIY face masks protect against COVID-19?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine published a scientific review of fabric face masks last month.¹ They found 7 studies that evaluated either the ability of the mask to protect the wearer or to prevent the spread of infectious particles from a wearer. Performance ranged from very poor to 50% filtration depending on the material used. Jayaraman² found a filtration rate of 50% for 4 layers of polyester knitted cut-pile fabric, the best material he tested. Davies³ compared a 2-layer cotton DIY mask with a surgical face mask and found that the cotton mask was 3 times less effective. And in the only randomized trial of cotton masks, the cotton 2-layer masks performed much worse than medical masks in protecting from respiratory infection (relative risk [RR] = 13).⁴ A study of COVID-19-infected patients found that neither surgical nor cotton masks were effective at blocking the virus from disseminating during coughing.⁵

The most recent lab testing of DIY masks was done at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, where they tested a variety of materials; the results were somewhat encouraging.⁶ The best homemade masks were those with “2 layers of high-quality, heavyweight ‘quilter’s cotton’ with a thread count of 180 or more, and those with especially tight weave and thicker thread such as batiks.”⁶ The best homemade masks achieved 79% filtration. But single-layer masks or double-layer designs of lower quality, lightweight cotton achieved as little as 1% filtration.

The bottom line: Mass production and use of N95-type masks would be most effective in preventing transmission in general public settings, but this seems unlikely. Surgical masks are next best. Well-constructed DIY masks are the last resort but can provide some protection against infection.

More and more, the streets of America are looking like those of Eastern countries (such as China) during previous public health crises. Americans are wearing face masks.

The best homemade masks are those with 2 layers of high-quality, heavyweight “quilter’s cotton” with a thread count of 180 or more.

In addition to social distancing and hand washing, face masks are a primary defense against COVID-19. N95 face masks protect against 95% of the particles that are likely to transmit respiratory infection microbes. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that we all use masks, in addition to social distancing, in public settings. Since there will not be a sufficient supply of N95 masks for the general public (and they are difficult to fit and wear properly), we are left with surgical masks and so-called DIY (do-it-yourself) masks. But do DIY face masks protect against COVID-19?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine published a scientific review of fabric face masks last month.¹ They found 7 studies that evaluated either the ability of the mask to protect the wearer or to prevent the spread of infectious particles from a wearer. Performance ranged from very poor to 50% filtration depending on the material used. Jayaraman² found a filtration rate of 50% for 4 layers of polyester knitted cut-pile fabric, the best material he tested. Davies³ compared a 2-layer cotton DIY mask with a surgical face mask and found that the cotton mask was 3 times less effective. And in the only randomized trial of cotton masks, the cotton 2-layer masks performed much worse than medical masks in protecting from respiratory infection (relative risk [RR] = 13).⁴ A study of COVID-19-infected patients found that neither surgical nor cotton masks were effective at blocking the virus from disseminating during coughing.⁵

The most recent lab testing of DIY masks was done at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, where they tested a variety of materials; the results were somewhat encouraging.⁶ The best homemade masks were those with “2 layers of high-quality, heavyweight ‘quilter’s cotton’ with a thread count of 180 or more, and those with especially tight weave and thicker thread such as batiks.”⁶ The best homemade masks achieved 79% filtration. But single-layer masks or double-layer designs of lower quality, lightweight cotton achieved as little as 1% filtration.

The bottom line: Mass production and use of N95-type masks would be most effective in preventing transmission in general public settings, but this seems unlikely. Surgical masks are next best. Well-constructed DIY masks are the last resort but can provide some protection against infection.