Covid ICYMI

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A patient hugged me yesterday, the second one in a week. I am not a hugging doctor. And if I were, sure, I wouldn’t be hugging now while we pass through the eye of the COVID-19 storm. But in both cases, my patients opened their arms wide and leaned in before I had a chance to defend myself.

The first, a carrot-coiffed 80-year-old who stood only as tall as my shoulders, asked if she could hug me just as she put her arms around me, closing any window of opportunity for me to foil her attempt. The second was more of a modified hug. She also was an elderly woman and she too walked in close, then started to put her arm around my back. I dodged, awkwardly so it was more shoulder-to-shoulder than a full on embrace. Best buds. She too acknowledged we shouldn’t be hugging in the time of COVID-19, but felt she just had to. She couldn’t resist the urge.

Hugs may be dangerous, but they’re special. They are how we thank family and close friends, how we say I love you, I missed you, or I got you. Hugging transfers a feeling of gratitude in a richer manner than just words. Both of these hugs given to me were done to thank me and show appreciation. They were also likely part of what they wanted from me in their visit.

We’re taught in medicine about the power of touch. Abraham Verghese, MD, the Stanford University professor of medicine and TED speaker, says indeed, the most important innovation in medicine is the human hand. Yet, because of the risks of infectious diseases and risk of harm caused by inappropriate or unwanted touch, we avert it more often than not these days. Or we use it with surgical precision to mitigate risks or chances of any misadventure.

Still, touch is powerful. It releases oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and cortisol, and boosts immune responses. To be held is a basic human need. And in this time of COVID-19, many of our patients are being deprived of it.

Psychologists have a name for this condition: “skin hunger.” Skin hunger describes our universal need to be touched and, like true hunger, the health consequences of being starved of it. The first thing we do to a newborn is plop her or him, skin to skin, right on mom’s chest. From the start, touch is life giving and is hardwired into our brains as a requirement for survival.

As the pandemic rolls on, it feels we’re losing the power of this most important innovation. Through our masks and face shields, sitting 6 feet away are some patients who might more than anything else need us to touch them. With safety superseding the desire to sate physical contact craving, touch has now become one of the more difficult tasks for us as physicians. We must iterate on this innovation of the human hand. Perhaps through deeper eye contact, by spending an extra minute or two to inquire about a patient’s family or favorite TV shows. It might be a few elbow bumps, perhaps lingering for just a second to transfer your energy and comfort to them. Or using the gloved auscultation exam as an opportunity to rest your hand gently on a patient’s back.

The dangers of COVID-19 won’t be with us forever, but perhaps we can use this extraordinary time to improve upon one of our most valuable tools, the touch that comforts and heals.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

A patient hugged me yesterday, the second one in a week. I am not a hugging doctor. And if I were, sure, I wouldn’t be hugging now while we pass through the eye of the COVID-19 storm. But in both cases, my patients opened their arms wide and leaned in before I had a chance to defend myself.

The first, a carrot-coiffed 80-year-old who stood only as tall as my shoulders, asked if she could hug me just as she put her arms around me, closing any window of opportunity for me to foil her attempt. The second was more of a modified hug. She also was an elderly woman and she too walked in close, then started to put her arm around my back. I dodged, awkwardly so it was more shoulder-to-shoulder than a full on embrace. Best buds. She too acknowledged we shouldn’t be hugging in the time of COVID-19, but felt she just had to. She couldn’t resist the urge.

Hugs may be dangerous, but they’re special. They are how we thank family and close friends, how we say I love you, I missed you, or I got you. Hugging transfers a feeling of gratitude in a richer manner than just words. Both of these hugs given to me were done to thank me and show appreciation. They were also likely part of what they wanted from me in their visit.

We’re taught in medicine about the power of touch. Abraham Verghese, MD, the Stanford University professor of medicine and TED speaker, says indeed, the most important innovation in medicine is the human hand. Yet, because of the risks of infectious diseases and risk of harm caused by inappropriate or unwanted touch, we avert it more often than not these days. Or we use it with surgical precision to mitigate risks or chances of any misadventure.

Still, touch is powerful. It releases oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and cortisol, and boosts immune responses. To be held is a basic human need. And in this time of COVID-19, many of our patients are being deprived of it.

Psychologists have a name for this condition: “skin hunger.” Skin hunger describes our universal need to be touched and, like true hunger, the health consequences of being starved of it. The first thing we do to a newborn is plop her or him, skin to skin, right on mom’s chest. From the start, touch is life giving and is hardwired into our brains as a requirement for survival.

As the pandemic rolls on, it feels we’re losing the power of this most important innovation. Through our masks and face shields, sitting 6 feet away are some patients who might more than anything else need us to touch them. With safety superseding the desire to sate physical contact craving, touch has now become one of the more difficult tasks for us as physicians. We must iterate on this innovation of the human hand. Perhaps through deeper eye contact, by spending an extra minute or two to inquire about a patient’s family or favorite TV shows. It might be a few elbow bumps, perhaps lingering for just a second to transfer your energy and comfort to them. Or using the gloved auscultation exam as an opportunity to rest your hand gently on a patient’s back.

The dangers of COVID-19 won’t be with us forever, but perhaps we can use this extraordinary time to improve upon one of our most valuable tools, the touch that comforts and heals.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

A patient hugged me yesterday, the second one in a week. I am not a hugging doctor. And if I were, sure, I wouldn’t be hugging now while we pass through the eye of the COVID-19 storm. But in both cases, my patients opened their arms wide and leaned in before I had a chance to defend myself.

The first, a carrot-coiffed 80-year-old who stood only as tall as my shoulders, asked if she could hug me just as she put her arms around me, closing any window of opportunity for me to foil her attempt. The second was more of a modified hug. She also was an elderly woman and she too walked in close, then started to put her arm around my back. I dodged, awkwardly so it was more shoulder-to-shoulder than a full on embrace. Best buds. She too acknowledged we shouldn’t be hugging in the time of COVID-19, but felt she just had to. She couldn’t resist the urge.

Hugs may be dangerous, but they’re special. They are how we thank family and close friends, how we say I love you, I missed you, or I got you. Hugging transfers a feeling of gratitude in a richer manner than just words. Both of these hugs given to me were done to thank me and show appreciation. They were also likely part of what they wanted from me in their visit.

We’re taught in medicine about the power of touch. Abraham Verghese, MD, the Stanford University professor of medicine and TED speaker, says indeed, the most important innovation in medicine is the human hand. Yet, because of the risks of infectious diseases and risk of harm caused by inappropriate or unwanted touch, we avert it more often than not these days. Or we use it with surgical precision to mitigate risks or chances of any misadventure.

Still, touch is powerful. It releases oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and cortisol, and boosts immune responses. To be held is a basic human need. And in this time of COVID-19, many of our patients are being deprived of it.

Psychologists have a name for this condition: “skin hunger.” Skin hunger describes our universal need to be touched and, like true hunger, the health consequences of being starved of it. The first thing we do to a newborn is plop her or him, skin to skin, right on mom’s chest. From the start, touch is life giving and is hardwired into our brains as a requirement for survival.

As the pandemic rolls on, it feels we’re losing the power of this most important innovation. Through our masks and face shields, sitting 6 feet away are some patients who might more than anything else need us to touch them. With safety superseding the desire to sate physical contact craving, touch has now become one of the more difficult tasks for us as physicians. We must iterate on this innovation of the human hand. Perhaps through deeper eye contact, by spending an extra minute or two to inquire about a patient’s family or favorite TV shows. It might be a few elbow bumps, perhaps lingering for just a second to transfer your energy and comfort to them. Or using the gloved auscultation exam as an opportunity to rest your hand gently on a patient’s back.

The dangers of COVID-19 won’t be with us forever, but perhaps we can use this extraordinary time to improve upon one of our most valuable tools, the touch that comforts and heals.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

The FDA authorized a new type of saliva-based coronavirus test on August 15 that could cut down on the cost of testing and the time it takes to process results.

The emergency use authorization is for SalivaDirect, a diagnostic test created by the Yale School of Public Health. The test doesn’t require a special type of swab or collection tube — saliva can be collected in any sterile container, according to the FDA announcement.

The new test is “yet another testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources,” Admiral Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator, said in the statement.

The test also doesn’t require a special type of extractor, which is helpful because the extraction kits used to process other tests have faced shortages during the pandemic. The test can be used with different types of reagents and instruments already found in labs.

“Providing this type of flexibility for processing saliva samples to test for COVID-19 infection is groundbreaking in terms of efficiency and avoiding shortages of crucial test components like reagents,” Stephen Hahn, MD, the FDA commissioner, also said in the statement.

Yale will provide the instructions to labs as an “open source” protocol. The test doesn’t require any proprietary equipment or testing components, so labs across the country can assemble and use it based on the FDA guidelines. The testing method is available immediately and could be scaled up quickly in the next few weeks, according to a statement from Yale.

“This is a huge step forward to make testing more accessible,” Chantal Vogels, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale who led the lab development and test validation efforts, said in the statement.

The Yale team is further testing whether the saliva method can be used to find coronavirus cases among people who don’t have any symptoms and has been working with players and staff from the NBA. So far, the results have been accurate and similar to the nasal swabs for COVID-19, according to a preprint study published on medRxiv.

The research team wanted to get rid of the expensive collection tubes that other companies use to preserve the virus during processing, according to the Yale statement. They found that the virus is stable in saliva for long periods of time at warm temperatures and that special tubes aren’t necessary.

The FDA has authorized other saliva-based tests, according to ABC News, but SalivaDirect is the first that doesn’t require the extraction process used to test viral genetic material. Instead, the Yale process breaks down the saliva with an enzyme and applied heat. This type of testing could cost about $10, the Yale researchers said, and people can collect the saliva themselves under supervision.

“This, I hope, is a turning point,” Anne Wyllie, PhD, one of the lead researchers at Yale, told the news station.* “Expand testing capacity, inspire creativity and we can take competition to those labs charging a lot and bring prices down.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Correction, 8/25/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Wylie's academic degree.

The FDA authorized a new type of saliva-based coronavirus test on August 15 that could cut down on the cost of testing and the time it takes to process results.

The emergency use authorization is for SalivaDirect, a diagnostic test created by the Yale School of Public Health. The test doesn’t require a special type of swab or collection tube — saliva can be collected in any sterile container, according to the FDA announcement.

The new test is “yet another testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources,” Admiral Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator, said in the statement.

The test also doesn’t require a special type of extractor, which is helpful because the extraction kits used to process other tests have faced shortages during the pandemic. The test can be used with different types of reagents and instruments already found in labs.

“Providing this type of flexibility for processing saliva samples to test for COVID-19 infection is groundbreaking in terms of efficiency and avoiding shortages of crucial test components like reagents,” Stephen Hahn, MD, the FDA commissioner, also said in the statement.

Yale will provide the instructions to labs as an “open source” protocol. The test doesn’t require any proprietary equipment or testing components, so labs across the country can assemble and use it based on the FDA guidelines. The testing method is available immediately and could be scaled up quickly in the next few weeks, according to a statement from Yale.

“This is a huge step forward to make testing more accessible,” Chantal Vogels, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale who led the lab development and test validation efforts, said in the statement.

The Yale team is further testing whether the saliva method can be used to find coronavirus cases among people who don’t have any symptoms and has been working with players and staff from the NBA. So far, the results have been accurate and similar to the nasal swabs for COVID-19, according to a preprint study published on medRxiv.

The research team wanted to get rid of the expensive collection tubes that other companies use to preserve the virus during processing, according to the Yale statement. They found that the virus is stable in saliva for long periods of time at warm temperatures and that special tubes aren’t necessary.

The FDA has authorized other saliva-based tests, according to ABC News, but SalivaDirect is the first that doesn’t require the extraction process used to test viral genetic material. Instead, the Yale process breaks down the saliva with an enzyme and applied heat. This type of testing could cost about $10, the Yale researchers said, and people can collect the saliva themselves under supervision.

“This, I hope, is a turning point,” Anne Wyllie, PhD, one of the lead researchers at Yale, told the news station.* “Expand testing capacity, inspire creativity and we can take competition to those labs charging a lot and bring prices down.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Correction, 8/25/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Wylie's academic degree.

The FDA authorized a new type of saliva-based coronavirus test on August 15 that could cut down on the cost of testing and the time it takes to process results.

The emergency use authorization is for SalivaDirect, a diagnostic test created by the Yale School of Public Health. The test doesn’t require a special type of swab or collection tube — saliva can be collected in any sterile container, according to the FDA announcement.

The new test is “yet another testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources,” Admiral Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator, said in the statement.

The test also doesn’t require a special type of extractor, which is helpful because the extraction kits used to process other tests have faced shortages during the pandemic. The test can be used with different types of reagents and instruments already found in labs.

“Providing this type of flexibility for processing saliva samples to test for COVID-19 infection is groundbreaking in terms of efficiency and avoiding shortages of crucial test components like reagents,” Stephen Hahn, MD, the FDA commissioner, also said in the statement.

Yale will provide the instructions to labs as an “open source” protocol. The test doesn’t require any proprietary equipment or testing components, so labs across the country can assemble and use it based on the FDA guidelines. The testing method is available immediately and could be scaled up quickly in the next few weeks, according to a statement from Yale.

“This is a huge step forward to make testing more accessible,” Chantal Vogels, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale who led the lab development and test validation efforts, said in the statement.

The Yale team is further testing whether the saliva method can be used to find coronavirus cases among people who don’t have any symptoms and has been working with players and staff from the NBA. So far, the results have been accurate and similar to the nasal swabs for COVID-19, according to a preprint study published on medRxiv.

The research team wanted to get rid of the expensive collection tubes that other companies use to preserve the virus during processing, according to the Yale statement. They found that the virus is stable in saliva for long periods of time at warm temperatures and that special tubes aren’t necessary.

The FDA has authorized other saliva-based tests, according to ABC News, but SalivaDirect is the first that doesn’t require the extraction process used to test viral genetic material. Instead, the Yale process breaks down the saliva with an enzyme and applied heat. This type of testing could cost about $10, the Yale researchers said, and people can collect the saliva themselves under supervision.

“This, I hope, is a turning point,” Anne Wyllie, PhD, one of the lead researchers at Yale, told the news station.* “Expand testing capacity, inspire creativity and we can take competition to those labs charging a lot and bring prices down.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Correction, 8/25/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Wylie's academic degree.

The 2020 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented significant challenges to the health care workforce.^1,2 As New York City and its environs became the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, we continued to care for our patients while simultaneously maintaining the education and well-being of our residents.³ Keeping this balance significantly strained resources and presented new challenges for education and service in residency education. What first emerged as an acute emergency has become a chronic disruption in the clinical learning environment. Programs are working to respond to the critical patient needs while ensuring continued progress toward training goals.

Since pregnancy is one condition for which healthy patients continued to require both outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization, volume was not anticipated to be significantly decreased on our units. Thus, our ObGyn residency programs sought to expeditiously restructure our workforce and educational methods to address the demands of the pandemic. We were aided in our efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Extraordinary Circumstances policy. Our institutions were deemed to be functioning at Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status, a state in which “the increase in volume and/or severity of illness creates an extraordinary circumstance where routine care, education, and delivery must be reconfigured to focus only on patient care.”⁴

As of May 18, 2020, 26% of residency and fellowship programs in the United States were under Stage 3 COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Status.⁵ Accordingly, our patient care delivery and educational processes were reconfigured within the context of Stage 3 Status, governed by the overriding principles of ensuring appropriate resources and training, adhering to work hour limits, providing adequate supervision, and credentialing fellows to function in our core specialty.

As ObGyn education leaders from 5 academic medical centers within the COVID-19 epicenter, we present a summary of best practices, based on our experiences, for each of the 4 categories of Stage 3 Status outlined by the ACGME. In an era of globalization, we must learn from pandemics, a call made after the Ebola outbreak in 2015.⁶ We recognize that this type of disruption could happen again with a possible second wave of COVID-19 or another emerging disease.⁷ Thus, we emphasize “lessons learned” that are applicable to a wide range of residency training programs facing various clinical crises.

Ensuring adequate resources and training

Within the context of Stage 3 Status, residency programs have the flexibility to increase residents’ availability in the clinical care setting. However, programs must ensure the safety of both patients and residents.

Continue to: Measures to decrease risk of infection...

 

 

Measures to decrease risk of infection

One critical resource needed to protect patients and residents is personal protective equipment (PPE). Online instruction and in-person training were used to educate residents and staff on appropriate techniques for donning, doffing, and conserving PPE. Surgical teams were limited to 1 surgeon and 1 resident in each case. In an effort to limit direct contact with COVID-19 infected patients, the number of health care providers rounding on inpatients was restricted, and phone or video conversations were used for communication.

The workforce was modified to decrease exposure to infection and maintain a reserve of healthy residents who were working from home—anticipating that some residents would become ill and this reserve would be called for duty. Similar to other specialties, our programs organized the workforce by arranging residents into teams in which residents worked a number of shifts in a row.^8-12 Regular block schedules were disrupted and non-core rotations were deferred.

As surgeries were canceled and outpatient visits curtailed, many rotations required less resident coverage. Residents were reassigned from rotations where clinical work was suspended to accommodate increased staffing needs in other areas, while accounting for residents who were ill or on leave for postexposure quarantine. Typically, residents worked 12-hour shifts for 3 to 6 days followed by several days off or days working remotely. This team-based strategy decreased the number of residents exposed to COVID-19 at one time, provided time for recuperation, encouraged camaraderie, and enabled residents working remotely to coordinate care and participate in telehealth without direct patient contact.

To minimize high-risk exposure of pregnant residents or residents with underlying health conditions, these residents also worked remotely. Similar to other specialties, it was important to determine essential resident duties and enlist assistance from other clinicians, such as fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives.

To protect residents and patients, maximizing testing of patients for COVID-19 was an important strategy. Based on early experience at 1 center with patients who were initially asymptomatic but later developed symptoms and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), universal testing was implemented and endorsed by the New York State COVID-19 Maternity Task Force.¹³ Notably, 87.9% of patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of admission had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation. Because the asymptomatic carrier rate appears to be high in obstetric patients, testing of patients is paramount.^3,14 Finally, suspending visitation (except for 1 support person) also was instrumental in decreasing the risk of infection to residents.¹³

Resources for residents with COVID-19

This pandemic placed residency program directors in an unusual situation as frontline caregivers for their own residents. It was imperative to track residents with physical symptoms, conduct testing when possible, and follow the course of residents with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. As serious illness and death have been reported among otherwise healthy young people, we ensured that our homebound residents were frequently monitored.¹⁵ At several of our centers, residents with COVID-19 from any program who chose to separate from their families were provided with alternative housing accommodations. In addition, some of our graduate medical education offices identified specific physicians to care for residents with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization.

Continue to: Deployment to other specialties...

 

 

Deployment to other specialties

Several hospitals in the United States redeployed residents because of staffing shortages in high-impact settings.¹² It was important for ObGyns to emphasize that the labor and delivery unit functions as the emergency ward for pregnant women, and that ObGyn residents possess skills specific to the care of these patients.

For our departments, we highlighted that external redeployment could adversely affect our workforce restructuring and, ultimately, patient care. We focused efforts on internal deployment or reassignment as much as possible. Some faculty and fellows in nonobstetric subspecialty areas were redirected to provide care on our inpatient obstetric services.

Educating residents

To maintain educational efforts with social distancing, we used videoconferencing to preserve the protected didactic education time that existed for our residents before the pandemic. This regularly scheduled, nonclinical time also was utilized to instruct residents on the rapidly changing clinical guidelines and to disseminate information about new institutional policies and procedures, ensuring that residents were adequately prepared for their new clinical work.

Work hour requirements

The ACGME requires that work hour limitations remain unchanged during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status. As the pandemic presented new challenges and stressors for residents inside and outside the workplace, ensuring adequate time off to rest and recover was critical for maintaining the resident workforce’s health and wellness.

Thus, our workforce restructuring plans accounted for work hour limitations. As detailed above, the restructuring was accomplished by cohorting residents into small teams that remained unchanged for several weeks. Most shifts were limited to 12 hours, residents continued to be assigned at least 1 day off each week, and daily schedules were structured to ensure at least 10 hours off between shifts. Time spent working remotely was included in work hour calculations.

In addition, residents on “jeopardy” who were available for those who needed to be removed from direct patient care were given at least 1 day off per week in which they could not be pulled for clinical duty. Finally, prolonged inpatient assignments were limited; after these assignments, residents were given increased time for rest and recuperation.

Ensuring adequate supervision

The expectation during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status is that residents, with adequate supervision, provide care that is appropriate for their level of training. To adequately and safely supervise residents, faculty needed training to remain well informed about the clinical care of COVID-19 patients. This was accomplished through frequent communication and consultation with colleagues in infectious disease, occupational health, and guidance from national organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and information from our state health departments.

Faculty members were trained in safe donning and doffing of PPE and infection control strategies to ensure they could safely oversee and train residents in these practices. Faculty schedules were significantly altered to ensure an adequate workforce and adequate resident supervision. Faculty efforts were focused on areas of critical need—in our case inpatient obstetrics—with a smaller workforce assigned to outpatient services and inpatient gynecology and gynecologic oncology. Many ObGyn subspecialist faculty were redeployed to general ObGyn inpatient units, thus permitting appropriate resident supervision at all times. In the outpatient setting, faculty adjusted to the changing demands and learned to conduct and supervise telehealth visits.

Finally, for those whose residents were deployed to other services (for example, internal medicine, emergency medicine, or critical care), supervision became paramount. We checked in with our deployed residents daily to be sure that their supervision on those services was adequate. Considering the extreme complexity, rapidly changing understanding of the disease, and often tragic patient outcomes, it was essential to ensure appropriate support and supervision on “off service” deployment.

Continue to: Fellows functioning in core specialty...

Fellows functioning in core specialty

Anticipating the increased need for clinicians on the obstetric services, fellows in subspecialty areas were granted emergency privileges to act as attending faculty in the core specialty, supervising residents and providing patient care. On the other hand, some of those fellows, primarily in gynecologic oncology, were externally redeployed out of core specialty to internal medicine and critical care units. Careful consideration of the fellows’ needs for supervision and support in these roles was essential, and similar support measures that were put in place for our residents were offered to fellows.

In conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented diverse and complex challenges to the entire health care workforce. Because this crisis is widespread and likely will be lengthy, a sustained and organized response is required.¹⁶ We have highlighted unique challenges specific to residency programs and presented collective best practices from our experiences in ObGyn navigating these obstacles, which are applicable to many other programs.

The flexibility and relief afforded by the ACGME Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status designation allowed us to meet the needs of the surge of patients that required care while we maintained our educational framework and tenets of providing adequate resources and training, working within the confines of safe work hours, ensuring proper supervision, and granting attending privileges to fellows in their core specialty. ●

The 2020 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented significant challenges to the health care workforce.^1,2 As New York City and its environs became the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, we continued to care for our patients while simultaneously maintaining the education and well-being of our residents.³ Keeping this balance significantly strained resources and presented new challenges for education and service in residency education. What first emerged as an acute emergency has become a chronic disruption in the clinical learning environment. Programs are working to respond to the critical patient needs while ensuring continued progress toward training goals.

Since pregnancy is one condition for which healthy patients continued to require both outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization, volume was not anticipated to be significantly decreased on our units. Thus, our ObGyn residency programs sought to expeditiously restructure our workforce and educational methods to address the demands of the pandemic. We were aided in our efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Extraordinary Circumstances policy. Our institutions were deemed to be functioning at Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status, a state in which “the increase in volume and/or severity of illness creates an extraordinary circumstance where routine care, education, and delivery must be reconfigured to focus only on patient care.”⁴

As of May 18, 2020, 26% of residency and fellowship programs in the United States were under Stage 3 COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Status.⁵ Accordingly, our patient care delivery and educational processes were reconfigured within the context of Stage 3 Status, governed by the overriding principles of ensuring appropriate resources and training, adhering to work hour limits, providing adequate supervision, and credentialing fellows to function in our core specialty.

As ObGyn education leaders from 5 academic medical centers within the COVID-19 epicenter, we present a summary of best practices, based on our experiences, for each of the 4 categories of Stage 3 Status outlined by the ACGME. In an era of globalization, we must learn from pandemics, a call made after the Ebola outbreak in 2015.⁶ We recognize that this type of disruption could happen again with a possible second wave of COVID-19 or another emerging disease.⁷ Thus, we emphasize “lessons learned” that are applicable to a wide range of residency training programs facing various clinical crises.

Ensuring adequate resources and training

Within the context of Stage 3 Status, residency programs have the flexibility to increase residents’ availability in the clinical care setting. However, programs must ensure the safety of both patients and residents.

Continue to: Measures to decrease risk of infection...

 

 

Measures to decrease risk of infection

One critical resource needed to protect patients and residents is personal protective equipment (PPE). Online instruction and in-person training were used to educate residents and staff on appropriate techniques for donning, doffing, and conserving PPE. Surgical teams were limited to 1 surgeon and 1 resident in each case. In an effort to limit direct contact with COVID-19 infected patients, the number of health care providers rounding on inpatients was restricted, and phone or video conversations were used for communication.

The workforce was modified to decrease exposure to infection and maintain a reserve of healthy residents who were working from home—anticipating that some residents would become ill and this reserve would be called for duty. Similar to other specialties, our programs organized the workforce by arranging residents into teams in which residents worked a number of shifts in a row.^8-12 Regular block schedules were disrupted and non-core rotations were deferred.

As surgeries were canceled and outpatient visits curtailed, many rotations required less resident coverage. Residents were reassigned from rotations where clinical work was suspended to accommodate increased staffing needs in other areas, while accounting for residents who were ill or on leave for postexposure quarantine. Typically, residents worked 12-hour shifts for 3 to 6 days followed by several days off or days working remotely. This team-based strategy decreased the number of residents exposed to COVID-19 at one time, provided time for recuperation, encouraged camaraderie, and enabled residents working remotely to coordinate care and participate in telehealth without direct patient contact.

To minimize high-risk exposure of pregnant residents or residents with underlying health conditions, these residents also worked remotely. Similar to other specialties, it was important to determine essential resident duties and enlist assistance from other clinicians, such as fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives.

To protect residents and patients, maximizing testing of patients for COVID-19 was an important strategy. Based on early experience at 1 center with patients who were initially asymptomatic but later developed symptoms and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), universal testing was implemented and endorsed by the New York State COVID-19 Maternity Task Force.¹³ Notably, 87.9% of patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of admission had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation. Because the asymptomatic carrier rate appears to be high in obstetric patients, testing of patients is paramount.^3,14 Finally, suspending visitation (except for 1 support person) also was instrumental in decreasing the risk of infection to residents.¹³

Resources for residents with COVID-19

This pandemic placed residency program directors in an unusual situation as frontline caregivers for their own residents. It was imperative to track residents with physical symptoms, conduct testing when possible, and follow the course of residents with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. As serious illness and death have been reported among otherwise healthy young people, we ensured that our homebound residents were frequently monitored.¹⁵ At several of our centers, residents with COVID-19 from any program who chose to separate from their families were provided with alternative housing accommodations. In addition, some of our graduate medical education offices identified specific physicians to care for residents with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization.

Continue to: Deployment to other specialties...

 

 

Deployment to other specialties

Several hospitals in the United States redeployed residents because of staffing shortages in high-impact settings.¹² It was important for ObGyns to emphasize that the labor and delivery unit functions as the emergency ward for pregnant women, and that ObGyn residents possess skills specific to the care of these patients.

For our departments, we highlighted that external redeployment could adversely affect our workforce restructuring and, ultimately, patient care. We focused efforts on internal deployment or reassignment as much as possible. Some faculty and fellows in nonobstetric subspecialty areas were redirected to provide care on our inpatient obstetric services.

Educating residents

To maintain educational efforts with social distancing, we used videoconferencing to preserve the protected didactic education time that existed for our residents before the pandemic. This regularly scheduled, nonclinical time also was utilized to instruct residents on the rapidly changing clinical guidelines and to disseminate information about new institutional policies and procedures, ensuring that residents were adequately prepared for their new clinical work.

Work hour requirements

The ACGME requires that work hour limitations remain unchanged during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status. As the pandemic presented new challenges and stressors for residents inside and outside the workplace, ensuring adequate time off to rest and recover was critical for maintaining the resident workforce’s health and wellness.

Thus, our workforce restructuring plans accounted for work hour limitations. As detailed above, the restructuring was accomplished by cohorting residents into small teams that remained unchanged for several weeks. Most shifts were limited to 12 hours, residents continued to be assigned at least 1 day off each week, and daily schedules were structured to ensure at least 10 hours off between shifts. Time spent working remotely was included in work hour calculations.

In addition, residents on “jeopardy” who were available for those who needed to be removed from direct patient care were given at least 1 day off per week in which they could not be pulled for clinical duty. Finally, prolonged inpatient assignments were limited; after these assignments, residents were given increased time for rest and recuperation.

Ensuring adequate supervision

The expectation during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status is that residents, with adequate supervision, provide care that is appropriate for their level of training. To adequately and safely supervise residents, faculty needed training to remain well informed about the clinical care of COVID-19 patients. This was accomplished through frequent communication and consultation with colleagues in infectious disease, occupational health, and guidance from national organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and information from our state health departments.

Faculty members were trained in safe donning and doffing of PPE and infection control strategies to ensure they could safely oversee and train residents in these practices. Faculty schedules were significantly altered to ensure an adequate workforce and adequate resident supervision. Faculty efforts were focused on areas of critical need—in our case inpatient obstetrics—with a smaller workforce assigned to outpatient services and inpatient gynecology and gynecologic oncology. Many ObGyn subspecialist faculty were redeployed to general ObGyn inpatient units, thus permitting appropriate resident supervision at all times. In the outpatient setting, faculty adjusted to the changing demands and learned to conduct and supervise telehealth visits.

Finally, for those whose residents were deployed to other services (for example, internal medicine, emergency medicine, or critical care), supervision became paramount. We checked in with our deployed residents daily to be sure that their supervision on those services was adequate. Considering the extreme complexity, rapidly changing understanding of the disease, and often tragic patient outcomes, it was essential to ensure appropriate support and supervision on “off service” deployment.

Continue to: Fellows functioning in core specialty...

Fellows functioning in core specialty

Anticipating the increased need for clinicians on the obstetric services, fellows in subspecialty areas were granted emergency privileges to act as attending faculty in the core specialty, supervising residents and providing patient care. On the other hand, some of those fellows, primarily in gynecologic oncology, were externally redeployed out of core specialty to internal medicine and critical care units. Careful consideration of the fellows’ needs for supervision and support in these roles was essential, and similar support measures that were put in place for our residents were offered to fellows.

In conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented diverse and complex challenges to the entire health care workforce. Because this crisis is widespread and likely will be lengthy, a sustained and organized response is required.¹⁶ We have highlighted unique challenges specific to residency programs and presented collective best practices from our experiences in ObGyn navigating these obstacles, which are applicable to many other programs.

The flexibility and relief afforded by the ACGME Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status designation allowed us to meet the needs of the surge of patients that required care while we maintained our educational framework and tenets of providing adequate resources and training, working within the confines of safe work hours, ensuring proper supervision, and granting attending privileges to fellows in their core specialty. ●

The 2020 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented significant challenges to the health care workforce.^1,2 As New York City and its environs became the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, we continued to care for our patients while simultaneously maintaining the education and well-being of our residents.³ Keeping this balance significantly strained resources and presented new challenges for education and service in residency education. What first emerged as an acute emergency has become a chronic disruption in the clinical learning environment. Programs are working to respond to the critical patient needs while ensuring continued progress toward training goals.

Since pregnancy is one condition for which healthy patients continued to require both outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization, volume was not anticipated to be significantly decreased on our units. Thus, our ObGyn residency programs sought to expeditiously restructure our workforce and educational methods to address the demands of the pandemic. We were aided in our efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Extraordinary Circumstances policy. Our institutions were deemed to be functioning at Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status, a state in which “the increase in volume and/or severity of illness creates an extraordinary circumstance where routine care, education, and delivery must be reconfigured to focus only on patient care.”⁴

As of May 18, 2020, 26% of residency and fellowship programs in the United States were under Stage 3 COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Status.⁵ Accordingly, our patient care delivery and educational processes were reconfigured within the context of Stage 3 Status, governed by the overriding principles of ensuring appropriate resources and training, adhering to work hour limits, providing adequate supervision, and credentialing fellows to function in our core specialty.

As ObGyn education leaders from 5 academic medical centers within the COVID-19 epicenter, we present a summary of best practices, based on our experiences, for each of the 4 categories of Stage 3 Status outlined by the ACGME. In an era of globalization, we must learn from pandemics, a call made after the Ebola outbreak in 2015.⁶ We recognize that this type of disruption could happen again with a possible second wave of COVID-19 or another emerging disease.⁷ Thus, we emphasize “lessons learned” that are applicable to a wide range of residency training programs facing various clinical crises.

Ensuring adequate resources and training

Within the context of Stage 3 Status, residency programs have the flexibility to increase residents’ availability in the clinical care setting. However, programs must ensure the safety of both patients and residents.

Continue to: Measures to decrease risk of infection...

 

 

Measures to decrease risk of infection

One critical resource needed to protect patients and residents is personal protective equipment (PPE). Online instruction and in-person training were used to educate residents and staff on appropriate techniques for donning, doffing, and conserving PPE. Surgical teams were limited to 1 surgeon and 1 resident in each case. In an effort to limit direct contact with COVID-19 infected patients, the number of health care providers rounding on inpatients was restricted, and phone or video conversations were used for communication.

The workforce was modified to decrease exposure to infection and maintain a reserve of healthy residents who were working from home—anticipating that some residents would become ill and this reserve would be called for duty. Similar to other specialties, our programs organized the workforce by arranging residents into teams in which residents worked a number of shifts in a row.^8-12 Regular block schedules were disrupted and non-core rotations were deferred.

As surgeries were canceled and outpatient visits curtailed, many rotations required less resident coverage. Residents were reassigned from rotations where clinical work was suspended to accommodate increased staffing needs in other areas, while accounting for residents who were ill or on leave for postexposure quarantine. Typically, residents worked 12-hour shifts for 3 to 6 days followed by several days off or days working remotely. This team-based strategy decreased the number of residents exposed to COVID-19 at one time, provided time for recuperation, encouraged camaraderie, and enabled residents working remotely to coordinate care and participate in telehealth without direct patient contact.

To minimize high-risk exposure of pregnant residents or residents with underlying health conditions, these residents also worked remotely. Similar to other specialties, it was important to determine essential resident duties and enlist assistance from other clinicians, such as fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives.

To protect residents and patients, maximizing testing of patients for COVID-19 was an important strategy. Based on early experience at 1 center with patients who were initially asymptomatic but later developed symptoms and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), universal testing was implemented and endorsed by the New York State COVID-19 Maternity Task Force.¹³ Notably, 87.9% of patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of admission had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation. Because the asymptomatic carrier rate appears to be high in obstetric patients, testing of patients is paramount.^3,14 Finally, suspending visitation (except for 1 support person) also was instrumental in decreasing the risk of infection to residents.¹³

Resources for residents with COVID-19

This pandemic placed residency program directors in an unusual situation as frontline caregivers for their own residents. It was imperative to track residents with physical symptoms, conduct testing when possible, and follow the course of residents with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. As serious illness and death have been reported among otherwise healthy young people, we ensured that our homebound residents were frequently monitored.¹⁵ At several of our centers, residents with COVID-19 from any program who chose to separate from their families were provided with alternative housing accommodations. In addition, some of our graduate medical education offices identified specific physicians to care for residents with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization.

Continue to: Deployment to other specialties...

 

 

Deployment to other specialties

Several hospitals in the United States redeployed residents because of staffing shortages in high-impact settings.¹² It was important for ObGyns to emphasize that the labor and delivery unit functions as the emergency ward for pregnant women, and that ObGyn residents possess skills specific to the care of these patients.

For our departments, we highlighted that external redeployment could adversely affect our workforce restructuring and, ultimately, patient care. We focused efforts on internal deployment or reassignment as much as possible. Some faculty and fellows in nonobstetric subspecialty areas were redirected to provide care on our inpatient obstetric services.

Educating residents

To maintain educational efforts with social distancing, we used videoconferencing to preserve the protected didactic education time that existed for our residents before the pandemic. This regularly scheduled, nonclinical time also was utilized to instruct residents on the rapidly changing clinical guidelines and to disseminate information about new institutional policies and procedures, ensuring that residents were adequately prepared for their new clinical work.

Work hour requirements

The ACGME requires that work hour limitations remain unchanged during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status. As the pandemic presented new challenges and stressors for residents inside and outside the workplace, ensuring adequate time off to rest and recover was critical for maintaining the resident workforce’s health and wellness.

Thus, our workforce restructuring plans accounted for work hour limitations. As detailed above, the restructuring was accomplished by cohorting residents into small teams that remained unchanged for several weeks. Most shifts were limited to 12 hours, residents continued to be assigned at least 1 day off each week, and daily schedules were structured to ensure at least 10 hours off between shifts. Time spent working remotely was included in work hour calculations.

In addition, residents on “jeopardy” who were available for those who needed to be removed from direct patient care were given at least 1 day off per week in which they could not be pulled for clinical duty. Finally, prolonged inpatient assignments were limited; after these assignments, residents were given increased time for rest and recuperation.

Ensuring adequate supervision

The expectation during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status is that residents, with adequate supervision, provide care that is appropriate for their level of training. To adequately and safely supervise residents, faculty needed training to remain well informed about the clinical care of COVID-19 patients. This was accomplished through frequent communication and consultation with colleagues in infectious disease, occupational health, and guidance from national organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and information from our state health departments.

Faculty members were trained in safe donning and doffing of PPE and infection control strategies to ensure they could safely oversee and train residents in these practices. Faculty schedules were significantly altered to ensure an adequate workforce and adequate resident supervision. Faculty efforts were focused on areas of critical need—in our case inpatient obstetrics—with a smaller workforce assigned to outpatient services and inpatient gynecology and gynecologic oncology. Many ObGyn subspecialist faculty were redeployed to general ObGyn inpatient units, thus permitting appropriate resident supervision at all times. In the outpatient setting, faculty adjusted to the changing demands and learned to conduct and supervise telehealth visits.

Finally, for those whose residents were deployed to other services (for example, internal medicine, emergency medicine, or critical care), supervision became paramount. We checked in with our deployed residents daily to be sure that their supervision on those services was adequate. Considering the extreme complexity, rapidly changing understanding of the disease, and often tragic patient outcomes, it was essential to ensure appropriate support and supervision on “off service” deployment.

Continue to: Fellows functioning in core specialty...

Fellows functioning in core specialty

Anticipating the increased need for clinicians on the obstetric services, fellows in subspecialty areas were granted emergency privileges to act as attending faculty in the core specialty, supervising residents and providing patient care. On the other hand, some of those fellows, primarily in gynecologic oncology, were externally redeployed out of core specialty to internal medicine and critical care units. Careful consideration of the fellows’ needs for supervision and support in these roles was essential, and similar support measures that were put in place for our residents were offered to fellows.

In conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented diverse and complex challenges to the entire health care workforce. Because this crisis is widespread and likely will be lengthy, a sustained and organized response is required.¹⁶ We have highlighted unique challenges specific to residency programs and presented collective best practices from our experiences in ObGyn navigating these obstacles, which are applicable to many other programs.

The flexibility and relief afforded by the ACGME Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status designation allowed us to meet the needs of the surge of patients that required care while we maintained our educational framework and tenets of providing adequate resources and training, working within the confines of safe work hours, ensuring proper supervision, and granting attending privileges to fellows in their core specialty. ●

Shortages of personal protective equipment and medical supplies could persist for years without strategic government intervention, officials from health care and manufacturing industries have predicted.

Liliboas/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Officials said logistical challenges continue 7 months after the coronavirus reached the United States, as the flu season approaches and as some state emergency management agencies prepare for a fall surge in COVID-19 cases.

Although the disarray is not as widespread as it was this spring, hospitals said rolling shortages of supplies range from specialized beds to disposable isolation gowns to thermometers.

“A few weeks ago, we were having a very difficult time getting the sanitary wipes. You just couldn’t get them,” said Bernard Klein, MD, chief executive of Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, Calif., near Los Angeles. “We actually had to manufacture our own.”

This same dynamic has played out across a number of critical supplies in his hospital. First masks, then isolation gowns and now a specialized bed that allows nurses to turn COVID-19 patients onto their bellies – equipment that helps workers with what can otherwise be a six-person job.

“We’ve seen whole families come to our hospital with COVID, and several members hospitalized at the same time,” said Dr. Klein. “It’s very, very sad.”

Testing supplies ran short as the predominantly Latino community served by Providence Holy Cross was hit hard by COVID, and even as nearby hospitals could process 15-minute tests.

“If we had a more coordinated response with a partnership between the medical field, the government and the private industry, it would help improve the supply chain to the areas that need it most,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein said he expected to deal with equipment and supply shortages throughout 2021, especially as flu season approaches.

“Most people focus on those N95 respirators,” said Carmela Coyle, CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry group that represents more than 400 hospitals across one of America’s hardest-hit states.

She said she believed COVID-19-related supply challenges will persist through 2022.

“We have been challenged with shortages of isolation gowns, face shields, which you’re now starting to see in public places. Any one piece that’s in shortage or not available creates risk for patients and for health care workers,” said Ms. Coyle.

At the same time, trade associations representing manufacturers said persuading customers to shift to American suppliers had been difficult.

“I also have industry that’s working only at 10-20% capacity, who can make PPE in our own backyard, but have no orders,” said Kim Glas, CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations, whose members make reusable cloth gowns.

Manufacturers in her organization have made “hundreds of millions of products,” but, without long-term government contracts, many are apprehensive to invest in the equipment needed to scale up the business and eventually lower prices.

“If there continues to be an upward trajectory of COVID-19 cases, not just in the U.S. but globally, you can see those supply chains breaking down again,” Ms. Glas said. “It is a health care security issue.”

For the past 2 decades, personal protective equipment was supplied to health care institutions in lean supply chains in the same way toilet paper was to grocery stores. Chains between major manufacturers and end users were so efficient, there was no need to stockpile goods.

But in March, the supply chain broke when major Asian PPE exporters embargoed materials or shut down just as demand increased exponentially. Thus, health care institutions were in much the same position as regular grocery shoppers, who were trying to buy great quantities of a product they never needed to stockpile before.

“I am very concerned about long-term PPE shortages for the foreseeable future,” said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

“There’s no question the situation is better than it was a couple of months ago,” said Bailey. However, many health care organizations, including her own, have struggled to obtain PPE. Bailey practices at a 10-doctor allergy clinic and was met with a 10,000-mask minimum when they tried to order N95 respirators.

“We have not seen evidence of a long-term strategic plan for the manufacture, acquisition and distribution of PPE” from the government, said Dr. Bailey. “The supply chain needs to be strengthened dramatically, and we need less dependence on foreign goods to manufacture our own PPE in the U.S.”

Some products have now come back to be made in the United States – although factories are not expected to be able to reach demand until mid-2021.

“A lot has been done in the last 6 months. We are largely out of the hole, and we have planted the seeds to render the United States self-sufficient,” said Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry.

In 2019, 850 tons of the material used in disposable masks was made in the United States. Around 10,000 tons is expected to be made in 2021, satisfying perhaps 80% of demand. But PPE is a suite of items – including gloves, gowns and face shields – not all of which have seen the same success.

“Thermometers are becoming a real issue,” said Cindy Juhas, chief strategy officer of CME, an American health care product distributor. “They’re expecting even a problem with needles and syringes for the amount of vaccines they have to make.”

Federal government efforts to address the supply chain have foundered. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, in charge of the COVID-19 response, told congressional interviewers in June it had “no involvement” in distributing PPE to hot spots.

Project Airbridge, an initiative headed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, flew PPE from international suppliers to the U.S. at taxpayer expense but was phased out. And the government has not responded to the AMA’s calls for more distribution data.

Arguably, Dr. Klein is among the best placed to weather such disruptions. He is part of a 51-hospital chain with purchasing power, and among the institutions that distributors prioritize when selling supplies. But tribulations continue even in hospitals, as shortages have pushed buyers to look directly for manufacturers, often through a swamp of companies that have sprung up overnight.

Now distributors are being called upon not just by their traditional customers – hospitals and long-term care homes – but by nearly every segment of society. First responders, schools, clinics and even food businesses are all buying medical equipment now.

“There’s going to be lots of other shortages we haven’t even thought about,” said Ms. Juhas.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Shortages of personal protective equipment and medical supplies could persist for years without strategic government intervention, officials from health care and manufacturing industries have predicted.

Liliboas/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Officials said logistical challenges continue 7 months after the coronavirus reached the United States, as the flu season approaches and as some state emergency management agencies prepare for a fall surge in COVID-19 cases.

Although the disarray is not as widespread as it was this spring, hospitals said rolling shortages of supplies range from specialized beds to disposable isolation gowns to thermometers.

“A few weeks ago, we were having a very difficult time getting the sanitary wipes. You just couldn’t get them,” said Bernard Klein, MD, chief executive of Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, Calif., near Los Angeles. “We actually had to manufacture our own.”

This same dynamic has played out across a number of critical supplies in his hospital. First masks, then isolation gowns and now a specialized bed that allows nurses to turn COVID-19 patients onto their bellies – equipment that helps workers with what can otherwise be a six-person job.

“We’ve seen whole families come to our hospital with COVID, and several members hospitalized at the same time,” said Dr. Klein. “It’s very, very sad.”

Testing supplies ran short as the predominantly Latino community served by Providence Holy Cross was hit hard by COVID, and even as nearby hospitals could process 15-minute tests.

“If we had a more coordinated response with a partnership between the medical field, the government and the private industry, it would help improve the supply chain to the areas that need it most,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein said he expected to deal with equipment and supply shortages throughout 2021, especially as flu season approaches.

“Most people focus on those N95 respirators,” said Carmela Coyle, CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry group that represents more than 400 hospitals across one of America’s hardest-hit states.

She said she believed COVID-19-related supply challenges will persist through 2022.

“We have been challenged with shortages of isolation gowns, face shields, which you’re now starting to see in public places. Any one piece that’s in shortage or not available creates risk for patients and for health care workers,” said Ms. Coyle.

At the same time, trade associations representing manufacturers said persuading customers to shift to American suppliers had been difficult.

“I also have industry that’s working only at 10-20% capacity, who can make PPE in our own backyard, but have no orders,” said Kim Glas, CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations, whose members make reusable cloth gowns.

Manufacturers in her organization have made “hundreds of millions of products,” but, without long-term government contracts, many are apprehensive to invest in the equipment needed to scale up the business and eventually lower prices.

“If there continues to be an upward trajectory of COVID-19 cases, not just in the U.S. but globally, you can see those supply chains breaking down again,” Ms. Glas said. “It is a health care security issue.”

For the past 2 decades, personal protective equipment was supplied to health care institutions in lean supply chains in the same way toilet paper was to grocery stores. Chains between major manufacturers and end users were so efficient, there was no need to stockpile goods.

But in March, the supply chain broke when major Asian PPE exporters embargoed materials or shut down just as demand increased exponentially. Thus, health care institutions were in much the same position as regular grocery shoppers, who were trying to buy great quantities of a product they never needed to stockpile before.

“I am very concerned about long-term PPE shortages for the foreseeable future,” said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

“There’s no question the situation is better than it was a couple of months ago,” said Bailey. However, many health care organizations, including her own, have struggled to obtain PPE. Bailey practices at a 10-doctor allergy clinic and was met with a 10,000-mask minimum when they tried to order N95 respirators.

“We have not seen evidence of a long-term strategic plan for the manufacture, acquisition and distribution of PPE” from the government, said Dr. Bailey. “The supply chain needs to be strengthened dramatically, and we need less dependence on foreign goods to manufacture our own PPE in the U.S.”

Some products have now come back to be made in the United States – although factories are not expected to be able to reach demand until mid-2021.

“A lot has been done in the last 6 months. We are largely out of the hole, and we have planted the seeds to render the United States self-sufficient,” said Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry.

In 2019, 850 tons of the material used in disposable masks was made in the United States. Around 10,000 tons is expected to be made in 2021, satisfying perhaps 80% of demand. But PPE is a suite of items – including gloves, gowns and face shields – not all of which have seen the same success.

“Thermometers are becoming a real issue,” said Cindy Juhas, chief strategy officer of CME, an American health care product distributor. “They’re expecting even a problem with needles and syringes for the amount of vaccines they have to make.”

Federal government efforts to address the supply chain have foundered. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, in charge of the COVID-19 response, told congressional interviewers in June it had “no involvement” in distributing PPE to hot spots.

Project Airbridge, an initiative headed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, flew PPE from international suppliers to the U.S. at taxpayer expense but was phased out. And the government has not responded to the AMA’s calls for more distribution data.

Arguably, Dr. Klein is among the best placed to weather such disruptions. He is part of a 51-hospital chain with purchasing power, and among the institutions that distributors prioritize when selling supplies. But tribulations continue even in hospitals, as shortages have pushed buyers to look directly for manufacturers, often through a swamp of companies that have sprung up overnight.

Now distributors are being called upon not just by their traditional customers – hospitals and long-term care homes – but by nearly every segment of society. First responders, schools, clinics and even food businesses are all buying medical equipment now.

“There’s going to be lots of other shortages we haven’t even thought about,” said Ms. Juhas.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Shortages of personal protective equipment and medical supplies could persist for years without strategic government intervention, officials from health care and manufacturing industries have predicted.

Liliboas/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Officials said logistical challenges continue 7 months after the coronavirus reached the United States, as the flu season approaches and as some state emergency management agencies prepare for a fall surge in COVID-19 cases.

Although the disarray is not as widespread as it was this spring, hospitals said rolling shortages of supplies range from specialized beds to disposable isolation gowns to thermometers.

“A few weeks ago, we were having a very difficult time getting the sanitary wipes. You just couldn’t get them,” said Bernard Klein, MD, chief executive of Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, Calif., near Los Angeles. “We actually had to manufacture our own.”

This same dynamic has played out across a number of critical supplies in his hospital. First masks, then isolation gowns and now a specialized bed that allows nurses to turn COVID-19 patients onto their bellies – equipment that helps workers with what can otherwise be a six-person job.

“We’ve seen whole families come to our hospital with COVID, and several members hospitalized at the same time,” said Dr. Klein. “It’s very, very sad.”

Testing supplies ran short as the predominantly Latino community served by Providence Holy Cross was hit hard by COVID, and even as nearby hospitals could process 15-minute tests.

“If we had a more coordinated response with a partnership between the medical field, the government and the private industry, it would help improve the supply chain to the areas that need it most,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein said he expected to deal with equipment and supply shortages throughout 2021, especially as flu season approaches.

“Most people focus on those N95 respirators,” said Carmela Coyle, CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry group that represents more than 400 hospitals across one of America’s hardest-hit states.

She said she believed COVID-19-related supply challenges will persist through 2022.

“We have been challenged with shortages of isolation gowns, face shields, which you’re now starting to see in public places. Any one piece that’s in shortage or not available creates risk for patients and for health care workers,” said Ms. Coyle.

At the same time, trade associations representing manufacturers said persuading customers to shift to American suppliers had been difficult.

“I also have industry that’s working only at 10-20% capacity, who can make PPE in our own backyard, but have no orders,” said Kim Glas, CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations, whose members make reusable cloth gowns.

Manufacturers in her organization have made “hundreds of millions of products,” but, without long-term government contracts, many are apprehensive to invest in the equipment needed to scale up the business and eventually lower prices.

“If there continues to be an upward trajectory of COVID-19 cases, not just in the U.S. but globally, you can see those supply chains breaking down again,” Ms. Glas said. “It is a health care security issue.”

For the past 2 decades, personal protective equipment was supplied to health care institutions in lean supply chains in the same way toilet paper was to grocery stores. Chains between major manufacturers and end users were so efficient, there was no need to stockpile goods.

But in March, the supply chain broke when major Asian PPE exporters embargoed materials or shut down just as demand increased exponentially. Thus, health care institutions were in much the same position as regular grocery shoppers, who were trying to buy great quantities of a product they never needed to stockpile before.

“I am very concerned about long-term PPE shortages for the foreseeable future,” said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

“There’s no question the situation is better than it was a couple of months ago,” said Bailey. However, many health care organizations, including her own, have struggled to obtain PPE. Bailey practices at a 10-doctor allergy clinic and was met with a 10,000-mask minimum when they tried to order N95 respirators.

“We have not seen evidence of a long-term strategic plan for the manufacture, acquisition and distribution of PPE” from the government, said Dr. Bailey. “The supply chain needs to be strengthened dramatically, and we need less dependence on foreign goods to manufacture our own PPE in the U.S.”

Some products have now come back to be made in the United States – although factories are not expected to be able to reach demand until mid-2021.

“A lot has been done in the last 6 months. We are largely out of the hole, and we have planted the seeds to render the United States self-sufficient,” said Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry.

In 2019, 850 tons of the material used in disposable masks was made in the United States. Around 10,000 tons is expected to be made in 2021, satisfying perhaps 80% of demand. But PPE is a suite of items – including gloves, gowns and face shields – not all of which have seen the same success.

“Thermometers are becoming a real issue,” said Cindy Juhas, chief strategy officer of CME, an American health care product distributor. “They’re expecting even a problem with needles and syringes for the amount of vaccines they have to make.”

Federal government efforts to address the supply chain have foundered. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, in charge of the COVID-19 response, told congressional interviewers in June it had “no involvement” in distributing PPE to hot spots.

Project Airbridge, an initiative headed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, flew PPE from international suppliers to the U.S. at taxpayer expense but was phased out. And the government has not responded to the AMA’s calls for more distribution data.

Arguably, Dr. Klein is among the best placed to weather such disruptions. He is part of a 51-hospital chain with purchasing power, and among the institutions that distributors prioritize when selling supplies. But tribulations continue even in hospitals, as shortages have pushed buyers to look directly for manufacturers, often through a swamp of companies that have sprung up overnight.

Now distributors are being called upon not just by their traditional customers – hospitals and long-term care homes – but by nearly every segment of society. First responders, schools, clinics and even food businesses are all buying medical equipment now.

“There’s going to be lots of other shortages we haven’t even thought about,” said Ms. Juhas.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Research on COVID-19 as it relates to rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) is accumulating “at an enormously rapid pace,” but a recent review of the literature suggests that quantity should not be confused with quality.

“We are faced by the worldwide spread of a disease that was nonexistent less than a year ago,” Féline P.B. Kroon, MD, and associates said in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “To date, no robust evidence is available to allow strong conclusions on the effects of COVID-19 in patients with RMDs or whether RMDs or [their] treatment impact incidence of infection or outcomes.”

When it comes to quantity of evidence, “the exponential increase in publications over time is evident,” they said. From Jan. 1, 2019 to June 24, 2020, there were 1,725 hits on PubMed for published reports combining COVID-19 with RMDs and drugs used in RMDs. At the beginning of the year, there were only 135 such publications.

The early start of the search, well before identification of the novel coronavirus in China, was meant to ensure that nothing was missed, so “citations that came up in the first months of 2019 mostly encompass papers about other coronaviruses, such as SARS and MERS,” said Dr. Kroon of Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, when asked for clarification.

The quality of that evidence, however, is another matter. A majority of publications (60%) are “viewpoints or (narrative) literature reviews, and only a small proportion actually presents original data in the form of case reports or case series (15%), observational cohort studies (10%), or clinical trials (<1%),” the investigators explained.

Very few of the published studies, about 10%, specifically involve COVID-19 and RMDs. Even well-regarded sources such as systematic literature reviews or meta-analyses, “which will undoubtedly appear more frequently in the next few months in response to requests by users who feel overwhelmed by a multitude of data, will not eliminate the internal bias present in individual studies,” Dr. Kroon and associates wrote.

The lack of evidence also brings into question one particular form of guidance: recommendations “issued by groups of the so-called experts and (inter)national societies, such as, among others, American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism,” the investigators said.

“The rapid increase in research on COVID-19 is encouraging,” but at the same time it “also poses risks of ‘information overload’ or ‘fake news,’ ” they said. “As researchers and clinicians, it is our responsibility to carefully interpret study results that emerge, even more so in this ‘digital era,’ in which published data can quickly have a large societal impact.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kroon FPB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Aug 12. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218483.

Research on COVID-19 as it relates to rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) is accumulating “at an enormously rapid pace,” but a recent review of the literature suggests that quantity should not be confused with quality.

“We are faced by the worldwide spread of a disease that was nonexistent less than a year ago,” Féline P.B. Kroon, MD, and associates said in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “To date, no robust evidence is available to allow strong conclusions on the effects of COVID-19 in patients with RMDs or whether RMDs or [their] treatment impact incidence of infection or outcomes.”

When it comes to quantity of evidence, “the exponential increase in publications over time is evident,” they said. From Jan. 1, 2019 to June 24, 2020, there were 1,725 hits on PubMed for published reports combining COVID-19 with RMDs and drugs used in RMDs. At the beginning of the year, there were only 135 such publications.

The early start of the search, well before identification of the novel coronavirus in China, was meant to ensure that nothing was missed, so “citations that came up in the first months of 2019 mostly encompass papers about other coronaviruses, such as SARS and MERS,” said Dr. Kroon of Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, when asked for clarification.

The quality of that evidence, however, is another matter. A majority of publications (60%) are “viewpoints or (narrative) literature reviews, and only a small proportion actually presents original data in the form of case reports or case series (15%), observational cohort studies (10%), or clinical trials (<1%),” the investigators explained.

Very few of the published studies, about 10%, specifically involve COVID-19 and RMDs. Even well-regarded sources such as systematic literature reviews or meta-analyses, “which will undoubtedly appear more frequently in the next few months in response to requests by users who feel overwhelmed by a multitude of data, will not eliminate the internal bias present in individual studies,” Dr. Kroon and associates wrote.

The lack of evidence also brings into question one particular form of guidance: recommendations “issued by groups of the so-called experts and (inter)national societies, such as, among others, American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism,” the investigators said.

“The rapid increase in research on COVID-19 is encouraging,” but at the same time it “also poses risks of ‘information overload’ or ‘fake news,’ ” they said. “As researchers and clinicians, it is our responsibility to carefully interpret study results that emerge, even more so in this ‘digital era,’ in which published data can quickly have a large societal impact.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kroon FPB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Aug 12. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218483.

Research on COVID-19 as it relates to rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) is accumulating “at an enormously rapid pace,” but a recent review of the literature suggests that quantity should not be confused with quality.

“We are faced by the worldwide spread of a disease that was nonexistent less than a year ago,” Féline P.B. Kroon, MD, and associates said in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “To date, no robust evidence is available to allow strong conclusions on the effects of COVID-19 in patients with RMDs or whether RMDs or [their] treatment impact incidence of infection or outcomes.”

When it comes to quantity of evidence, “the exponential increase in publications over time is evident,” they said. From Jan. 1, 2019 to June 24, 2020, there were 1,725 hits on PubMed for published reports combining COVID-19 with RMDs and drugs used in RMDs. At the beginning of the year, there were only 135 such publications.

The early start of the search, well before identification of the novel coronavirus in China, was meant to ensure that nothing was missed, so “citations that came up in the first months of 2019 mostly encompass papers about other coronaviruses, such as SARS and MERS,” said Dr. Kroon of Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, when asked for clarification.

The quality of that evidence, however, is another matter. A majority of publications (60%) are “viewpoints or (narrative) literature reviews, and only a small proportion actually presents original data in the form of case reports or case series (15%), observational cohort studies (10%), or clinical trials (<1%),” the investigators explained.

Very few of the published studies, about 10%, specifically involve COVID-19 and RMDs. Even well-regarded sources such as systematic literature reviews or meta-analyses, “which will undoubtedly appear more frequently in the next few months in response to requests by users who feel overwhelmed by a multitude of data, will not eliminate the internal bias present in individual studies,” Dr. Kroon and associates wrote.

The lack of evidence also brings into question one particular form of guidance: recommendations “issued by groups of the so-called experts and (inter)national societies, such as, among others, American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism,” the investigators said.

“The rapid increase in research on COVID-19 is encouraging,” but at the same time it “also poses risks of ‘information overload’ or ‘fake news,’ ” they said. “As researchers and clinicians, it is our responsibility to carefully interpret study results that emerge, even more so in this ‘digital era,’ in which published data can quickly have a large societal impact.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kroon FPB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Aug 12. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218483.

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Let us begin with a thought exercise. Close your eyes and picture the word, “hero.” What comes to mind? A relative, a teacher, a fictional character wielding a hammer or flying gracefully through the air?

© Maridav / iStockphoto.com

Several months ago, our country was introduced to a foe that brought us to our knees. Before that time, the idea of a hero had fluctuated with circumstance and had been guided by aging and maturity; however, since the moment COVID-19 struck, a new image has emerged. Not all heroes wear capes, but some wield stethoscopes.

Over these past months the phrase, “Health Care Heroes” has spread throughout our collective consciousness, highlighted everywhere from talk shows and news media to billboards and journals. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are lauded for their strength, dedication, resilience, and compassion. Citizens line up to clap, honk horns, and shower praise in recognition of those who have risked their health, sacrificed their personal lives, and committed themselves to the greater good. Yet, what does it mean to be a hero, and what is the cost of hero worship?

The focus of medical training has gradually shifted to include the physical as well as mental well-being of future physicians, but the remnants of traditional doctrine linger. Hours of focused training through study and direct clinical interaction reinforce dedication to patient care. Rewards are given for time spent and compassion lent, and research is lauded, but family time is rarely applauded. We are encouraged to do our greatest, work our hardest, be the best, rise and defeat every test. Failure (or the perception thereof) is not an option.

According to Rikinkumar S. Patel, MD, MPH, and associates, physicians have nearly twice the burnout rate of other professionals (Behav Sci. [Basel]. 2018 Nov;8[11]:98). The dedication to our craft propels excellence as well as sacrifice. When COVID-19 entered our lives, many of my colleagues did not hesitate to heed to the call for action. They immersed themselves in the ICU, led triage units, and extended work hours in the service of the sick and dying. Several were years removed from emergency/intensive care, while others were allocated from their chosen residency programs and voluntarily thrust into an environment they had never before traversed.

These individuals are praised as “brave,” “dedicated,” “selfless.” A few even provided insight into their experiences through various publications highlighting their appreciation and gratitude toward such a treacherous, albeit, tremendous experience. Even though their words are an honest perspective of life through one of the worst health care crises in 100 years, in effect, they perpetuate the noble hero; the myth of the super doctor.

In a profession that has borne witness to multiple suicides over the past few months, why do we not encourage open dialogue of our victories as well as our defeats? Our wins as much as our losses? Why does an esteemed veteran physician feel guilt over declining to provide emergency services to patients whom they have long forgotten how to manage? What drives the guilt and the self-doubt? Are we ashamed of what others will think? Is it that the fear of not living up to our cherished medical oath outweighs our own boundaries and acknowledgment of our limitations?

A hero is an entity, a person encompassing a state of being, yet health care professionals are bestowed this title and this burden on a near-daily basis. Physicians are people. We love, we fear, we hesitate, we fight, we deem to overcome. We are perfectly imperfect. The more in tune we are to vulnerability, the more honest we can become with ourselves and one another.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

Let us begin with a thought exercise. Close your eyes and picture the word, “hero.” What comes to mind? A relative, a teacher, a fictional character wielding a hammer or flying gracefully through the air?

© Maridav / iStockphoto.com

Several months ago, our country was introduced to a foe that brought us to our knees. Before that time, the idea of a hero had fluctuated with circumstance and had been guided by aging and maturity; however, since the moment COVID-19 struck, a new image has emerged. Not all heroes wear capes, but some wield stethoscopes.

Over these past months the phrase, “Health Care Heroes” has spread throughout our collective consciousness, highlighted everywhere from talk shows and news media to billboards and journals. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are lauded for their strength, dedication, resilience, and compassion. Citizens line up to clap, honk horns, and shower praise in recognition of those who have risked their health, sacrificed their personal lives, and committed themselves to the greater good. Yet, what does it mean to be a hero, and what is the cost of hero worship?

The focus of medical training has gradually shifted to include the physical as well as mental well-being of future physicians, but the remnants of traditional doctrine linger. Hours of focused training through study and direct clinical interaction reinforce dedication to patient care. Rewards are given for time spent and compassion lent, and research is lauded, but family time is rarely applauded. We are encouraged to do our greatest, work our hardest, be the best, rise and defeat every test. Failure (or the perception thereof) is not an option.

According to Rikinkumar S. Patel, MD, MPH, and associates, physicians have nearly twice the burnout rate of other professionals (Behav Sci. [Basel]. 2018 Nov;8[11]:98). The dedication to our craft propels excellence as well as sacrifice. When COVID-19 entered our lives, many of my colleagues did not hesitate to heed to the call for action. They immersed themselves in the ICU, led triage units, and extended work hours in the service of the sick and dying. Several were years removed from emergency/intensive care, while others were allocated from their chosen residency programs and voluntarily thrust into an environment they had never before traversed.

These individuals are praised as “brave,” “dedicated,” “selfless.” A few even provided insight into their experiences through various publications highlighting their appreciation and gratitude toward such a treacherous, albeit, tremendous experience. Even though their words are an honest perspective of life through one of the worst health care crises in 100 years, in effect, they perpetuate the noble hero; the myth of the super doctor.

In a profession that has borne witness to multiple suicides over the past few months, why do we not encourage open dialogue of our victories as well as our defeats? Our wins as much as our losses? Why does an esteemed veteran physician feel guilt over declining to provide emergency services to patients whom they have long forgotten how to manage? What drives the guilt and the self-doubt? Are we ashamed of what others will think? Is it that the fear of not living up to our cherished medical oath outweighs our own boundaries and acknowledgment of our limitations?

A hero is an entity, a person encompassing a state of being, yet health care professionals are bestowed this title and this burden on a near-daily basis. Physicians are people. We love, we fear, we hesitate, we fight, we deem to overcome. We are perfectly imperfect. The more in tune we are to vulnerability, the more honest we can become with ourselves and one another.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

Let us begin with a thought exercise. Close your eyes and picture the word, “hero.” What comes to mind? A relative, a teacher, a fictional character wielding a hammer or flying gracefully through the air?

© Maridav / iStockphoto.com

Several months ago, our country was introduced to a foe that brought us to our knees. Before that time, the idea of a hero had fluctuated with circumstance and had been guided by aging and maturity; however, since the moment COVID-19 struck, a new image has emerged. Not all heroes wear capes, but some wield stethoscopes.

Over these past months the phrase, “Health Care Heroes” has spread throughout our collective consciousness, highlighted everywhere from talk shows and news media to billboards and journals. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are lauded for their strength, dedication, resilience, and compassion. Citizens line up to clap, honk horns, and shower praise in recognition of those who have risked their health, sacrificed their personal lives, and committed themselves to the greater good. Yet, what does it mean to be a hero, and what is the cost of hero worship?

The focus of medical training has gradually shifted to include the physical as well as mental well-being of future physicians, but the remnants of traditional doctrine linger. Hours of focused training through study and direct clinical interaction reinforce dedication to patient care. Rewards are given for time spent and compassion lent, and research is lauded, but family time is rarely applauded. We are encouraged to do our greatest, work our hardest, be the best, rise and defeat every test. Failure (or the perception thereof) is not an option.

According to Rikinkumar S. Patel, MD, MPH, and associates, physicians have nearly twice the burnout rate of other professionals (Behav Sci. [Basel]. 2018 Nov;8[11]:98). The dedication to our craft propels excellence as well as sacrifice. When COVID-19 entered our lives, many of my colleagues did not hesitate to heed to the call for action. They immersed themselves in the ICU, led triage units, and extended work hours in the service of the sick and dying. Several were years removed from emergency/intensive care, while others were allocated from their chosen residency programs and voluntarily thrust into an environment they had never before traversed.

These individuals are praised as “brave,” “dedicated,” “selfless.” A few even provided insight into their experiences through various publications highlighting their appreciation and gratitude toward such a treacherous, albeit, tremendous experience. Even though their words are an honest perspective of life through one of the worst health care crises in 100 years, in effect, they perpetuate the noble hero; the myth of the super doctor.

In a profession that has borne witness to multiple suicides over the past few months, why do we not encourage open dialogue of our victories as well as our defeats? Our wins as much as our losses? Why does an esteemed veteran physician feel guilt over declining to provide emergency services to patients whom they have long forgotten how to manage? What drives the guilt and the self-doubt? Are we ashamed of what others will think? Is it that the fear of not living up to our cherished medical oath outweighs our own boundaries and acknowledgment of our limitations?

A hero is an entity, a person encompassing a state of being, yet health care professionals are bestowed this title and this burden on a near-daily basis. Physicians are people. We love, we fear, we hesitate, we fight, we deem to overcome. We are perfectly imperfect. The more in tune we are to vulnerability, the more honest we can become with ourselves and one another.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.