Federal Practitioner

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The causes of shoulder pain may be as common as a traumatic injury or as rare as a systemic inflammatory condition, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The combination of joints, tendons, and muscles that make up the shoulder can present diagnostic and clinical challenges, but several experts shared their tips for management.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Rotator cuff tendinopathy/tendinitis and subacromial bursitis are typically the most common causes of shoulder pain presenting to a primary care provider, said Jason Kolfenbach, MD, a rheumatologist at UC Health, Denver, Colorado, in an interview. “Other causes of shoulder pain may include acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, biceps tendinitis (often a secondary process in the setting of rotator cuff disease), and true glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis,” he said.

Experts estimate that as much as 80% of shoulder pain involves the muscles, tendons, and ligaments surrounding the joint, rather than true arthritis, said Kolfenbach, who was a co-author of a Medscape slideshow on evaluating shoulder pain. In the slideshow, the authors noted that proper evaluation is needed for successful pain management. Some patients may do well with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), rest, ice, and physical therapy, but more serious conditions may require steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or surgery.

If a patient’s joint pain with active range of motion is relieved when an examiner supports the affected limb (passive range of motion), the cause is more likely related to muscles, tendons, or ligaments, Kolfenbach said.

Primary care providers may not be familiar with examination maneuvers to diagnose shoulder pain, although they are often tasked with evaluating and managing these patients, said Kolfenbach.

Education focused on practical aspects of these maneuvers may help improve primary care confidence in utilizing them and lead to more appropriate ordering of imaging testing and better pain management plans for patients, he said.

However, “If there is concern for a true intra-articular process, plain radiographs are recommended to determine if there is loss of cartilage space and/or other anatomic drivers of pain,” he noted. “Even in conditions of documented intra-articular arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, weakness, and atrophy of the surrounding musculature can contribute to joint disability and pain,” he said. For these patients, referral to physical therapy for periarticular strengthening can provide pain relief, he added.

 

Pinning Down the Pain Point

The many different structures within the shoulder that can cause pain make diagnosis a challenge, Nicole Angelo, DO, MS, a physiatrist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, said in an interview.

Potential sources of pain include the joint of the shoulder itself, the structures within it (labrum, capsule, and ligaments), and the surrounding rotator cuff muscles and tendons, she said. Patients also may experience overlapping pain referred from the neck (cervical spine) related to nerve irritation (cervical radiculopathy) or arthritis, she noted.

“A patient’s history, including mechanism and acuity of injury, as well as exam, specifically weakness in certain movements,” can help determine whether advanced imaging and surgical intervention may be required,” Angelo told this news organization.

Frozen shoulder is the most missed diagnosis of shoulder pain in primary care, Brian Feeley, MD, chief of sports medicine and shoulder surgery at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

Frozen shoulder, also known as adhesive capsulitis, can mimic many other conditions including rotator cuff problems, shoulder arthritis, and biceps problems, Feeley said. “When people have a loss of active and passive range of motion and no evidence of arthritis on x-rays, their diagnosis is most likely frozen shoulder,” he said.

Another challenge for primary care providers is identifying the severity of rotator cuff problems, Feeley said. “I like to think of rotator cuff problems along a spectrum — impingement is inflammation above the rotator cuff and suggests an imbalance between rotator cuff strength and deltoid strength,” said Feeley. “Partial thickness tears are often normal age-related problems but can be a source of pain,” he added.

However, full-thickness tears encompass a range of problems, from very small asymptomatic holes in the rotator cuff to massive tears that require shoulder replacement, Feeley explained. “Tendinopathy, or changes in the collagen organization in the tendon of the rotator cuff, sounds problematic, but most often is either incidental or part of aging,” he added.

 

When Shoulder Pain Isn’t Caused by the Shoulder

Primary care patients presenting with shoulder pain may in fact have a neck or spine problem instead, Feeley told this news organization. “Pain that is in the shoulder blade area or down the arm and into the fingers is usually coming from the neck/cervical spine,” he said.

In some cases, shoulder pain stems from the joints below the shoulder, including the elbow, because of arthritis, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylopathy), or golfer’s elbow (medial epicondylopathy), said Angelo. “Conditions of the elbow and neck can also affect shoulder mechanics or cause someone to use the joint more or less frequently,” she said. The interconnections between the neck and joints of the upper extremity, including referral patterns, complicate the diagnosis of shoulder pain; therefore, careful history-taking and examination of joints both above and below the shoulder are essential, she added.

 

Conservative Care

Shoulder problems often can be managed conservatively with therapeutic exercise focused on maintaining range of motion of the shoulder and strengthening the musculature around the shoulder, Angelo said. “Often, working with a physical therapist to address the mechanics of how the shoulder is moving and how the muscles are firing can help decrease pain and help patients meet their functional goals,” said Angelo. “Injections into the joint, the bursa adjacent to the rotator cuff, and, at times, into the tendons themselves can also be beneficial in relieving pain and improving function,” she said.

In some cases, a short, consistent course of anti-inflammatory medications can be part of a conservative strategy for the management of shoulder pain, Angelo noted.

“Utilizing these medications on an as-needed basis can also help patients improve their ability to sleep, perform their daily activities, and participate in physical therapy,” she said. A course of physical therapy that promotes maintaining shoulder range of motion, strengthening of the rotator cuff musculature, and working on the mechanics between the scapula and humerus is a good first step for most shoulder conditions, Angelo told this news organization.

“If there is concern due to recent trauma, significant weakness, or new/persistent numbness, referral to a specialist should be considered,” she said. If conservative measures including analgesics and exercise have failed to improve shoulder pain, advanced imaging and further interventional treatment may be necessary, Angelo added.

Most shoulder problems can and should be managed nonoperatively, Feeley said. Surgery should be reserved for patients whose shoulder pain has not improved with nonoperative care in most situations, he said. “It is often surprising for patients to hear, but most things in the shoulder actually get better without surgery, and changes on MRI are often normal for age,” Feeley noted. For example, more than 80% of individuals older than 50 will show signs of a labral tear or arthritis in the acromioclavicular joint, he said. “These are incidental findings that don’t need treatment,” he added.

More research is needed to develop more medications to manage pain for all musculoskeletal conditions, including shoulder pain, said Feeley. “But for now, for patients with shoulder pain, I tend to recommend a combination of Tylenol and an NSAID to improve inflammation and reduce pain, and a guided [physical] therapy program at home or in person. The combination of both usually will be successful,” he said.

 

Postsurgical Shoulder Pain

“For patients who have shoulder surgery, the techniques to manage pain around surgery have improved tremendously over the last decade, particularly with multimodal pain management and nerve blocks,” Feeley told this news organization. These advances have tremendously reduced the need for narcotics for pain management beyond the first 72 hours after surgery, he said. “I strongly recommend patients and primary care doctors to stop all narcotics as soon as possible after shoulder surgery, since they are not nearly as effective for management of pain after the first few days, and they should never be used as a sleep aid,” he emphasized.

Managing pain during recovery from shoulder surgery also involves about 6 weeks in a sling to protect the repair, followed by 6 weeks of active motion but no strengthening, then 3 months of strengthening exercises, he said.

Shoulder pain resources for patients: https://www.hss.edu/condition-list_shoulder-pain-causes.asp

Feeley’s 10-minute video on shoulder examination and pain assessment at the UCSF 14th Annual Primary Care Sports Medicine Conference, 2019: Video on the Essential Shoulder Exam

Kolfenbach disclosed receiving royalties from Elsevier for being the editor of Rheumatology Secrets and Wolters Kluwer for authoring several articles on UpToDate. Feeley and Angelo had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The causes of shoulder pain may be as common as a traumatic injury or as rare as a systemic inflammatory condition, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The combination of joints, tendons, and muscles that make up the shoulder can present diagnostic and clinical challenges, but several experts shared their tips for management.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Rotator cuff tendinopathy/tendinitis and subacromial bursitis are typically the most common causes of shoulder pain presenting to a primary care provider, said Jason Kolfenbach, MD, a rheumatologist at UC Health, Denver, Colorado, in an interview. “Other causes of shoulder pain may include acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, biceps tendinitis (often a secondary process in the setting of rotator cuff disease), and true glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis,” he said.

Experts estimate that as much as 80% of shoulder pain involves the muscles, tendons, and ligaments surrounding the joint, rather than true arthritis, said Kolfenbach, who was a co-author of a Medscape slideshow on evaluating shoulder pain. In the slideshow, the authors noted that proper evaluation is needed for successful pain management. Some patients may do well with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), rest, ice, and physical therapy, but more serious conditions may require steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or surgery.

If a patient’s joint pain with active range of motion is relieved when an examiner supports the affected limb (passive range of motion), the cause is more likely related to muscles, tendons, or ligaments, Kolfenbach said.

Primary care providers may not be familiar with examination maneuvers to diagnose shoulder pain, although they are often tasked with evaluating and managing these patients, said Kolfenbach.

Education focused on practical aspects of these maneuvers may help improve primary care confidence in utilizing them and lead to more appropriate ordering of imaging testing and better pain management plans for patients, he said.

However, “If there is concern for a true intra-articular process, plain radiographs are recommended to determine if there is loss of cartilage space and/or other anatomic drivers of pain,” he noted. “Even in conditions of documented intra-articular arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, weakness, and atrophy of the surrounding musculature can contribute to joint disability and pain,” he said. For these patients, referral to physical therapy for periarticular strengthening can provide pain relief, he added.

 

Pinning Down the Pain Point

The many different structures within the shoulder that can cause pain make diagnosis a challenge, Nicole Angelo, DO, MS, a physiatrist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, said in an interview.

Potential sources of pain include the joint of the shoulder itself, the structures within it (labrum, capsule, and ligaments), and the surrounding rotator cuff muscles and tendons, she said. Patients also may experience overlapping pain referred from the neck (cervical spine) related to nerve irritation (cervical radiculopathy) or arthritis, she noted.

“A patient’s history, including mechanism and acuity of injury, as well as exam, specifically weakness in certain movements,” can help determine whether advanced imaging and surgical intervention may be required,” Angelo told this news organization.

Frozen shoulder is the most missed diagnosis of shoulder pain in primary care, Brian Feeley, MD, chief of sports medicine and shoulder surgery at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

Frozen shoulder, also known as adhesive capsulitis, can mimic many other conditions including rotator cuff problems, shoulder arthritis, and biceps problems, Feeley said. “When people have a loss of active and passive range of motion and no evidence of arthritis on x-rays, their diagnosis is most likely frozen shoulder,” he said.

Another challenge for primary care providers is identifying the severity of rotator cuff problems, Feeley said. “I like to think of rotator cuff problems along a spectrum — impingement is inflammation above the rotator cuff and suggests an imbalance between rotator cuff strength and deltoid strength,” said Feeley. “Partial thickness tears are often normal age-related problems but can be a source of pain,” he added.

However, full-thickness tears encompass a range of problems, from very small asymptomatic holes in the rotator cuff to massive tears that require shoulder replacement, Feeley explained. “Tendinopathy, or changes in the collagen organization in the tendon of the rotator cuff, sounds problematic, but most often is either incidental or part of aging,” he added.

 

When Shoulder Pain Isn’t Caused by the Shoulder

Primary care patients presenting with shoulder pain may in fact have a neck or spine problem instead, Feeley told this news organization. “Pain that is in the shoulder blade area or down the arm and into the fingers is usually coming from the neck/cervical spine,” he said.

In some cases, shoulder pain stems from the joints below the shoulder, including the elbow, because of arthritis, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylopathy), or golfer’s elbow (medial epicondylopathy), said Angelo. “Conditions of the elbow and neck can also affect shoulder mechanics or cause someone to use the joint more or less frequently,” she said. The interconnections between the neck and joints of the upper extremity, including referral patterns, complicate the diagnosis of shoulder pain; therefore, careful history-taking and examination of joints both above and below the shoulder are essential, she added.

 

Conservative Care

Shoulder problems often can be managed conservatively with therapeutic exercise focused on maintaining range of motion of the shoulder and strengthening the musculature around the shoulder, Angelo said. “Often, working with a physical therapist to address the mechanics of how the shoulder is moving and how the muscles are firing can help decrease pain and help patients meet their functional goals,” said Angelo. “Injections into the joint, the bursa adjacent to the rotator cuff, and, at times, into the tendons themselves can also be beneficial in relieving pain and improving function,” she said.

In some cases, a short, consistent course of anti-inflammatory medications can be part of a conservative strategy for the management of shoulder pain, Angelo noted.

“Utilizing these medications on an as-needed basis can also help patients improve their ability to sleep, perform their daily activities, and participate in physical therapy,” she said. A course of physical therapy that promotes maintaining shoulder range of motion, strengthening of the rotator cuff musculature, and working on the mechanics between the scapula and humerus is a good first step for most shoulder conditions, Angelo told this news organization.

“If there is concern due to recent trauma, significant weakness, or new/persistent numbness, referral to a specialist should be considered,” she said. If conservative measures including analgesics and exercise have failed to improve shoulder pain, advanced imaging and further interventional treatment may be necessary, Angelo added.

Most shoulder problems can and should be managed nonoperatively, Feeley said. Surgery should be reserved for patients whose shoulder pain has not improved with nonoperative care in most situations, he said. “It is often surprising for patients to hear, but most things in the shoulder actually get better without surgery, and changes on MRI are often normal for age,” Feeley noted. For example, more than 80% of individuals older than 50 will show signs of a labral tear or arthritis in the acromioclavicular joint, he said. “These are incidental findings that don’t need treatment,” he added.

More research is needed to develop more medications to manage pain for all musculoskeletal conditions, including shoulder pain, said Feeley. “But for now, for patients with shoulder pain, I tend to recommend a combination of Tylenol and an NSAID to improve inflammation and reduce pain, and a guided [physical] therapy program at home or in person. The combination of both usually will be successful,” he said.

 

Postsurgical Shoulder Pain

“For patients who have shoulder surgery, the techniques to manage pain around surgery have improved tremendously over the last decade, particularly with multimodal pain management and nerve blocks,” Feeley told this news organization. These advances have tremendously reduced the need for narcotics for pain management beyond the first 72 hours after surgery, he said. “I strongly recommend patients and primary care doctors to stop all narcotics as soon as possible after shoulder surgery, since they are not nearly as effective for management of pain after the first few days, and they should never be used as a sleep aid,” he emphasized.

Managing pain during recovery from shoulder surgery also involves about 6 weeks in a sling to protect the repair, followed by 6 weeks of active motion but no strengthening, then 3 months of strengthening exercises, he said.

Shoulder pain resources for patients: https://www.hss.edu/condition-list_shoulder-pain-causes.asp

Feeley’s 10-minute video on shoulder examination and pain assessment at the UCSF 14th Annual Primary Care Sports Medicine Conference, 2019: Video on the Essential Shoulder Exam

Kolfenbach disclosed receiving royalties from Elsevier for being the editor of Rheumatology Secrets and Wolters Kluwer for authoring several articles on UpToDate. Feeley and Angelo had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The causes of shoulder pain may be as common as a traumatic injury or as rare as a systemic inflammatory condition, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The combination of joints, tendons, and muscles that make up the shoulder can present diagnostic and clinical challenges, but several experts shared their tips for management.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Rotator cuff tendinopathy/tendinitis and subacromial bursitis are typically the most common causes of shoulder pain presenting to a primary care provider, said Jason Kolfenbach, MD, a rheumatologist at UC Health, Denver, Colorado, in an interview. “Other causes of shoulder pain may include acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, biceps tendinitis (often a secondary process in the setting of rotator cuff disease), and true glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis,” he said.

Experts estimate that as much as 80% of shoulder pain involves the muscles, tendons, and ligaments surrounding the joint, rather than true arthritis, said Kolfenbach, who was a co-author of a Medscape slideshow on evaluating shoulder pain. In the slideshow, the authors noted that proper evaluation is needed for successful pain management. Some patients may do well with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), rest, ice, and physical therapy, but more serious conditions may require steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or surgery.

If a patient’s joint pain with active range of motion is relieved when an examiner supports the affected limb (passive range of motion), the cause is more likely related to muscles, tendons, or ligaments, Kolfenbach said.

Primary care providers may not be familiar with examination maneuvers to diagnose shoulder pain, although they are often tasked with evaluating and managing these patients, said Kolfenbach.

Education focused on practical aspects of these maneuvers may help improve primary care confidence in utilizing them and lead to more appropriate ordering of imaging testing and better pain management plans for patients, he said.

However, “If there is concern for a true intra-articular process, plain radiographs are recommended to determine if there is loss of cartilage space and/or other anatomic drivers of pain,” he noted. “Even in conditions of documented intra-articular arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, weakness, and atrophy of the surrounding musculature can contribute to joint disability and pain,” he said. For these patients, referral to physical therapy for periarticular strengthening can provide pain relief, he added.

 

Pinning Down the Pain Point

The many different structures within the shoulder that can cause pain make diagnosis a challenge, Nicole Angelo, DO, MS, a physiatrist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, said in an interview.

Potential sources of pain include the joint of the shoulder itself, the structures within it (labrum, capsule, and ligaments), and the surrounding rotator cuff muscles and tendons, she said. Patients also may experience overlapping pain referred from the neck (cervical spine) related to nerve irritation (cervical radiculopathy) or arthritis, she noted.

“A patient’s history, including mechanism and acuity of injury, as well as exam, specifically weakness in certain movements,” can help determine whether advanced imaging and surgical intervention may be required,” Angelo told this news organization.

Frozen shoulder is the most missed diagnosis of shoulder pain in primary care, Brian Feeley, MD, chief of sports medicine and shoulder surgery at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

Frozen shoulder, also known as adhesive capsulitis, can mimic many other conditions including rotator cuff problems, shoulder arthritis, and biceps problems, Feeley said. “When people have a loss of active and passive range of motion and no evidence of arthritis on x-rays, their diagnosis is most likely frozen shoulder,” he said.

Another challenge for primary care providers is identifying the severity of rotator cuff problems, Feeley said. “I like to think of rotator cuff problems along a spectrum — impingement is inflammation above the rotator cuff and suggests an imbalance between rotator cuff strength and deltoid strength,” said Feeley. “Partial thickness tears are often normal age-related problems but can be a source of pain,” he added.

However, full-thickness tears encompass a range of problems, from very small asymptomatic holes in the rotator cuff to massive tears that require shoulder replacement, Feeley explained. “Tendinopathy, or changes in the collagen organization in the tendon of the rotator cuff, sounds problematic, but most often is either incidental or part of aging,” he added.

 

When Shoulder Pain Isn’t Caused by the Shoulder

Primary care patients presenting with shoulder pain may in fact have a neck or spine problem instead, Feeley told this news organization. “Pain that is in the shoulder blade area or down the arm and into the fingers is usually coming from the neck/cervical spine,” he said.

In some cases, shoulder pain stems from the joints below the shoulder, including the elbow, because of arthritis, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylopathy), or golfer’s elbow (medial epicondylopathy), said Angelo. “Conditions of the elbow and neck can also affect shoulder mechanics or cause someone to use the joint more or less frequently,” she said. The interconnections between the neck and joints of the upper extremity, including referral patterns, complicate the diagnosis of shoulder pain; therefore, careful history-taking and examination of joints both above and below the shoulder are essential, she added.

 

Conservative Care

Shoulder problems often can be managed conservatively with therapeutic exercise focused on maintaining range of motion of the shoulder and strengthening the musculature around the shoulder, Angelo said. “Often, working with a physical therapist to address the mechanics of how the shoulder is moving and how the muscles are firing can help decrease pain and help patients meet their functional goals,” said Angelo. “Injections into the joint, the bursa adjacent to the rotator cuff, and, at times, into the tendons themselves can also be beneficial in relieving pain and improving function,” she said.

In some cases, a short, consistent course of anti-inflammatory medications can be part of a conservative strategy for the management of shoulder pain, Angelo noted.

“Utilizing these medications on an as-needed basis can also help patients improve their ability to sleep, perform their daily activities, and participate in physical therapy,” she said. A course of physical therapy that promotes maintaining shoulder range of motion, strengthening of the rotator cuff musculature, and working on the mechanics between the scapula and humerus is a good first step for most shoulder conditions, Angelo told this news organization.

“If there is concern due to recent trauma, significant weakness, or new/persistent numbness, referral to a specialist should be considered,” she said. If conservative measures including analgesics and exercise have failed to improve shoulder pain, advanced imaging and further interventional treatment may be necessary, Angelo added.

Most shoulder problems can and should be managed nonoperatively, Feeley said. Surgery should be reserved for patients whose shoulder pain has not improved with nonoperative care in most situations, he said. “It is often surprising for patients to hear, but most things in the shoulder actually get better without surgery, and changes on MRI are often normal for age,” Feeley noted. For example, more than 80% of individuals older than 50 will show signs of a labral tear or arthritis in the acromioclavicular joint, he said. “These are incidental findings that don’t need treatment,” he added.

More research is needed to develop more medications to manage pain for all musculoskeletal conditions, including shoulder pain, said Feeley. “But for now, for patients with shoulder pain, I tend to recommend a combination of Tylenol and an NSAID to improve inflammation and reduce pain, and a guided [physical] therapy program at home or in person. The combination of both usually will be successful,” he said.

 

Postsurgical Shoulder Pain

“For patients who have shoulder surgery, the techniques to manage pain around surgery have improved tremendously over the last decade, particularly with multimodal pain management and nerve blocks,” Feeley told this news organization. These advances have tremendously reduced the need for narcotics for pain management beyond the first 72 hours after surgery, he said. “I strongly recommend patients and primary care doctors to stop all narcotics as soon as possible after shoulder surgery, since they are not nearly as effective for management of pain after the first few days, and they should never be used as a sleep aid,” he emphasized.

Managing pain during recovery from shoulder surgery also involves about 6 weeks in a sling to protect the repair, followed by 6 weeks of active motion but no strengthening, then 3 months of strengthening exercises, he said.

Shoulder pain resources for patients: https://www.hss.edu/condition-list_shoulder-pain-causes.asp

Feeley’s 10-minute video on shoulder examination and pain assessment at the UCSF 14th Annual Primary Care Sports Medicine Conference, 2019: Video on the Essential Shoulder Exam

Kolfenbach disclosed receiving royalties from Elsevier for being the editor of Rheumatology Secrets and Wolters Kluwer for authoring several articles on UpToDate. Feeley and Angelo had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

TOPLINE:

A case series highlights the features of severe, necrotic skin wounds among hospitalized adults associated with xylazine exposure, including 9% that involved exposed deep structures such as bone or tendon.

METHODOLOGY:

• The alpha-2 agonist xylazine, a veterinary sedative, is increasingly detected in fentanyl used illicitly in the United States and may be causing necrotizing wounds in drug users.
• To characterize specific clinical features of xylazine-associated wounds, researchers conducted a case series at three academic medical hospitals in Philadelphia from April 2022 to February 2023.
• They included 29 patients with confirmed xylazine exposure and a chief complaint that was wound-related, seen as inpatients or in the emergency department.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 29 patients (mean age, 39.4 years; 52% men) had a total of 59 wounds, 90% were located on the arms and legs, and 69% were on the posterior upper or anterior lower extremities. Five wounds (9%) involved exposed deep structures such as the bone or tendon.
• Of the 57 wounds with available photographs, 60% had wound beds with predominantly devitalized tissue (eschar or slough), 11% were blisters, 9% had granulation tissue, and 21% had mixed tissue or other types of wound beds. Devitalized tissue was more commonly observed in medium or large wounds (odds ratio [OR], 5.2; P = .02) than in small wounds.
• As reported by patients, 48% were acute wounds, 20% were subacute, and 29% were chronic (present for 3 months or longer). Subacute and chronic wounds were often medium or large compared with acute wounds (OR, 48.5; P < .001) and contained devitalized tissue (OR, 9.5; P < .001).
• Of the 39 wounds with patient-reported etiology, 34 (87%) occurred at drug injection sites.

IN PRACTICE:

To the best of their knowledge, this is “the largest study of wounds among patients with confirmed exposure to xylazine and the first to systematically describe wound characteristics,” the authors wrote. The results, they concluded, “may help identify xylazine exposure and can guide research on the etiology and management of these wounds.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Lydia Lutz, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and coinvestigators and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This single-city, retrospective study limited generalizability, and the selection of the largest wounds may bias results. Additionally, chronicity data relied on patient recall, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for the study. The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A case series highlights the features of severe, necrotic skin wounds among hospitalized adults associated with xylazine exposure, including 9% that involved exposed deep structures such as bone or tendon.

METHODOLOGY:

• The alpha-2 agonist xylazine, a veterinary sedative, is increasingly detected in fentanyl used illicitly in the United States and may be causing necrotizing wounds in drug users.
• To characterize specific clinical features of xylazine-associated wounds, researchers conducted a case series at three academic medical hospitals in Philadelphia from April 2022 to February 2023.
• They included 29 patients with confirmed xylazine exposure and a chief complaint that was wound-related, seen as inpatients or in the emergency department.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 29 patients (mean age, 39.4 years; 52% men) had a total of 59 wounds, 90% were located on the arms and legs, and 69% were on the posterior upper or anterior lower extremities. Five wounds (9%) involved exposed deep structures such as the bone or tendon.
• Of the 57 wounds with available photographs, 60% had wound beds with predominantly devitalized tissue (eschar or slough), 11% were blisters, 9% had granulation tissue, and 21% had mixed tissue or other types of wound beds. Devitalized tissue was more commonly observed in medium or large wounds (odds ratio [OR], 5.2; P = .02) than in small wounds.
• As reported by patients, 48% were acute wounds, 20% were subacute, and 29% were chronic (present for 3 months or longer). Subacute and chronic wounds were often medium or large compared with acute wounds (OR, 48.5; P < .001) and contained devitalized tissue (OR, 9.5; P < .001).
• Of the 39 wounds with patient-reported etiology, 34 (87%) occurred at drug injection sites.

IN PRACTICE:

To the best of their knowledge, this is “the largest study of wounds among patients with confirmed exposure to xylazine and the first to systematically describe wound characteristics,” the authors wrote. The results, they concluded, “may help identify xylazine exposure and can guide research on the etiology and management of these wounds.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Lydia Lutz, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and coinvestigators and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This single-city, retrospective study limited generalizability, and the selection of the largest wounds may bias results. Additionally, chronicity data relied on patient recall, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for the study. The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A case series highlights the features of severe, necrotic skin wounds among hospitalized adults associated with xylazine exposure, including 9% that involved exposed deep structures such as bone or tendon.

METHODOLOGY:

• The alpha-2 agonist xylazine, a veterinary sedative, is increasingly detected in fentanyl used illicitly in the United States and may be causing necrotizing wounds in drug users.
• To characterize specific clinical features of xylazine-associated wounds, researchers conducted a case series at three academic medical hospitals in Philadelphia from April 2022 to February 2023.
• They included 29 patients with confirmed xylazine exposure and a chief complaint that was wound-related, seen as inpatients or in the emergency department.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 29 patients (mean age, 39.4 years; 52% men) had a total of 59 wounds, 90% were located on the arms and legs, and 69% were on the posterior upper or anterior lower extremities. Five wounds (9%) involved exposed deep structures such as the bone or tendon.
• Of the 57 wounds with available photographs, 60% had wound beds with predominantly devitalized tissue (eschar or slough), 11% were blisters, 9% had granulation tissue, and 21% had mixed tissue or other types of wound beds. Devitalized tissue was more commonly observed in medium or large wounds (odds ratio [OR], 5.2; P = .02) than in small wounds.
• As reported by patients, 48% were acute wounds, 20% were subacute, and 29% were chronic (present for 3 months or longer). Subacute and chronic wounds were often medium or large compared with acute wounds (OR, 48.5; P < .001) and contained devitalized tissue (OR, 9.5; P < .001).
• Of the 39 wounds with patient-reported etiology, 34 (87%) occurred at drug injection sites.

IN PRACTICE:

To the best of their knowledge, this is “the largest study of wounds among patients with confirmed exposure to xylazine and the first to systematically describe wound characteristics,” the authors wrote. The results, they concluded, “may help identify xylazine exposure and can guide research on the etiology and management of these wounds.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Lydia Lutz, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and coinvestigators and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This single-city, retrospective study limited generalizability, and the selection of the largest wounds may bias results. Additionally, chronicity data relied on patient recall, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for the study. The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.