Gender-based discrimination refers to “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of socially constructed gender roles and norms which prevents a person from enjoying full human rights.”¹ Similarly, sexual harassment encompasses a spectrum of sexual conduct that includes “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature,” as defined by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.² Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment can be “overt,” which includes explicitly recognizable behaviors, or they can be “implicit,” which includes verbal and nonverbal behaviors that often go unrecognized but convey hostility, objectification, or exclusion of another person. Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment are commonly described and likely more prevalent in academic settings.^3-6 Female physicians are disproportionately affected by gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, compared with their male peers.^4,7

Female physicians face workplace harassment from both patients and coworkers. A study in Canada reported that more than 75% of female physicians experienced sexual harassment from their patients.⁸ A recent study showed almost half of the physicians who reported harassment, which was three times more often among female physicians, described other physician colleagues as perpetrators.⁹ In a study among clinician-researchers in the field of academic medicine, 30% of females reported having experienced sexual harassment, compared with 4% of males.⁷ Among females who reported harassment in this study, 47% stated that these experiences adversely affected their opportunities for career advancement. Career stage may also affect experiences or perceptions of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, with females in earlier career stages reporting a less favorable environment of gender equity.¹⁰

Hospital medicine is a young and evolving specialty, and the number of hospitalists has increased substantially from a few hundred at the time of inception to over 50,000 as of 2016.¹¹ The proportion of female hospitalists increased from 31% in 2012 to 52% in 2014, reflecting equal gender representation in hospital medicine.¹² Available evidence shows gender disparities exist in hospital medicine disproportionately affecting female hospitalists in their career advancement, including leadership and scholarship opportunities.¹³ However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding the prevalence of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment experienced by hospitalists.

Our study examines the experiences of academic hospitalists regarding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment and the impact of gender on career satisfaction and advancement.

Study Design and Participants

An online survey was developed and approved by the institutional board review (IRB) at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. University-based academic centers with hospitalist programs, identified through personal connections, from across the continental United Stated were identified as potential study sites, and leaders at each institution were contacted to ascertain potential participation in the survey. The survey was distributed to Internal Medicine hospitalists at 18 participating academic institutions from January 2019 to June 2019. Participation was voluntary. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study and provided a link to the survey. To maintain anonymity, none of the questionnaires requested identifying information from participants. A web-based Qualtrics online-based survey platform was used.

Survey Elements

The survey aimed to assess several elements of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment. All questions about these experiences distinguished encounters with patients from those with colleagues, and questions about occurrences either over a career or in the last 30 days were intended to capture both distant and recent timeframes. The theme for the questions for the survey was based on previous studies.^4,7,8 The wording of questions was simplified to make them easily understandable, and the brevity of the survey was maintained to prevent possible nonresponses.¹⁴ Additional questions (mistaken for a healthcare provider other than a physician, feeling respected by patients and colleagues, referred to by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent), which were deemed relevant in day-to-day clinical practice through consensus among study investigators and discussions among peer hospitalists, were incorporated into the final survey (Appendix). Survey questions were intended to capture several elements regarding interactions with patients and with colleagues or other healthcare providers (HCPs).

Questions on gender-based discrimination included:

• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] mistaken you for a healthcare provider other than a physician?
• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] asked you to do something not at your level of training?
• Do you feel respected?
Do you perceive your gender has impacted opportunities for your career advancement?

Questions on sexual harassment included:

• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] touched you inappropriately, made sexual remarks or gestures, or made suggestive looks?
• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] referred to you by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent?

In addition, the survey sought demographic information of the participants (age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and information about their individual institutions (names and locations) (Appendix). The geographical locations of the institutions were further categorized into four different regions according to the United States Census Bureau (Northwest, Midwest, South, and West). At the end of the survey, participants were given an opportunity to provide any additional comments.

Statistical Analysis

Standard descriptive summary statistics were used for demographic data. Associations between the variables were analyzed using chi-square test or Fischer’s exact test, as appropriate, for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables. The variations among institution-based responses were presented in the form of inter-quartile range (IQR). All tests were 2-sided, and P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics software version 24. Relevant responses representative of the overall respondents’ sentiments as provided under additional comment section were discussed and cited.

Eighteen different academic institutions across the United States participated in the study, with 336 individual responses. The majority of respondents were females (57%), in younger age categories (58% were 30-39 years old), Caucasian (59%), and early-career hospitalists (>50% working as hospitalists for ≤5 years) (Table 1). Regarding the overall geographic distribution, the largest number of responses were from the Midwest (n = 115; 35.6%) (Table 1 and Appendix).

Gender Discrimination

Interactions With Patients

Over their careers, 69% of hospitalists reported being mistaken for an HCP other than a physician by patients. This was more common among females than among males (99% vs 29%, respectively; P < .001) (Table 2). Almost half (48%) reported this had occurred in the last 30 days, more frequently by females (76% vs 10%; P < .001).

Of responding hospitalists, 96% stated that, over their careers, they have been asked by patients to do something they did not consider to be at their level of training (eg, help get food or water, help with a bed pan), with a higher prevalence of such experiences among females than males (99% vs 93%, respectively; P = .004) (Table 2). Most (71%) said they had experienced this in the last 30 days, which was again more frequently reported by females (78% vs 62%; P = .001).

The responses from female hospitalists regarding their career-long experiences of being mistaken for an HCP or asked to do something not at their level of training by their patients had both the highest number of positive responses across institutions (median of hospital proportions, 100%) and the least institutional variation since both had the narrowest IQR) (Table 2).

Interactions With Colleagues or Other HCPs

Among hospitalists responding to the survey, 46% felt that, over their careers, they had been mistaken for nonphysician HCPs by colleagues or other HCPs. This was more prevalent among females than among males (65% vs 20%; P < .001) (Table 2). Among respondents, 14% reported these events had occurred in the last 30 days, which was again more common among females (21% vs 5%; P < .001).

Over their careers, 26% of hospitalists reported they have been asked by a colleague or HCP to do something not at their level of training (eg, clean up the physician’s work room, make coffee, take notes in a meeting), with similar prevalence among females and males (29% vs 23%; P = .228). Ten percent reported these occurrences in the last 30 days, which was similar between females and males (12% vs 9%; P = .330).

Feelings of Respect and Opportunities for Career Advancement

When asked to rate the statement “I feel respected by patients” on a 5-point Likert scale, female hospitalists overall scored significantly lower as compared with their male counterparts (mean score, 3.73 vs 4.04; P < .001) (Table 3); this was also true when asked about feelings of respect by physicians (mean score, 3.84 vs 4.15; P < .001). Female hospitalists were more likely than males to report that their gender has more negatively impacted their opportunities for career advancement (mean score, 2.73 vs 3.34; P < .001).

Sexual Harassment

Interactions With Patients

Over half (57%) of hospitalists reported career-long experiences of patient(s) touching them inappropriately, making sexual remarks or gestures, or making suggestive looks. These experiences were more prevalent among females than among males (72% vs 36%, respectively; P < .001) (Table 2). Fifteen percent said they had such experience in rhe last 30 days, which was also more common among females (22% vs 6%; P < .001).

Most hospitalists (84%) reported that patients have referred to them by inappropriately familiar terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent over their careers, with females more frequently reporting these behaviors (95% vs 68%; P < .001). Experiencing this during the last 30 days was reported by 48%, which was again more common among females (68% vs 23%; P < .001).

Interactions With Colleagues or Other HCPs

Within their careers, 15% of hospitalists reported at least one experience of a colleague or HCP touching them inappropriately or making sexual remarks, gestures, or suggestive looks. This was more prevalent for females than males (18% vs 10%, respectively; P = .033). Only 2% of both females and males reported these experiences in the last 30 days (2% vs 2%; P = .981).

Almost one-third of participants (32%) affirmed that another HCP has referred to them by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent in their career, with a higher proportion of females than males reporting these events (39% vs 23%; P = .002) (Table 2). Experiencing this during the last 30 days was reported by 10%, which was similar between females and males (12% vs 7%; P = .112).

Additional Comments From Respondents

• “Throughout my training and now into my professional career, there are nearly weekly incidents of elderly male patients referring to me as “honey/dear/sweetie” or even by my first name, even though I introduce myself as their physician and politely correct them. They will often refer to me as a nurse and ask me to do something not at my level of training. Sometimes even despite correcting the patient, they continue to refer to me as such. Throughout the years, other female MDs and I have discussed that this is ‘status quo’ for female physicians and observe that this is not an experience that male MDs share.”
• “I frequently round with a male nurse practitioner and the patients almost always, despite introducing ourselves and our roles, turn to him and ask him questions instead of addressing them to me.”
• “Our institution allows female faculty to be interviewed about childcare, household labor division, plans for pregnancy. One professor asks women private details about their private relationships such as what they do with spouse on date night or weekends away.”
• “It’s hard to answer questions related to my level of training. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to ask me to do things, no matter my level of training. . . . I don’t think being a doctor means that I am above this, or that it is inappropriate to be asked to do this.”

This survey demonstrated that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the academic hospitalist healthcare environment are common, both in more distant and recent time frames. Notably, these experiences are shared by female and male physicians in interactions with both patients and colleagues, though male hospitalists report most of these experiences at significantly lower frequencies than females. These results support past work showing that female physicians are significantly more likely to be subjected to gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, but also challenges the perception that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment are uniquely experienced by females.

A startling number of females and males in the study reported sexual harassment (inappropriate touching, remarks, gestures, and looks) when interacting with patients throughout their careers and in last 30 days. Many males and females reported that patients had referred to them with inappropriately familiar, and potentially demeaning, terms of endearment. For both overt and implicit sexual harassment, females were significantly more likely than males to report experiencing these behaviors when interacting with patients. Although some of these experiences may seem less harmful than others, a meta-analysis demonstrated that frequent, less intense experiences of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have a similar impact on female’s well-being as do less frequent, more intense experiences.¹⁵ Although the person using the terms of endearment like “honey,” “sugar,” or “sweetheart” may feel the terms are harmless, such expressions can be inappropriate and constitute sexual harassment according to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Civil Rights.¹⁶ The Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program (SHARP) also classifies such terms into verbal categories of sexual harrassment.¹⁷

Of female physicians surveyed, 99% reported that they had been mistaken for HCPs other than physicians by their patients over their careers. Although this was also reported by male physicians, the experience was 3.4 times as likely for female physicians. Misidentification by patients may represent a disconnect between the growing female representation in the physician workforce and patients’ conceptions of the traditional image of a physician.

In parallel with this finding of misidentification, an interesting area of the study was the question regarding being asked to do “something not at your level of training.” A recurring theme in the comments was a rejection of the notion that certain tasks were “beneath a level of training,” suggesting a common view that acts of caregiving are not bounded by hierarchy. Analysis of qualitative responses showed that 40% of these responses had comments regarding this question. An example was “It’s hard to answer questions related to my level of training. . . . I don’t think being a doctor means that I am above this, or that it is inappropriate to be asked to do this.” Notably, however, a larger number of female than male physicians responded yes to this question in both study time frames. This points to a differential in how female physicians are viewed by patients, both in frequent misidentification and in behaviors more frequently asked of female physicians than their male counterparts. Given the comments, it may also suggest a difference in how female and male physicians perceive the fluidity of bounds on their care-taking roles set by their “level of training.”

A large number of study participants were early-career hospitalists, which may in part explain some of the study results. In a previous study of gender equity in an Internal Medicine department, physicians practicing medicine for more than 15 years perceived the departmental culture as more favorable than physicians with shorter careers.¹⁰ Additionally, the perception of cultures was most discordant between senior male physicians and junior female physicians.¹⁰ Because many hospitalists are early-career physicians, they may have trained in an environment that had heightened awareness surrounding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, which affects the overall study results.

Multiple qualitative comments, mentioned above, were submitted by participants describing their experiences in all categories. Such comments paint a picture of insidious bias and cultural norms affecting the quality of female physicians’ work lives.

Two questions focused on career satisfaction and the sense of respect from patients and colleagues. In both responses, there was a statistically different response between males and females, with females less likely to report that they felt respected and that their gender adversely impacted their opportunities for career advancement. This is disturbing information and warrants more investigation.

The reasons for the observed prevalence of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in this broad survey of academic hospitalists are uncertain. Multiple studies to date have demonstrated that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have historically existed in medicine and continue to even today. Unlike physicians with long-term relationships with patients, hospitalists may face more exposure due to a lack of long-term continuity with patients. The absence of an established trust in the relationship also may make them more vulnerable to inappropriate behaviors when interacting with patients. Hospital medicine, however, is a young specialty with equal gender representation and should be at the forefront of addressing and solving these issues of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The survey had a good distribution between female and male participants. Additionally, the survey reflected the general distribution of the national hospitalist workforce in gender, age, and ethnic/racial distribution, as well as number of years in practice.¹² The study surveyed respondents regarding experiences in both long- and short-term time frames, as well as experiences with patients and colleagues.

Our study reflects a cross-sectional snapshot of hospitalists’ perceptions with no longitudinal follow-up. Since the survey was limited to academic medical centers, it may not reflect experiences in community/private practice settings. The small number of participants limited the ability to perform subgroup analyses by age, race, or years in practice, which may play a role in interactions with patients and colleagues. Since the number of respondents varied greatly by institution, a minority of institutions could have influenced some of the findings. Narrow IQRs of the hospital proportions as shown in Table 2 would suggest similar responses across institutions, whereas wide IQRs would suggest that a smaller number of institutions were possibly driving the findings. Because of the survey distribution method, it is unknown how many physicians received the survey and a response rate could not be calculated. Further, selection, recall, and detection biases cannot be ruled out.

This survey shows that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the academic hospitalist healthcare environment are common and more frequently experienced by female physicians, both in interactions with patients and colleagues. Our study highlights the need to address this prevalent issue among academic hospitalists.

Gender-based discrimination refers to “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of socially constructed gender roles and norms which prevents a person from enjoying full human rights.”¹ Similarly, sexual harassment encompasses a spectrum of sexual conduct that includes “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature,” as defined by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.² Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment can be “overt,” which includes explicitly recognizable behaviors, or they can be “implicit,” which includes verbal and nonverbal behaviors that often go unrecognized but convey hostility, objectification, or exclusion of another person. Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment are commonly described and likely more prevalent in academic settings.^3-6 Female physicians are disproportionately affected by gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, compared with their male peers.^4,7

Female physicians face workplace harassment from both patients and coworkers. A study in Canada reported that more than 75% of female physicians experienced sexual harassment from their patients.⁸ A recent study showed almost half of the physicians who reported harassment, which was three times more often among female physicians, described other physician colleagues as perpetrators.⁹ In a study among clinician-researchers in the field of academic medicine, 30% of females reported having experienced sexual harassment, compared with 4% of males.⁷ Among females who reported harassment in this study, 47% stated that these experiences adversely affected their opportunities for career advancement. Career stage may also affect experiences or perceptions of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, with females in earlier career stages reporting a less favorable environment of gender equity.¹⁰

Hospital medicine is a young and evolving specialty, and the number of hospitalists has increased substantially from a few hundred at the time of inception to over 50,000 as of 2016.¹¹ The proportion of female hospitalists increased from 31% in 2012 to 52% in 2014, reflecting equal gender representation in hospital medicine.¹² Available evidence shows gender disparities exist in hospital medicine disproportionately affecting female hospitalists in their career advancement, including leadership and scholarship opportunities.¹³ However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding the prevalence of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment experienced by hospitalists.

Our study examines the experiences of academic hospitalists regarding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment and the impact of gender on career satisfaction and advancement.

Study Design and Participants

An online survey was developed and approved by the institutional board review (IRB) at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. University-based academic centers with hospitalist programs, identified through personal connections, from across the continental United Stated were identified as potential study sites, and leaders at each institution were contacted to ascertain potential participation in the survey. The survey was distributed to Internal Medicine hospitalists at 18 participating academic institutions from January 2019 to June 2019. Participation was voluntary. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study and provided a link to the survey. To maintain anonymity, none of the questionnaires requested identifying information from participants. A web-based Qualtrics online-based survey platform was used.

Survey Elements

The survey aimed to assess several elements of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment. All questions about these experiences distinguished encounters with patients from those with colleagues, and questions about occurrences either over a career or in the last 30 days were intended to capture both distant and recent timeframes. The theme for the questions for the survey was based on previous studies.^4,7,8 The wording of questions was simplified to make them easily understandable, and the brevity of the survey was maintained to prevent possible nonresponses.¹⁴ Additional questions (mistaken for a healthcare provider other than a physician, feeling respected by patients and colleagues, referred to by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent), which were deemed relevant in day-to-day clinical practice through consensus among study investigators and discussions among peer hospitalists, were incorporated into the final survey (Appendix). Survey questions were intended to capture several elements regarding interactions with patients and with colleagues or other healthcare providers (HCPs).

Questions on gender-based discrimination included:

• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] mistaken you for a healthcare provider other than a physician?
• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] asked you to do something not at your level of training?
• Do you feel respected?
Do you perceive your gender has impacted opportunities for your career advancement?

Questions on sexual harassment included:

• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] touched you inappropriately, made sexual remarks or gestures, or made suggestive looks?
• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] referred to you by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent?

In addition, the survey sought demographic information of the participants (age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and information about their individual institutions (names and locations) (Appendix). The geographical locations of the institutions were further categorized into four different regions according to the United States Census Bureau (Northwest, Midwest, South, and West). At the end of the survey, participants were given an opportunity to provide any additional comments.

Statistical Analysis

Standard descriptive summary statistics were used for demographic data. Associations between the variables were analyzed using chi-square test or Fischer’s exact test, as appropriate, for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables. The variations among institution-based responses were presented in the form of inter-quartile range (IQR). All tests were 2-sided, and P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics software version 24. Relevant responses representative of the overall respondents’ sentiments as provided under additional comment section were discussed and cited.

Eighteen different academic institutions across the United States participated in the study, with 336 individual responses. The majority of respondents were females (57%), in younger age categories (58% were 30-39 years old), Caucasian (59%), and early-career hospitalists (>50% working as hospitalists for ≤5 years) (Table 1). Regarding the overall geographic distribution, the largest number of responses were from the Midwest (n = 115; 35.6%) (Table 1 and Appendix).

Gender Discrimination

Interactions With Patients

Over their careers, 69% of hospitalists reported being mistaken for an HCP other than a physician by patients. This was more common among females than among males (99% vs 29%, respectively; P < .001) (Table 2). Almost half (48%) reported this had occurred in the last 30 days, more frequently by females (76% vs 10%; P < .001).

Of responding hospitalists, 96% stated that, over their careers, they have been asked by patients to do something they did not consider to be at their level of training (eg, help get food or water, help with a bed pan), with a higher prevalence of such experiences among females than males (99% vs 93%, respectively; P = .004) (Table 2). Most (71%) said they had experienced this in the last 30 days, which was again more frequently reported by females (78% vs 62%; P = .001).

The responses from female hospitalists regarding their career-long experiences of being mistaken for an HCP or asked to do something not at their level of training by their patients had both the highest number of positive responses across institutions (median of hospital proportions, 100%) and the least institutional variation since both had the narrowest IQR) (Table 2).

Interactions With Colleagues or Other HCPs

Among hospitalists responding to the survey, 46% felt that, over their careers, they had been mistaken for nonphysician HCPs by colleagues or other HCPs. This was more prevalent among females than among males (65% vs 20%; P < .001) (Table 2). Among respondents, 14% reported these events had occurred in the last 30 days, which was again more common among females (21% vs 5%; P < .001).

Over their careers, 26% of hospitalists reported they have been asked by a colleague or HCP to do something not at their level of training (eg, clean up the physician’s work room, make coffee, take notes in a meeting), with similar prevalence among females and males (29% vs 23%; P = .228). Ten percent reported these occurrences in the last 30 days, which was similar between females and males (12% vs 9%; P = .330).

Feelings of Respect and Opportunities for Career Advancement

When asked to rate the statement “I feel respected by patients” on a 5-point Likert scale, female hospitalists overall scored significantly lower as compared with their male counterparts (mean score, 3.73 vs 4.04; P < .001) (Table 3); this was also true when asked about feelings of respect by physicians (mean score, 3.84 vs 4.15; P < .001). Female hospitalists were more likely than males to report that their gender has more negatively impacted their opportunities for career advancement (mean score, 2.73 vs 3.34; P < .001).

Sexual Harassment

Interactions With Patients

Over half (57%) of hospitalists reported career-long experiences of patient(s) touching them inappropriately, making sexual remarks or gestures, or making suggestive looks. These experiences were more prevalent among females than among males (72% vs 36%, respectively; P < .001) (Table 2). Fifteen percent said they had such experience in rhe last 30 days, which was also more common among females (22% vs 6%; P < .001).

Most hospitalists (84%) reported that patients have referred to them by inappropriately familiar terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent over their careers, with females more frequently reporting these behaviors (95% vs 68%; P < .001). Experiencing this during the last 30 days was reported by 48%, which was again more common among females (68% vs 23%; P < .001).

Interactions With Colleagues or Other HCPs

Within their careers, 15% of hospitalists reported at least one experience of a colleague or HCP touching them inappropriately or making sexual remarks, gestures, or suggestive looks. This was more prevalent for females than males (18% vs 10%, respectively; P = .033). Only 2% of both females and males reported these experiences in the last 30 days (2% vs 2%; P = .981).

Almost one-third of participants (32%) affirmed that another HCP has referred to them by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent in their career, with a higher proportion of females than males reporting these events (39% vs 23%; P = .002) (Table 2). Experiencing this during the last 30 days was reported by 10%, which was similar between females and males (12% vs 7%; P = .112).

Additional Comments From Respondents

• “Throughout my training and now into my professional career, there are nearly weekly incidents of elderly male patients referring to me as “honey/dear/sweetie” or even by my first name, even though I introduce myself as their physician and politely correct them. They will often refer to me as a nurse and ask me to do something not at my level of training. Sometimes even despite correcting the patient, they continue to refer to me as such. Throughout the years, other female MDs and I have discussed that this is ‘status quo’ for female physicians and observe that this is not an experience that male MDs share.”
• “I frequently round with a male nurse practitioner and the patients almost always, despite introducing ourselves and our roles, turn to him and ask him questions instead of addressing them to me.”
• “Our institution allows female faculty to be interviewed about childcare, household labor division, plans for pregnancy. One professor asks women private details about their private relationships such as what they do with spouse on date night or weekends away.”
• “It’s hard to answer questions related to my level of training. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to ask me to do things, no matter my level of training. . . . I don’t think being a doctor means that I am above this, or that it is inappropriate to be asked to do this.”

This survey demonstrated that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the academic hospitalist healthcare environment are common, both in more distant and recent time frames. Notably, these experiences are shared by female and male physicians in interactions with both patients and colleagues, though male hospitalists report most of these experiences at significantly lower frequencies than females. These results support past work showing that female physicians are significantly more likely to be subjected to gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, but also challenges the perception that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment are uniquely experienced by females.

A startling number of females and males in the study reported sexual harassment (inappropriate touching, remarks, gestures, and looks) when interacting with patients throughout their careers and in last 30 days. Many males and females reported that patients had referred to them with inappropriately familiar, and potentially demeaning, terms of endearment. For both overt and implicit sexual harassment, females were significantly more likely than males to report experiencing these behaviors when interacting with patients. Although some of these experiences may seem less harmful than others, a meta-analysis demonstrated that frequent, less intense experiences of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have a similar impact on female’s well-being as do less frequent, more intense experiences.¹⁵ Although the person using the terms of endearment like “honey,” “sugar,” or “sweetheart” may feel the terms are harmless, such expressions can be inappropriate and constitute sexual harassment according to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Civil Rights.¹⁶ The Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program (SHARP) also classifies such terms into verbal categories of sexual harrassment.¹⁷

Of female physicians surveyed, 99% reported that they had been mistaken for HCPs other than physicians by their patients over their careers. Although this was also reported by male physicians, the experience was 3.4 times as likely for female physicians. Misidentification by patients may represent a disconnect between the growing female representation in the physician workforce and patients’ conceptions of the traditional image of a physician.

In parallel with this finding of misidentification, an interesting area of the study was the question regarding being asked to do “something not at your level of training.” A recurring theme in the comments was a rejection of the notion that certain tasks were “beneath a level of training,” suggesting a common view that acts of caregiving are not bounded by hierarchy. Analysis of qualitative responses showed that 40% of these responses had comments regarding this question. An example was “It’s hard to answer questions related to my level of training. . . . I don’t think being a doctor means that I am above this, or that it is inappropriate to be asked to do this.” Notably, however, a larger number of female than male physicians responded yes to this question in both study time frames. This points to a differential in how female physicians are viewed by patients, both in frequent misidentification and in behaviors more frequently asked of female physicians than their male counterparts. Given the comments, it may also suggest a difference in how female and male physicians perceive the fluidity of bounds on their care-taking roles set by their “level of training.”

A large number of study participants were early-career hospitalists, which may in part explain some of the study results. In a previous study of gender equity in an Internal Medicine department, physicians practicing medicine for more than 15 years perceived the departmental culture as more favorable than physicians with shorter careers.¹⁰ Additionally, the perception of cultures was most discordant between senior male physicians and junior female physicians.¹⁰ Because many hospitalists are early-career physicians, they may have trained in an environment that had heightened awareness surrounding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, which affects the overall study results.

Multiple qualitative comments, mentioned above, were submitted by participants describing their experiences in all categories. Such comments paint a picture of insidious bias and cultural norms affecting the quality of female physicians’ work lives.

Two questions focused on career satisfaction and the sense of respect from patients and colleagues. In both responses, there was a statistically different response between males and females, with females less likely to report that they felt respected and that their gender adversely impacted their opportunities for career advancement. This is disturbing information and warrants more investigation.

The reasons for the observed prevalence of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in this broad survey of academic hospitalists are uncertain. Multiple studies to date have demonstrated that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have historically existed in medicine and continue to even today. Unlike physicians with long-term relationships with patients, hospitalists may face more exposure due to a lack of long-term continuity with patients. The absence of an established trust in the relationship also may make them more vulnerable to inappropriate behaviors when interacting with patients. Hospital medicine, however, is a young specialty with equal gender representation and should be at the forefront of addressing and solving these issues of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The survey had a good distribution between female and male participants. Additionally, the survey reflected the general distribution of the national hospitalist workforce in gender, age, and ethnic/racial distribution, as well as number of years in practice.¹² The study surveyed respondents regarding experiences in both long- and short-term time frames, as well as experiences with patients and colleagues.

Our study reflects a cross-sectional snapshot of hospitalists’ perceptions with no longitudinal follow-up. Since the survey was limited to academic medical centers, it may not reflect experiences in community/private practice settings. The small number of participants limited the ability to perform subgroup analyses by age, race, or years in practice, which may play a role in interactions with patients and colleagues. Since the number of respondents varied greatly by institution, a minority of institutions could have influenced some of the findings. Narrow IQRs of the hospital proportions as shown in Table 2 would suggest similar responses across institutions, whereas wide IQRs would suggest that a smaller number of institutions were possibly driving the findings. Because of the survey distribution method, it is unknown how many physicians received the survey and a response rate could not be calculated. Further, selection, recall, and detection biases cannot be ruled out.

This survey shows that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the academic hospitalist healthcare environment are common and more frequently experienced by female physicians, both in interactions with patients and colleagues. Our study highlights the need to address this prevalent issue among academic hospitalists.

Gender-based discrimination refers to “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of socially constructed gender roles and norms which prevents a person from enjoying full human rights.”¹ Similarly, sexual harassment encompasses a spectrum of sexual conduct that includes “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature,” as defined by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.² Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment can be “overt,” which includes explicitly recognizable behaviors, or they can be “implicit,” which includes verbal and nonverbal behaviors that often go unrecognized but convey hostility, objectification, or exclusion of another person. Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment are commonly described and likely more prevalent in academic settings.^3-6 Female physicians are disproportionately affected by gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, compared with their male peers.^4,7

Female physicians face workplace harassment from both patients and coworkers. A study in Canada reported that more than 75% of female physicians experienced sexual harassment from their patients.⁸ A recent study showed almost half of the physicians who reported harassment, which was three times more often among female physicians, described other physician colleagues as perpetrators.⁹ In a study among clinician-researchers in the field of academic medicine, 30% of females reported having experienced sexual harassment, compared with 4% of males.⁷ Among females who reported harassment in this study, 47% stated that these experiences adversely affected their opportunities for career advancement. Career stage may also affect experiences or perceptions of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, with females in earlier career stages reporting a less favorable environment of gender equity.¹⁰

Hospital medicine is a young and evolving specialty, and the number of hospitalists has increased substantially from a few hundred at the time of inception to over 50,000 as of 2016.¹¹ The proportion of female hospitalists increased from 31% in 2012 to 52% in 2014, reflecting equal gender representation in hospital medicine.¹² Available evidence shows gender disparities exist in hospital medicine disproportionately affecting female hospitalists in their career advancement, including leadership and scholarship opportunities.¹³ However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding the prevalence of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment experienced by hospitalists.

Our study examines the experiences of academic hospitalists regarding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment and the impact of gender on career satisfaction and advancement.

Study Design and Participants

An online survey was developed and approved by the institutional board review (IRB) at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. University-based academic centers with hospitalist programs, identified through personal connections, from across the continental United Stated were identified as potential study sites, and leaders at each institution were contacted to ascertain potential participation in the survey. The survey was distributed to Internal Medicine hospitalists at 18 participating academic institutions from January 2019 to June 2019. Participation was voluntary. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study and provided a link to the survey. To maintain anonymity, none of the questionnaires requested identifying information from participants. A web-based Qualtrics online-based survey platform was used.

Survey Elements

The survey aimed to assess several elements of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment. All questions about these experiences distinguished encounters with patients from those with colleagues, and questions about occurrences either over a career or in the last 30 days were intended to capture both distant and recent timeframes. The theme for the questions for the survey was based on previous studies.^4,7,8 The wording of questions was simplified to make them easily understandable, and the brevity of the survey was maintained to prevent possible nonresponses.¹⁴ Additional questions (mistaken for a healthcare provider other than a physician, feeling respected by patients and colleagues, referred to by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent), which were deemed relevant in day-to-day clinical practice through consensus among study investigators and discussions among peer hospitalists, were incorporated into the final survey (Appendix). Survey questions were intended to capture several elements regarding interactions with patients and with colleagues or other healthcare providers (HCPs).

Questions on gender-based discrimination included:

• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] mistaken you for a healthcare provider other than a physician?
• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] asked you to do something not at your level of training?
• Do you feel respected?
Do you perceive your gender has impacted opportunities for your career advancement?

Questions on sexual harassment included:

• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] touched you inappropriately, made sexual remarks or gestures, or made suggestive looks?
• Has a patient [colleague or other healthcare provider] referred to you by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent?

In addition, the survey sought demographic information of the participants (age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and information about their individual institutions (names and locations) (Appendix). The geographical locations of the institutions were further categorized into four different regions according to the United States Census Bureau (Northwest, Midwest, South, and West). At the end of the survey, participants were given an opportunity to provide any additional comments.

Statistical Analysis

Standard descriptive summary statistics were used for demographic data. Associations between the variables were analyzed using chi-square test or Fischer’s exact test, as appropriate, for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables. The variations among institution-based responses were presented in the form of inter-quartile range (IQR). All tests were 2-sided, and P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics software version 24. Relevant responses representative of the overall respondents’ sentiments as provided under additional comment section were discussed and cited.

Eighteen different academic institutions across the United States participated in the study, with 336 individual responses. The majority of respondents were females (57%), in younger age categories (58% were 30-39 years old), Caucasian (59%), and early-career hospitalists (>50% working as hospitalists for ≤5 years) (Table 1). Regarding the overall geographic distribution, the largest number of responses were from the Midwest (n = 115; 35.6%) (Table 1 and Appendix).

Gender Discrimination

Interactions With Patients

Over their careers, 69% of hospitalists reported being mistaken for an HCP other than a physician by patients. This was more common among females than among males (99% vs 29%, respectively; P < .001) (Table 2). Almost half (48%) reported this had occurred in the last 30 days, more frequently by females (76% vs 10%; P < .001).

Of responding hospitalists, 96% stated that, over their careers, they have been asked by patients to do something they did not consider to be at their level of training (eg, help get food or water, help with a bed pan), with a higher prevalence of such experiences among females than males (99% vs 93%, respectively; P = .004) (Table 2). Most (71%) said they had experienced this in the last 30 days, which was again more frequently reported by females (78% vs 62%; P = .001).

The responses from female hospitalists regarding their career-long experiences of being mistaken for an HCP or asked to do something not at their level of training by their patients had both the highest number of positive responses across institutions (median of hospital proportions, 100%) and the least institutional variation since both had the narrowest IQR) (Table 2).

Interactions With Colleagues or Other HCPs

Among hospitalists responding to the survey, 46% felt that, over their careers, they had been mistaken for nonphysician HCPs by colleagues or other HCPs. This was more prevalent among females than among males (65% vs 20%; P < .001) (Table 2). Among respondents, 14% reported these events had occurred in the last 30 days, which was again more common among females (21% vs 5%; P < .001).

Over their careers, 26% of hospitalists reported they have been asked by a colleague or HCP to do something not at their level of training (eg, clean up the physician’s work room, make coffee, take notes in a meeting), with similar prevalence among females and males (29% vs 23%; P = .228). Ten percent reported these occurrences in the last 30 days, which was similar between females and males (12% vs 9%; P = .330).

Feelings of Respect and Opportunities for Career Advancement

When asked to rate the statement “I feel respected by patients” on a 5-point Likert scale, female hospitalists overall scored significantly lower as compared with their male counterparts (mean score, 3.73 vs 4.04; P < .001) (Table 3); this was also true when asked about feelings of respect by physicians (mean score, 3.84 vs 4.15; P < .001). Female hospitalists were more likely than males to report that their gender has more negatively impacted their opportunities for career advancement (mean score, 2.73 vs 3.34; P < .001).

Sexual Harassment

Interactions With Patients

Over half (57%) of hospitalists reported career-long experiences of patient(s) touching them inappropriately, making sexual remarks or gestures, or making suggestive looks. These experiences were more prevalent among females than among males (72% vs 36%, respectively; P < .001) (Table 2). Fifteen percent said they had such experience in rhe last 30 days, which was also more common among females (22% vs 6%; P < .001).

Most hospitalists (84%) reported that patients have referred to them by inappropriately familiar terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent over their careers, with females more frequently reporting these behaviors (95% vs 68%; P < .001). Experiencing this during the last 30 days was reported by 48%, which was again more common among females (68% vs 23%; P < .001).

Interactions With Colleagues or Other HCPs

Within their careers, 15% of hospitalists reported at least one experience of a colleague or HCP touching them inappropriately or making sexual remarks, gestures, or suggestive looks. This was more prevalent for females than males (18% vs 10%, respectively; P = .033). Only 2% of both females and males reported these experiences in the last 30 days (2% vs 2%; P = .981).

Almost one-third of participants (32%) affirmed that another HCP has referred to them by terms such as “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” “sugar,” or equivalent in their career, with a higher proportion of females than males reporting these events (39% vs 23%; P = .002) (Table 2). Experiencing this during the last 30 days was reported by 10%, which was similar between females and males (12% vs 7%; P = .112).

Additional Comments From Respondents

• “Throughout my training and now into my professional career, there are nearly weekly incidents of elderly male patients referring to me as “honey/dear/sweetie” or even by my first name, even though I introduce myself as their physician and politely correct them. They will often refer to me as a nurse and ask me to do something not at my level of training. Sometimes even despite correcting the patient, they continue to refer to me as such. Throughout the years, other female MDs and I have discussed that this is ‘status quo’ for female physicians and observe that this is not an experience that male MDs share.”
• “I frequently round with a male nurse practitioner and the patients almost always, despite introducing ourselves and our roles, turn to him and ask him questions instead of addressing them to me.”
• “Our institution allows female faculty to be interviewed about childcare, household labor division, plans for pregnancy. One professor asks women private details about their private relationships such as what they do with spouse on date night or weekends away.”
• “It’s hard to answer questions related to my level of training. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to ask me to do things, no matter my level of training. . . . I don’t think being a doctor means that I am above this, or that it is inappropriate to be asked to do this.”

This survey demonstrated that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the academic hospitalist healthcare environment are common, both in more distant and recent time frames. Notably, these experiences are shared by female and male physicians in interactions with both patients and colleagues, though male hospitalists report most of these experiences at significantly lower frequencies than females. These results support past work showing that female physicians are significantly more likely to be subjected to gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, but also challenges the perception that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment are uniquely experienced by females.

A startling number of females and males in the study reported sexual harassment (inappropriate touching, remarks, gestures, and looks) when interacting with patients throughout their careers and in last 30 days. Many males and females reported that patients had referred to them with inappropriately familiar, and potentially demeaning, terms of endearment. For both overt and implicit sexual harassment, females were significantly more likely than males to report experiencing these behaviors when interacting with patients. Although some of these experiences may seem less harmful than others, a meta-analysis demonstrated that frequent, less intense experiences of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have a similar impact on female’s well-being as do less frequent, more intense experiences.¹⁵ Although the person using the terms of endearment like “honey,” “sugar,” or “sweetheart” may feel the terms are harmless, such expressions can be inappropriate and constitute sexual harassment according to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Civil Rights.¹⁶ The Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program (SHARP) also classifies such terms into verbal categories of sexual harrassment.¹⁷

Of female physicians surveyed, 99% reported that they had been mistaken for HCPs other than physicians by their patients over their careers. Although this was also reported by male physicians, the experience was 3.4 times as likely for female physicians. Misidentification by patients may represent a disconnect between the growing female representation in the physician workforce and patients’ conceptions of the traditional image of a physician.

In parallel with this finding of misidentification, an interesting area of the study was the question regarding being asked to do “something not at your level of training.” A recurring theme in the comments was a rejection of the notion that certain tasks were “beneath a level of training,” suggesting a common view that acts of caregiving are not bounded by hierarchy. Analysis of qualitative responses showed that 40% of these responses had comments regarding this question. An example was “It’s hard to answer questions related to my level of training. . . . I don’t think being a doctor means that I am above this, or that it is inappropriate to be asked to do this.” Notably, however, a larger number of female than male physicians responded yes to this question in both study time frames. This points to a differential in how female physicians are viewed by patients, both in frequent misidentification and in behaviors more frequently asked of female physicians than their male counterparts. Given the comments, it may also suggest a difference in how female and male physicians perceive the fluidity of bounds on their care-taking roles set by their “level of training.”

A large number of study participants were early-career hospitalists, which may in part explain some of the study results. In a previous study of gender equity in an Internal Medicine department, physicians practicing medicine for more than 15 years perceived the departmental culture as more favorable than physicians with shorter careers.¹⁰ Additionally, the perception of cultures was most discordant between senior male physicians and junior female physicians.¹⁰ Because many hospitalists are early-career physicians, they may have trained in an environment that had heightened awareness surrounding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment, which affects the overall study results.

Multiple qualitative comments, mentioned above, were submitted by participants describing their experiences in all categories. Such comments paint a picture of insidious bias and cultural norms affecting the quality of female physicians’ work lives.

Two questions focused on career satisfaction and the sense of respect from patients and colleagues. In both responses, there was a statistically different response between males and females, with females less likely to report that they felt respected and that their gender adversely impacted their opportunities for career advancement. This is disturbing information and warrants more investigation.

The reasons for the observed prevalence of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in this broad survey of academic hospitalists are uncertain. Multiple studies to date have demonstrated that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have historically existed in medicine and continue to even today. Unlike physicians with long-term relationships with patients, hospitalists may face more exposure due to a lack of long-term continuity with patients. The absence of an established trust in the relationship also may make them more vulnerable to inappropriate behaviors when interacting with patients. Hospital medicine, however, is a young specialty with equal gender representation and should be at the forefront of addressing and solving these issues of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The survey had a good distribution between female and male participants. Additionally, the survey reflected the general distribution of the national hospitalist workforce in gender, age, and ethnic/racial distribution, as well as number of years in practice.¹² The study surveyed respondents regarding experiences in both long- and short-term time frames, as well as experiences with patients and colleagues.

Our study reflects a cross-sectional snapshot of hospitalists’ perceptions with no longitudinal follow-up. Since the survey was limited to academic medical centers, it may not reflect experiences in community/private practice settings. The small number of participants limited the ability to perform subgroup analyses by age, race, or years in practice, which may play a role in interactions with patients and colleagues. Since the number of respondents varied greatly by institution, a minority of institutions could have influenced some of the findings. Narrow IQRs of the hospital proportions as shown in Table 2 would suggest similar responses across institutions, whereas wide IQRs would suggest that a smaller number of institutions were possibly driving the findings. Because of the survey distribution method, it is unknown how many physicians received the survey and a response rate could not be calculated. Further, selection, recall, and detection biases cannot be ruled out.

This survey shows that gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the academic hospitalist healthcare environment are common and more frequently experienced by female physicians, both in interactions with patients and colleagues. Our study highlights the need to address this prevalent issue among academic hospitalists.

As the population of the United States continues to age, hospitals are seeing an increasing number of older patients with significant medical and social complexity. Medicare data have shown that an increasing number require post–acute care after a hospitalization.¹ Discharges to post–acute care settings are often longer and more costly compared with discharges to other settings, which suggests that targeting quality improvement efforts at this transition period may improve the value of care.²

The transition from the hospital setting to a post–acute care facility can be dangerous and complicated due to lapses in communication, medication errors, and the complexity of medical treatment plans. Suboptimal transitions in care can result in adverse events for the patient, as well as confusion in medication regimens or incomplete plans for follow-up care.³

The Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model was first developed and launched by Sanjeev Arora, MD, in New Mexico in 2003 to expand access to subspecialist care using videoconferencing.⁴ We first applied this model in 2013 to evaluate the impact of this interdisciplinary videoconferencing tool on the care of patients discharged to post–acute settings.⁵ We found that patients participating in the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes–Care Transitions (ECHO-CT) model experienced decreased risk of rehospitalization, decreased skilled nursing facility (SNF) length of stay, and reduced 30-day healthcare costs, compared with those patients not enrolled in this program; these outcomes were likely due to identification and correction of medication-related errors, improved care coordination, improved disease management, and clarification of goals of care.⁶ Though these investigations did identify some issues arising during the care transition process, they did not fully describe the types of problems uncovered. We sought to better characterize the clinical and operational issues identified through the ECHO-CT conference, hereafter known as transition-of-care events (TCEs). These issues may include new or evolving medical concerns, an adverse event, or a “near miss.” Identification and classification of TCEs that may contribute to unsafe or fractured care transitions are critical in developing systematic solutions to improve transitions of care, which can ultimately improve patient safety and potentially avoid preventable errors.

ECHO-CT Multidisciplinary Video Conference

We conducted ECHO-CT at a large, tertiary care academic medical center. The project design for the ECHO-CT program has been previously described.⁵ In brief, the program is a weekly, multidisciplinary videoconference between a hospital-based team and post–acute care providers to discuss patients discharged from inpatient services to post–acute care sites, including SNFs and long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs), during the preceding week. All patients discharged from the tertiary care inpatient site to one of the eight participating SNFs or LTACHs, from either a medical or surgical service, are eligible to be discussed at this weekly interdisciplinary conference. Long-term care facilities were not included in this study. The ECHO-CT program used HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant videoconferencing technology to connect hospital and post–acute care providers.

During the videoconferences, each patient’s hospital course and discharge documentation are reviewed by a hospitalist, and a pharmacist performs a medication reconciliation of each patient’s admission, discharge, and post–acute care medication list. The discharging attending, primary care providers, residents, other trainees, and subspecialist providers are invited to attend. Typically, the interdisciplinary team at the post–acute care sites includes physicians, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, social workers, and case managers. Between 10 and 20 patients are discussed in a case-based format, which includes a summary of the patient’s hospital course, an update from the post–acute care team on the patient’s care, and an opportunity for a discussion regarding any concerns or questions raised by the post–acute care or inpatient care teams. The content and duration of discussion typically lasts approximately 3 to 10 minutes, depending on the needs of the patient and the care team. Each of the eight post–acute care sites participating in the project are assigned a 10- to 15-minute block. A copy of the ECHO-CT session process document is included in the Appendix.

Data Collection

At each interdisciplinary patient review, TCEs were identified and recorded. These events were categorized in real time by the ECHO-CT data collection team into the following categories: medication related, medical, discharge communication/coordination, or other, and recorded in a secured, deidentified database. For individuals whose TCEs could represent more than one category, authors reviewed the available information about the TCEs and determined the most appropriate category; if more than one category was felt to be applicable to a patient’s situation, the events were reclassified into all applicable categories. Data about individual patients, including gender, age at the time of discharge, and other demographic information, were obtained from hospital databases. Number of diagnoses included any diagnosis billed during the patient’s hospital stay, and these data were obtained from a hospital billing database. Average number of medications at discharge was obtained from a hospital pharmacy database.

A total of 675 patients (experiencing 743 hospitalizations) were discharged from a medical or surgical service to one of the participating post–acute care sites from January 2016 to October 2018, and were discussed at the interdisciplinary conference. During that time, 139 TCEs were recorded for review, involving 132 patients (Table 1). Patients who experienced TCEs were noted to have a slightly higher average number of diagnoses than did those in the non-TCE group (21 vs 18, respectively) and number of medications (18 vs 15).

Representative examples of TCEs are provided in Table 2. Fifty-eight issues were identified as discharge communication or coordination issues (eg, discharge summary was late or missing at time of discharge to facility, transitional issues were unclear, follow-up appointments were not appropriately scheduled or documented). An additional 52 TCEs were identified as pharmacy or medication issues (eg, medications were inadvertently omitted from discharge medication list, prehospital medication list was incorrect). Medical issues accounted for an additional 27 concerns (eg, patient was hypoglycemic on arrival, inadequate pain control, discovery of new acute medical issues or medical diagnoses that were not clearly documented or communicated by the inpatient team). “Other” issues (two) included unaddressed social concerns, such as insurance issues.

The ECHO-CT model unites hospital and post–acute care providers to improve transitions of care and is unique in its focus on the transition from hospital to post–acute care rather than to home care. In 2 years of data collection, we identified several TCEs encompassing a range of concerns. Of the 675 patients discussed, 132 (20%) were noted to have a TCE. When these percentages are applied to the 140 million Medicare hospital discharges that took place during 2000 to 2015, we would estimate nearly 5.5 million TCEs, or 375,000 TCEs per year, that may have affected this population.

The majority of TCEs were communication and coordination errors. Missing or incomplete discharge paperwork, inadequate documentation of inpatient care, and confusion about medical devices or postoperative needs (eg, slings, braces, wound care, drains) were commonly reported. Follow-up appointments with specialists were often not appropriately scheduled or communicated. This may have resulted from unstandardized discharge documentation and a lower priority given to documentation in the setting of multiple clinical demands (eg, direct patient care, complex care coordination, and clinical paperwork and charting). Studies have demonstrated that fewer than one-third of discharge summaries are received by outpatient providers before postdischarge follow-up, and additionally that nearly 40% of patients did not undergo recommended workups for medical issues identified during their hospital stay.^7,8 All of this is problematic because appropriate documentation in discharge summaries is associated with a decreased risk of hospital readmission.⁹

Pharmacy issues were the second most common TCE identified. One member of the post–acute care team noted that “omissions, additions, and replacements” relating to medications were common occurrences. Additionally, it was noted that medications were inadvertently continued for longer than planned or not adjusted appropriately with changing clinical parameters, such as renal function. The results of our analysis are consistent with current literature, which suggests that up to 60% of all medication errors occur during the period surrounding transitions of care.¹⁰

There were several limitations to this investigation. Though recording of identified TCEs occurred in real time, analysis of these identified events occurred retrospectively; therefore, investigators had limited ability to retroactively review or recategorize recorded issues, which potentially could have resulted in misclassification or misinterpretation. Additionally, the data were intended to be descriptive; therefore, outcomes such as hospital readmission and patient harm could not be linked to specific TCEs. Furthermore, it is possible that events were not detected by either the postdischarge team or the hospital-based team and, therefore, not captured in this analysis. Further work would be helpful to determine the root causes underlying the identified issues in care transitions, with the goal of improving patient safety and avoiding preventable errors during transitions of care. Although there is comprehensive literature related to errors and medication-related adverse events,¹¹ there is not a consensus of how to classify and report, in a standardized fashion, events arising during the transition period. A validated structure for systematically identifying, monitoring, recording, and reporting issues arising during care transitions will be critical in preventing errors and ensuring patient safety during this high-risk period.

Our model is a unique intervention that uses the expertise and engagement of an interdisciplinary team and seeks to identify and remedy issues arising during transitions of care—in real time—to prevent direct harm to vulnerable patients. We have already implemented interventions to improve care based on our experiences with this videoconference-based program. For example, direct feedback was given to discharging teams to improve the discharge summary and associated documentation, and changes to the medication-ordering system were implemented to address specific medication errors discovered. The TCEs identified in this investigation highlight specific areas for improvement with the goal of providing high-quality care for patients and seamless transitions to post–acute care. As health systems and hospitals face new challenges in communication and care coordination, especially due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the technology and communication methods used in the ECHO-CT model may become even more relevant for promoting clear communication and patient safety during transitions of care.

The ECHO CT team thanks Sabrina Carretie for her contributions in data collection and analysis.

As the population of the United States continues to age, hospitals are seeing an increasing number of older patients with significant medical and social complexity. Medicare data have shown that an increasing number require post–acute care after a hospitalization.¹ Discharges to post–acute care settings are often longer and more costly compared with discharges to other settings, which suggests that targeting quality improvement efforts at this transition period may improve the value of care.²

The transition from the hospital setting to a post–acute care facility can be dangerous and complicated due to lapses in communication, medication errors, and the complexity of medical treatment plans. Suboptimal transitions in care can result in adverse events for the patient, as well as confusion in medication regimens or incomplete plans for follow-up care.³

The Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model was first developed and launched by Sanjeev Arora, MD, in New Mexico in 2003 to expand access to subspecialist care using videoconferencing.⁴ We first applied this model in 2013 to evaluate the impact of this interdisciplinary videoconferencing tool on the care of patients discharged to post–acute settings.⁵ We found that patients participating in the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes–Care Transitions (ECHO-CT) model experienced decreased risk of rehospitalization, decreased skilled nursing facility (SNF) length of stay, and reduced 30-day healthcare costs, compared with those patients not enrolled in this program; these outcomes were likely due to identification and correction of medication-related errors, improved care coordination, improved disease management, and clarification of goals of care.⁶ Though these investigations did identify some issues arising during the care transition process, they did not fully describe the types of problems uncovered. We sought to better characterize the clinical and operational issues identified through the ECHO-CT conference, hereafter known as transition-of-care events (TCEs). These issues may include new or evolving medical concerns, an adverse event, or a “near miss.” Identification and classification of TCEs that may contribute to unsafe or fractured care transitions are critical in developing systematic solutions to improve transitions of care, which can ultimately improve patient safety and potentially avoid preventable errors.

ECHO-CT Multidisciplinary Video Conference

We conducted ECHO-CT at a large, tertiary care academic medical center. The project design for the ECHO-CT program has been previously described.⁵ In brief, the program is a weekly, multidisciplinary videoconference between a hospital-based team and post–acute care providers to discuss patients discharged from inpatient services to post–acute care sites, including SNFs and long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs), during the preceding week. All patients discharged from the tertiary care inpatient site to one of the eight participating SNFs or LTACHs, from either a medical or surgical service, are eligible to be discussed at this weekly interdisciplinary conference. Long-term care facilities were not included in this study. The ECHO-CT program used HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant videoconferencing technology to connect hospital and post–acute care providers.

During the videoconferences, each patient’s hospital course and discharge documentation are reviewed by a hospitalist, and a pharmacist performs a medication reconciliation of each patient’s admission, discharge, and post–acute care medication list. The discharging attending, primary care providers, residents, other trainees, and subspecialist providers are invited to attend. Typically, the interdisciplinary team at the post–acute care sites includes physicians, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, social workers, and case managers. Between 10 and 20 patients are discussed in a case-based format, which includes a summary of the patient’s hospital course, an update from the post–acute care team on the patient’s care, and an opportunity for a discussion regarding any concerns or questions raised by the post–acute care or inpatient care teams. The content and duration of discussion typically lasts approximately 3 to 10 minutes, depending on the needs of the patient and the care team. Each of the eight post–acute care sites participating in the project are assigned a 10- to 15-minute block. A copy of the ECHO-CT session process document is included in the Appendix.

Data Collection

At each interdisciplinary patient review, TCEs were identified and recorded. These events were categorized in real time by the ECHO-CT data collection team into the following categories: medication related, medical, discharge communication/coordination, or other, and recorded in a secured, deidentified database. For individuals whose TCEs could represent more than one category, authors reviewed the available information about the TCEs and determined the most appropriate category; if more than one category was felt to be applicable to a patient’s situation, the events were reclassified into all applicable categories. Data about individual patients, including gender, age at the time of discharge, and other demographic information, were obtained from hospital databases. Number of diagnoses included any diagnosis billed during the patient’s hospital stay, and these data were obtained from a hospital billing database. Average number of medications at discharge was obtained from a hospital pharmacy database.

A total of 675 patients (experiencing 743 hospitalizations) were discharged from a medical or surgical service to one of the participating post–acute care sites from January 2016 to October 2018, and were discussed at the interdisciplinary conference. During that time, 139 TCEs were recorded for review, involving 132 patients (Table 1). Patients who experienced TCEs were noted to have a slightly higher average number of diagnoses than did those in the non-TCE group (21 vs 18, respectively) and number of medications (18 vs 15).

Representative examples of TCEs are provided in Table 2. Fifty-eight issues were identified as discharge communication or coordination issues (eg, discharge summary was late or missing at time of discharge to facility, transitional issues were unclear, follow-up appointments were not appropriately scheduled or documented). An additional 52 TCEs were identified as pharmacy or medication issues (eg, medications were inadvertently omitted from discharge medication list, prehospital medication list was incorrect). Medical issues accounted for an additional 27 concerns (eg, patient was hypoglycemic on arrival, inadequate pain control, discovery of new acute medical issues or medical diagnoses that were not clearly documented or communicated by the inpatient team). “Other” issues (two) included unaddressed social concerns, such as insurance issues.

The ECHO-CT model unites hospital and post–acute care providers to improve transitions of care and is unique in its focus on the transition from hospital to post–acute care rather than to home care. In 2 years of data collection, we identified several TCEs encompassing a range of concerns. Of the 675 patients discussed, 132 (20%) were noted to have a TCE. When these percentages are applied to the 140 million Medicare hospital discharges that took place during 2000 to 2015, we would estimate nearly 5.5 million TCEs, or 375,000 TCEs per year, that may have affected this population.

The majority of TCEs were communication and coordination errors. Missing or incomplete discharge paperwork, inadequate documentation of inpatient care, and confusion about medical devices or postoperative needs (eg, slings, braces, wound care, drains) were commonly reported. Follow-up appointments with specialists were often not appropriately scheduled or communicated. This may have resulted from unstandardized discharge documentation and a lower priority given to documentation in the setting of multiple clinical demands (eg, direct patient care, complex care coordination, and clinical paperwork and charting). Studies have demonstrated that fewer than one-third of discharge summaries are received by outpatient providers before postdischarge follow-up, and additionally that nearly 40% of patients did not undergo recommended workups for medical issues identified during their hospital stay.^7,8 All of this is problematic because appropriate documentation in discharge summaries is associated with a decreased risk of hospital readmission.⁹

Pharmacy issues were the second most common TCE identified. One member of the post–acute care team noted that “omissions, additions, and replacements” relating to medications were common occurrences. Additionally, it was noted that medications were inadvertently continued for longer than planned or not adjusted appropriately with changing clinical parameters, such as renal function. The results of our analysis are consistent with current literature, which suggests that up to 60% of all medication errors occur during the period surrounding transitions of care.¹⁰

There were several limitations to this investigation. Though recording of identified TCEs occurred in real time, analysis of these identified events occurred retrospectively; therefore, investigators had limited ability to retroactively review or recategorize recorded issues, which potentially could have resulted in misclassification or misinterpretation. Additionally, the data were intended to be descriptive; therefore, outcomes such as hospital readmission and patient harm could not be linked to specific TCEs. Furthermore, it is possible that events were not detected by either the postdischarge team or the hospital-based team and, therefore, not captured in this analysis. Further work would be helpful to determine the root causes underlying the identified issues in care transitions, with the goal of improving patient safety and avoiding preventable errors during transitions of care. Although there is comprehensive literature related to errors and medication-related adverse events,¹¹ there is not a consensus of how to classify and report, in a standardized fashion, events arising during the transition period. A validated structure for systematically identifying, monitoring, recording, and reporting issues arising during care transitions will be critical in preventing errors and ensuring patient safety during this high-risk period.

Our model is a unique intervention that uses the expertise and engagement of an interdisciplinary team and seeks to identify and remedy issues arising during transitions of care—in real time—to prevent direct harm to vulnerable patients. We have already implemented interventions to improve care based on our experiences with this videoconference-based program. For example, direct feedback was given to discharging teams to improve the discharge summary and associated documentation, and changes to the medication-ordering system were implemented to address specific medication errors discovered. The TCEs identified in this investigation highlight specific areas for improvement with the goal of providing high-quality care for patients and seamless transitions to post–acute care. As health systems and hospitals face new challenges in communication and care coordination, especially due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the technology and communication methods used in the ECHO-CT model may become even more relevant for promoting clear communication and patient safety during transitions of care.

The ECHO CT team thanks Sabrina Carretie for her contributions in data collection and analysis.

As the population of the United States continues to age, hospitals are seeing an increasing number of older patients with significant medical and social complexity. Medicare data have shown that an increasing number require post–acute care after a hospitalization.¹ Discharges to post–acute care settings are often longer and more costly compared with discharges to other settings, which suggests that targeting quality improvement efforts at this transition period may improve the value of care.²

The transition from the hospital setting to a post–acute care facility can be dangerous and complicated due to lapses in communication, medication errors, and the complexity of medical treatment plans. Suboptimal transitions in care can result in adverse events for the patient, as well as confusion in medication regimens or incomplete plans for follow-up care.³

The Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model was first developed and launched by Sanjeev Arora, MD, in New Mexico in 2003 to expand access to subspecialist care using videoconferencing.⁴ We first applied this model in 2013 to evaluate the impact of this interdisciplinary videoconferencing tool on the care of patients discharged to post–acute settings.⁵ We found that patients participating in the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes–Care Transitions (ECHO-CT) model experienced decreased risk of rehospitalization, decreased skilled nursing facility (SNF) length of stay, and reduced 30-day healthcare costs, compared with those patients not enrolled in this program; these outcomes were likely due to identification and correction of medication-related errors, improved care coordination, improved disease management, and clarification of goals of care.⁶ Though these investigations did identify some issues arising during the care transition process, they did not fully describe the types of problems uncovered. We sought to better characterize the clinical and operational issues identified through the ECHO-CT conference, hereafter known as transition-of-care events (TCEs). These issues may include new or evolving medical concerns, an adverse event, or a “near miss.” Identification and classification of TCEs that may contribute to unsafe or fractured care transitions are critical in developing systematic solutions to improve transitions of care, which can ultimately improve patient safety and potentially avoid preventable errors.

ECHO-CT Multidisciplinary Video Conference

We conducted ECHO-CT at a large, tertiary care academic medical center. The project design for the ECHO-CT program has been previously described.⁵ In brief, the program is a weekly, multidisciplinary videoconference between a hospital-based team and post–acute care providers to discuss patients discharged from inpatient services to post–acute care sites, including SNFs and long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs), during the preceding week. All patients discharged from the tertiary care inpatient site to one of the eight participating SNFs or LTACHs, from either a medical or surgical service, are eligible to be discussed at this weekly interdisciplinary conference. Long-term care facilities were not included in this study. The ECHO-CT program used HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant videoconferencing technology to connect hospital and post–acute care providers.

During the videoconferences, each patient’s hospital course and discharge documentation are reviewed by a hospitalist, and a pharmacist performs a medication reconciliation of each patient’s admission, discharge, and post–acute care medication list. The discharging attending, primary care providers, residents, other trainees, and subspecialist providers are invited to attend. Typically, the interdisciplinary team at the post–acute care sites includes physicians, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, social workers, and case managers. Between 10 and 20 patients are discussed in a case-based format, which includes a summary of the patient’s hospital course, an update from the post–acute care team on the patient’s care, and an opportunity for a discussion regarding any concerns or questions raised by the post–acute care or inpatient care teams. The content and duration of discussion typically lasts approximately 3 to 10 minutes, depending on the needs of the patient and the care team. Each of the eight post–acute care sites participating in the project are assigned a 10- to 15-minute block. A copy of the ECHO-CT session process document is included in the Appendix.

Data Collection

At each interdisciplinary patient review, TCEs were identified and recorded. These events were categorized in real time by the ECHO-CT data collection team into the following categories: medication related, medical, discharge communication/coordination, or other, and recorded in a secured, deidentified database. For individuals whose TCEs could represent more than one category, authors reviewed the available information about the TCEs and determined the most appropriate category; if more than one category was felt to be applicable to a patient’s situation, the events were reclassified into all applicable categories. Data about individual patients, including gender, age at the time of discharge, and other demographic information, were obtained from hospital databases. Number of diagnoses included any diagnosis billed during the patient’s hospital stay, and these data were obtained from a hospital billing database. Average number of medications at discharge was obtained from a hospital pharmacy database.

A total of 675 patients (experiencing 743 hospitalizations) were discharged from a medical or surgical service to one of the participating post–acute care sites from January 2016 to October 2018, and were discussed at the interdisciplinary conference. During that time, 139 TCEs were recorded for review, involving 132 patients (Table 1). Patients who experienced TCEs were noted to have a slightly higher average number of diagnoses than did those in the non-TCE group (21 vs 18, respectively) and number of medications (18 vs 15).

Representative examples of TCEs are provided in Table 2. Fifty-eight issues were identified as discharge communication or coordination issues (eg, discharge summary was late or missing at time of discharge to facility, transitional issues were unclear, follow-up appointments were not appropriately scheduled or documented). An additional 52 TCEs were identified as pharmacy or medication issues (eg, medications were inadvertently omitted from discharge medication list, prehospital medication list was incorrect). Medical issues accounted for an additional 27 concerns (eg, patient was hypoglycemic on arrival, inadequate pain control, discovery of new acute medical issues or medical diagnoses that were not clearly documented or communicated by the inpatient team). “Other” issues (two) included unaddressed social concerns, such as insurance issues.

The ECHO-CT model unites hospital and post–acute care providers to improve transitions of care and is unique in its focus on the transition from hospital to post–acute care rather than to home care. In 2 years of data collection, we identified several TCEs encompassing a range of concerns. Of the 675 patients discussed, 132 (20%) were noted to have a TCE. When these percentages are applied to the 140 million Medicare hospital discharges that took place during 2000 to 2015, we would estimate nearly 5.5 million TCEs, or 375,000 TCEs per year, that may have affected this population.

The majority of TCEs were communication and coordination errors. Missing or incomplete discharge paperwork, inadequate documentation of inpatient care, and confusion about medical devices or postoperative needs (eg, slings, braces, wound care, drains) were commonly reported. Follow-up appointments with specialists were often not appropriately scheduled or communicated. This may have resulted from unstandardized discharge documentation and a lower priority given to documentation in the setting of multiple clinical demands (eg, direct patient care, complex care coordination, and clinical paperwork and charting). Studies have demonstrated that fewer than one-third of discharge summaries are received by outpatient providers before postdischarge follow-up, and additionally that nearly 40% of patients did not undergo recommended workups for medical issues identified during their hospital stay.^7,8 All of this is problematic because appropriate documentation in discharge summaries is associated with a decreased risk of hospital readmission.⁹

Pharmacy issues were the second most common TCE identified. One member of the post–acute care team noted that “omissions, additions, and replacements” relating to medications were common occurrences. Additionally, it was noted that medications were inadvertently continued for longer than planned or not adjusted appropriately with changing clinical parameters, such as renal function. The results of our analysis are consistent with current literature, which suggests that up to 60% of all medication errors occur during the period surrounding transitions of care.¹⁰

There were several limitations to this investigation. Though recording of identified TCEs occurred in real time, analysis of these identified events occurred retrospectively; therefore, investigators had limited ability to retroactively review or recategorize recorded issues, which potentially could have resulted in misclassification or misinterpretation. Additionally, the data were intended to be descriptive; therefore, outcomes such as hospital readmission and patient harm could not be linked to specific TCEs. Furthermore, it is possible that events were not detected by either the postdischarge team or the hospital-based team and, therefore, not captured in this analysis. Further work would be helpful to determine the root causes underlying the identified issues in care transitions, with the goal of improving patient safety and avoiding preventable errors during transitions of care. Although there is comprehensive literature related to errors and medication-related adverse events,¹¹ there is not a consensus of how to classify and report, in a standardized fashion, events arising during the transition period. A validated structure for systematically identifying, monitoring, recording, and reporting issues arising during care transitions will be critical in preventing errors and ensuring patient safety during this high-risk period.

Our model is a unique intervention that uses the expertise and engagement of an interdisciplinary team and seeks to identify and remedy issues arising during transitions of care—in real time—to prevent direct harm to vulnerable patients. We have already implemented interventions to improve care based on our experiences with this videoconference-based program. For example, direct feedback was given to discharging teams to improve the discharge summary and associated documentation, and changes to the medication-ordering system were implemented to address specific medication errors discovered. The TCEs identified in this investigation highlight specific areas for improvement with the goal of providing high-quality care for patients and seamless transitions to post–acute care. As health systems and hospitals face new challenges in communication and care coordination, especially due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the technology and communication methods used in the ECHO-CT model may become even more relevant for promoting clear communication and patient safety during transitions of care.

The ECHO CT team thanks Sabrina Carretie for her contributions in data collection and analysis.

Anaphylaxis, an acute, life-threatening allergic response, affects multiple organ systems and manifests variably. Anaphylaxis is likely taking place if one or more of the following occurs: (a) sudden- onset skin and mucosal tissue swelling, (b) skin and mucosal abnormalities or respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms after exposure to an allergen, or (c) reduced blood pressure after exposure to an allergen. With an estimated lifetime prevalence of up to 5.1%, it is a significant cause of morbidity in adults and children.¹ The 2020 anaphylaxis practice parameter update provides recommendations on treatment, prevention, and assessment of biphasic symptom risk in patients experiencing anaphylaxis.² The guideline provides five key recommendations and four good-practice statements, which we have consolidated into five recommendations for this update.

Recommendation 1. All patients with suspected or confirmed anaphylaxis should be treated with epinephrine. (Good-practice statement)

Self-injectable epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, with weight-based dosing of 0.15 mg/kg for children weighing less than 30 kg and 0.30 mg/kg for children weighing more than 30 kg and adults. Delayed administration of epinephrine can increase anaphylaxis-associated morbidity and mortality. After epinephrine administration, patients should be observed in a healthcare setting for symptom resolution.

Recommendation 2. For all patients, clinicians should assess the risk for developing biphasic anaphylaxis. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

Biphasic anaphylaxis is defined as the return of anaphylaxis symptoms after an asymptomatic period of at least 1 hour, all during a single instance of anaphylaxis. Biphasic anaphylaxis occurs in up to 20% of patients.³ Biphasic anaphylaxis is more likely among patients receiving repeated doses of epinephrine (odds ratio [OR], 4.82; 95% CI, 2.70-8.58), delayed epinephrine administration greater than 60 minutes (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.79), or a severe initial presentation (OR, 4.82; 95% CI, 1.23-3.61).² The presence of any of these risk factors raises the risk for developing biphasic anaphylaxis by 17%.⁴ Severe anaphylaxis is characterized by life-threatening symptoms, including loss of consciousness, syncope or dizziness, hypotension, cardiovascular system collapse, or neurologic dysfunction from hypoperfusion or hypoxia after exposure to an allergen.⁵

Other risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis in all ages include a widened pulse pressure, unknown anaphylaxis trigger, and cutaneous signs and symptoms. Drug triggers are also a risk factor in pediatric patients.²

Recommendation 3. All patients with anaphylaxis and risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis should undergo extended clinical observation in a setting capable of managing anaphylaxis. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

All patients should be monitored for resolution of symptoms prior to discharge, regardless of age or severity at onset. Patients with all three of the following can be discharged 1 hour after symptom resolution because these three factors together have a 95% negative predictive value for biphasic anaphylaxis: nonsevere anaphylaxis, prompt response to epinephrine, and access to medical care.⁵ In contrast, extended observation of at least 6 hours should be offered to patients with increased risk of biphasic reactions. Patients who have potentially fatal underlying illnesses (eg, severe respiratory or cardiac disease), poor access to emergency medical services, poor self-management skills, or inability to access epinephrine should also be considered for extended observation or hospitalization. Evidence is lacking to define the optimal observation time because extended biphasic reactions can occur from 1 to 78 hours after initial anaphylaxis symptoms.⁶

Given the lack of specific evidence around length of observation, there is an opportunity for shared decision-making. Every patient should receive education regarding trigger avoidance, reasons to seek care or activate emergency medical services, and warning signs of biphasic anaphylaxis. Additionally, self-injectable epinephrine and an action plan detailing how and when to administer the epinephrine should be provided. Patients with anaphylaxis should follow up with an allergist.

Recommendation 4. Administration of glucocorticoids or antihistamines for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis is not recommended. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

This guideline discourages glucocorticoids and antihistamines as a primary treatment as it may delay epinephrine administration. Despite treating the cutaneous manifestations of anaphylaxis, antihistamines fail to treat the life-threatening cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms. No clear evidence exists on whether antihistamines or glucocorticoids prevent biphasic anaphylaxis.

Recommendation 5. In adult patients receiving chemotherapy, premedication with antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid should be used to prevent anaphylaxis or infusion-related reactions for some chemotherapeutic agents in patients with no previous reaction to the drug. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

Premedication with antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids was associated with 51% reduced odds for anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions to certain chemotherapy agents (pegaspargase, docetaxel, carboplatin, oxaliplatin, and rituximab) in adults who had not previously experienced a reaction to the drug (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.66).² However, this same benefit was not found with other chemotherapy agents for patients without a prior allergic reaction to the agent, which allows clinicians to defer premedication. The benefit of premedication with antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids to patients with prior anaphylactic reactions to chemotherapy agents was not evaluated in this guideline, nor was the role premedication plays in desensitization to chemotherapy.

This guideline was created by a panel of allergists, clinical immunologists, and methodologists using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach to draft recommendations. Conflicts of interest (COI) were disclosed by all panel members according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) guidelines. The inclusion of many observational studies and meta-analyses improves the generalizability of the guideline. The authors highlighted the low certainty of evidence due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and significant heterogeneity of the included studies.

Some recommendations in the guideline have implications for costs of care. A recent economic analysis looked at cost-effectiveness for extended observation for anaphylaxis and found it was cost-effective only when patients were at increased risk for biphasic anaphylaxis.⁷ Although Recommendation 4 advises against the use of glucocorticoids for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis, one retrospective cohort study demonstrated that glucocorticoid use was associated with decreased length of stay in children admitted with anaphylaxis.⁸ Therefore, the recommendation to avoid glucocorticoids for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis could possibly increase hospital length of stay for children. The usefulness of dexamethasone to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis in children 3 to 14 months old is being evaluated in a randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03523221).

Future research should better characterize risk factors for biphasic reactions to aid in clinical triage and diagnosis. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal observation duration for patients experiencing anaphylactic reactions or requiring multiple doses of epinephrine. The role of premedication in patients receiving chemotherapy is poorly described, with few studies evaluating the benefit of premedication in patients with previous anaphylactic reactions.

Anaphylaxis, an acute, life-threatening allergic response, affects multiple organ systems and manifests variably. Anaphylaxis is likely taking place if one or more of the following occurs: (a) sudden- onset skin and mucosal tissue swelling, (b) skin and mucosal abnormalities or respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms after exposure to an allergen, or (c) reduced blood pressure after exposure to an allergen. With an estimated lifetime prevalence of up to 5.1%, it is a significant cause of morbidity in adults and children.¹ The 2020 anaphylaxis practice parameter update provides recommendations on treatment, prevention, and assessment of biphasic symptom risk in patients experiencing anaphylaxis.² The guideline provides five key recommendations and four good-practice statements, which we have consolidated into five recommendations for this update.

Recommendation 1. All patients with suspected or confirmed anaphylaxis should be treated with epinephrine. (Good-practice statement)

Self-injectable epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, with weight-based dosing of 0.15 mg/kg for children weighing less than 30 kg and 0.30 mg/kg for children weighing more than 30 kg and adults. Delayed administration of epinephrine can increase anaphylaxis-associated morbidity and mortality. After epinephrine administration, patients should be observed in a healthcare setting for symptom resolution.

Recommendation 2. For all patients, clinicians should assess the risk for developing biphasic anaphylaxis. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

Biphasic anaphylaxis is defined as the return of anaphylaxis symptoms after an asymptomatic period of at least 1 hour, all during a single instance of anaphylaxis. Biphasic anaphylaxis occurs in up to 20% of patients.³ Biphasic anaphylaxis is more likely among patients receiving repeated doses of epinephrine (odds ratio [OR], 4.82; 95% CI, 2.70-8.58), delayed epinephrine administration greater than 60 minutes (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.79), or a severe initial presentation (OR, 4.82; 95% CI, 1.23-3.61).² The presence of any of these risk factors raises the risk for developing biphasic anaphylaxis by 17%.⁴ Severe anaphylaxis is characterized by life-threatening symptoms, including loss of consciousness, syncope or dizziness, hypotension, cardiovascular system collapse, or neurologic dysfunction from hypoperfusion or hypoxia after exposure to an allergen.⁵

Other risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis in all ages include a widened pulse pressure, unknown anaphylaxis trigger, and cutaneous signs and symptoms. Drug triggers are also a risk factor in pediatric patients.²

Recommendation 3. All patients with anaphylaxis and risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis should undergo extended clinical observation in a setting capable of managing anaphylaxis. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

All patients should be monitored for resolution of symptoms prior to discharge, regardless of age or severity at onset. Patients with all three of the following can be discharged 1 hour after symptom resolution because these three factors together have a 95% negative predictive value for biphasic anaphylaxis: nonsevere anaphylaxis, prompt response to epinephrine, and access to medical care.⁵ In contrast, extended observation of at least 6 hours should be offered to patients with increased risk of biphasic reactions. Patients who have potentially fatal underlying illnesses (eg, severe respiratory or cardiac disease), poor access to emergency medical services, poor self-management skills, or inability to access epinephrine should also be considered for extended observation or hospitalization. Evidence is lacking to define the optimal observation time because extended biphasic reactions can occur from 1 to 78 hours after initial anaphylaxis symptoms.⁶

Given the lack of specific evidence around length of observation, there is an opportunity for shared decision-making. Every patient should receive education regarding trigger avoidance, reasons to seek care or activate emergency medical services, and warning signs of biphasic anaphylaxis. Additionally, self-injectable epinephrine and an action plan detailing how and when to administer the epinephrine should be provided. Patients with anaphylaxis should follow up with an allergist.

Recommendation 4. Administration of glucocorticoids or antihistamines for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis is not recommended. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

This guideline discourages glucocorticoids and antihistamines as a primary treatment as it may delay epinephrine administration. Despite treating the cutaneous manifestations of anaphylaxis, antihistamines fail to treat the life-threatening cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms. No clear evidence exists on whether antihistamines or glucocorticoids prevent biphasic anaphylaxis.

Recommendation 5. In adult patients receiving chemotherapy, premedication with antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid should be used to prevent anaphylaxis or infusion-related reactions for some chemotherapeutic agents in patients with no previous reaction to the drug. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

Premedication with antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids was associated with 51% reduced odds for anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions to certain chemotherapy agents (pegaspargase, docetaxel, carboplatin, oxaliplatin, and rituximab) in adults who had not previously experienced a reaction to the drug (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.66).² However, this same benefit was not found with other chemotherapy agents for patients without a prior allergic reaction to the agent, which allows clinicians to defer premedication. The benefit of premedication with antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids to patients with prior anaphylactic reactions to chemotherapy agents was not evaluated in this guideline, nor was the role premedication plays in desensitization to chemotherapy.

This guideline was created by a panel of allergists, clinical immunologists, and methodologists using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach to draft recommendations. Conflicts of interest (COI) were disclosed by all panel members according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) guidelines. The inclusion of many observational studies and meta-analyses improves the generalizability of the guideline. The authors highlighted the low certainty of evidence due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and significant heterogeneity of the included studies.

Some recommendations in the guideline have implications for costs of care. A recent economic analysis looked at cost-effectiveness for extended observation for anaphylaxis and found it was cost-effective only when patients were at increased risk for biphasic anaphylaxis.⁷ Although Recommendation 4 advises against the use of glucocorticoids for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis, one retrospective cohort study demonstrated that glucocorticoid use was associated with decreased length of stay in children admitted with anaphylaxis.⁸ Therefore, the recommendation to avoid glucocorticoids for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis could possibly increase hospital length of stay for children. The usefulness of dexamethasone to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis in children 3 to 14 months old is being evaluated in a randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03523221).

Future research should better characterize risk factors for biphasic reactions to aid in clinical triage and diagnosis. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal observation duration for patients experiencing anaphylactic reactions or requiring multiple doses of epinephrine. The role of premedication in patients receiving chemotherapy is poorly described, with few studies evaluating the benefit of premedication in patients with previous anaphylactic reactions.

Anaphylaxis, an acute, life-threatening allergic response, affects multiple organ systems and manifests variably. Anaphylaxis is likely taking place if one or more of the following occurs: (a) sudden- onset skin and mucosal tissue swelling, (b) skin and mucosal abnormalities or respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms after exposure to an allergen, or (c) reduced blood pressure after exposure to an allergen. With an estimated lifetime prevalence of up to 5.1%, it is a significant cause of morbidity in adults and children.¹ The 2020 anaphylaxis practice parameter update provides recommendations on treatment, prevention, and assessment of biphasic symptom risk in patients experiencing anaphylaxis.² The guideline provides five key recommendations and four good-practice statements, which we have consolidated into five recommendations for this update.

Recommendation 1. All patients with suspected or confirmed anaphylaxis should be treated with epinephrine. (Good-practice statement)

Self-injectable epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, with weight-based dosing of 0.15 mg/kg for children weighing less than 30 kg and 0.30 mg/kg for children weighing more than 30 kg and adults. Delayed administration of epinephrine can increase anaphylaxis-associated morbidity and mortality. After epinephrine administration, patients should be observed in a healthcare setting for symptom resolution.

Recommendation 2. For all patients, clinicians should assess the risk for developing biphasic anaphylaxis. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

Biphasic anaphylaxis is defined as the return of anaphylaxis symptoms after an asymptomatic period of at least 1 hour, all during a single instance of anaphylaxis. Biphasic anaphylaxis occurs in up to 20% of patients.³ Biphasic anaphylaxis is more likely among patients receiving repeated doses of epinephrine (odds ratio [OR], 4.82; 95% CI, 2.70-8.58), delayed epinephrine administration greater than 60 minutes (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.79), or a severe initial presentation (OR, 4.82; 95% CI, 1.23-3.61).² The presence of any of these risk factors raises the risk for developing biphasic anaphylaxis by 17%.⁴ Severe anaphylaxis is characterized by life-threatening symptoms, including loss of consciousness, syncope or dizziness, hypotension, cardiovascular system collapse, or neurologic dysfunction from hypoperfusion or hypoxia after exposure to an allergen.⁵

Other risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis in all ages include a widened pulse pressure, unknown anaphylaxis trigger, and cutaneous signs and symptoms. Drug triggers are also a risk factor in pediatric patients.²

Recommendation 3. All patients with anaphylaxis and risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis should undergo extended clinical observation in a setting capable of managing anaphylaxis. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

All patients should be monitored for resolution of symptoms prior to discharge, regardless of age or severity at onset. Patients with all three of the following can be discharged 1 hour after symptom resolution because these three factors together have a 95% negative predictive value for biphasic anaphylaxis: nonsevere anaphylaxis, prompt response to epinephrine, and access to medical care.⁵ In contrast, extended observation of at least 6 hours should be offered to patients with increased risk of biphasic reactions. Patients who have potentially fatal underlying illnesses (eg, severe respiratory or cardiac disease), poor access to emergency medical services, poor self-management skills, or inability to access epinephrine should also be considered for extended observation or hospitalization. Evidence is lacking to define the optimal observation time because extended biphasic reactions can occur from 1 to 78 hours after initial anaphylaxis symptoms.⁶

Given the lack of specific evidence around length of observation, there is an opportunity for shared decision-making. Every patient should receive education regarding trigger avoidance, reasons to seek care or activate emergency medical services, and warning signs of biphasic anaphylaxis. Additionally, self-injectable epinephrine and an action plan detailing how and when to administer the epinephrine should be provided. Patients with anaphylaxis should follow up with an allergist.

Recommendation 4. Administration of glucocorticoids or antihistamines for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis is not recommended. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

This guideline discourages glucocorticoids and antihistamines as a primary treatment as it may delay epinephrine administration. Despite treating the cutaneous manifestations of anaphylaxis, antihistamines fail to treat the life-threatening cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms. No clear evidence exists on whether antihistamines or glucocorticoids prevent biphasic anaphylaxis.

Recommendation 5. In adult patients receiving chemotherapy, premedication with antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid should be used to prevent anaphylaxis or infusion-related reactions for some chemotherapeutic agents in patients with no previous reaction to the drug. (Conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence)

Premedication with antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids was associated with 51% reduced odds for anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions to certain chemotherapy agents (pegaspargase, docetaxel, carboplatin, oxaliplatin, and rituximab) in adults who had not previously experienced a reaction to the drug (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.66).² However, this same benefit was not found with other chemotherapy agents for patients without a prior allergic reaction to the agent, which allows clinicians to defer premedication. The benefit of premedication with antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids to patients with prior anaphylactic reactions to chemotherapy agents was not evaluated in this guideline, nor was the role premedication plays in desensitization to chemotherapy.

This guideline was created by a panel of allergists, clinical immunologists, and methodologists using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach to draft recommendations. Conflicts of interest (COI) were disclosed by all panel members according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) guidelines. The inclusion of many observational studies and meta-analyses improves the generalizability of the guideline. The authors highlighted the low certainty of evidence due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and significant heterogeneity of the included studies.

Some recommendations in the guideline have implications for costs of care. A recent economic analysis looked at cost-effectiveness for extended observation for anaphylaxis and found it was cost-effective only when patients were at increased risk for biphasic anaphylaxis.⁷ Although Recommendation 4 advises against the use of glucocorticoids for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis, one retrospective cohort study demonstrated that glucocorticoid use was associated with decreased length of stay in children admitted with anaphylaxis.⁸ Therefore, the recommendation to avoid glucocorticoids for prevention of biphasic anaphylaxis could possibly increase hospital length of stay for children. The usefulness of dexamethasone to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis in children 3 to 14 months old is being evaluated in a randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03523221).

Future research should better characterize risk factors for biphasic reactions to aid in clinical triage and diagnosis. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal observation duration for patients experiencing anaphylactic reactions or requiring multiple doses of epinephrine. The role of premedication in patients receiving chemotherapy is poorly described, with few studies evaluating the benefit of premedication in patients with previous anaphylactic reactions.

Osteoporosis is the most prevalent bone disease and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in older people. According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from 2005-2010, there were an estimated 10.2 million adults 50 years and older with osteoporosis and 43.4 million more with low bone mass in the United States.¹ Osteoporotic fracture is a leading cause of hospitalization in the United States for women 55 years or older, ahead of heart attacks, stroke, and breast cancer.² Despite elucidation of the pathogenesis of osteoporosis and the advent of effective and widely available therapies, a “treatment gap” separates the many patients who warrant therapy from the few who receive it. Systematic improvement strategies, such as coordinator-based fracture liaison services, have had a positive impact on addressing this treatment gap.³ There is an opportunity for hospitalists to further narrow this treatment gap.

The American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, in conjunction with the Center for Medical Technology Policy, developed consensus clinical recommendations to address secondary fracture prevention for people 65 years or older who have experienced a hip or vertebral fracture.⁴ We address six of the fundamental and two of the supplemental recommendations as they apply to the practice of hospital medicine.

Recommendations 1 and 2

Communicate key information to the patient and their usual healthcare provider. Patients 65 years or older with a hip or vertebral fracture likely have osteoporosis and are at high risk for subsequent fractures, which can lead to a decline in function and an increase in mortality. Patients must be counseled regarding their diagnosis, their risks, and the actions they can take to manage their disease. Primary care providers must be notified of the occurrence of the fracture, the diagnosis of osteoporosis, and the plans for management.

We recommend hospitalists act as leading advocates for at-risk patients to ensure that this communication occurs during hospitalization. We encourage hospitals and institutions to adopt systematic interventions to facilitate postdischarge care for these patients. These may include implementing a fracture liaison service, with multidisciplinary secondary fracture–prevention strategies using physicians, pharmacists, nurses, social workers, and case managers for care coordination and treatment initiation.

Elderly patients with osteoporotic fragility fractures are at risk for further morbidity and mortality. Coordination of care between the inpatient care team and the primary care provider is necessary to reduce this risk. In addition to verbal communication and especially when verbal communication is not feasible, discharge documents provided to patients and outpatient providers should clearly identify the occurrence of a hip or vertebral fracture and a discharge diagnosis of osteoporosis if not previously documented, regardless of bone mineral density (BMD) results or lack of testing.

Recommendation 3

Regularly assess fall risk. Patients 65 years or older with a current or prior hip or vertebral fracture must be regularly assessed for risk of falls. Hospitalists can assess patients’ ongoing risk for falls at time of admission or during hospitalization. Risk factors include prior falls; advanced age; visual, auditory, or cognitive impairment; decreased muscle strength; gait and balance impairment; diabetes mellitus; use of multiple medications, and others.⁵ Specialist evaluation by a physical therapist or a physiatrist should be considered. Active medications should be reviewed for adverse effects and interactions. The use of diuretics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antiepileptics, and opioids should be minimized.

Recommendations 4, 5, 6, and 11

Offer pharmacologic therapy and initiate calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Recommendations 4 through 6 and 11 advocate pharmacologic interventions including bisphosphonates, denosumab, vitamin D, and/or calcium to reduce the risk of future fractures. Bisphosphonates are the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy for secondary fracture prevention. The efficacy of these agents for prevention of subsequent fractures outweighs the potential for interference in healing of surgically repaired bones.⁶ Oral bisphosphonate therapy should be initiated in the hospital or at discharge. Parenteral bisphosphonates and denosumab may be utilized in patients unable to tolerate or absorb oral bisphosphonates due to esophageal or other gastrointestinal disease. Initiation of these agents should be delayed until after vitamin D and calcium supplementation have been administered for 2 weeks after the fracture to reduce the risk of precipitating hypocalcemia, and they should not be used in patients with confirmed hypocalcemia until that is resolved. BMD measurement is not necessary prior to pharmacologic therapy initiation because the risk of fracture is elevated for these patients regardless of BMD. Patients without significant dental disease or planned oral or maxillofacial procedures may begin bisphosphonate therapy prior to a full dental assessment because risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw is low.

The guidelines recommend people 65 years or older with a hip or vertebral fracture receive daily supplementation of at least 800 IU vitamin D. Patients unable to achieve an intake of 1,200 mg/day of calcium from food sources should receive daily calcium supplementation. The effect of vitamin D monotherapy on fracture risk is not clear; however, strong evidence suggests that fracture risk is reduced when individuals at high risk of deficiency receive supplementation with vitamin D and calcium. Calcium supplementation alone has not demonstrated reduction in fracture risk. Total daily calcium intake above 1,500 mg has not been shown to provide additional benefit and is potentially harmful.

Recommendation 9

Counsel patients on lifestyle modifications and consider physical therapy. Tobacco has a deleterious effect on bone density and increases risk for osteoporotic fragility fracture.⁷ Hospitalists should obtain tobacco use history from all patients with an osteoporotic fracture and provide tobacco cessation counseling when appropriate. Excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of fall injuries.⁸ Hospitalists should counsel patients to limit alcohol intake to a maximum of two drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women.

Weight-bearing and strength-training exercises, particularly those involving balance and trunk muscle strength, are associated with reduction in fall-risk. Exercise must be tailored to the patient’s physical capacity. Hospitalists may partner with physical therapists or physiatrists to facilitate development of an exercise plan to maximize benefit and minimize risk of injury.

We found this document to be highly informative and well cited, with ample evidence to support the recommendations.

Methods in Preparing Guidelines

The multistakeholder coalition did not employ a rigorous and standardized methodology for the guideline, such as GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation); hence, no assessment of evidence quality, benefits and harms of an intervention, or resource use was provided.

Potential Conflicts for Guideline Authors

Eight guideline authors have pharmaceutical relationships with the manufacturer of one of the medications listed on the guidelines (Amgen-denosumab, Novartis-zoledronic acid). There are no disclosures reported from the multistakeholder coalition members who are not listed as guideline authors.

We anticipate future studies may report outcomes focused on secondary prevention of fractures. Additionally, we would like to see new studies investigating patient-centered outcomes such as improvement in functional status and ambulatory independence based on improved postfracture medical therapies. We see an opportunity for studies assessing real-world outcomes to inform future recommendations, particularly after widespread implementation of secondary fracture prevention therapy either initiated during hospitalization or purposefully planned for after discharge.

We would like to see more trial data comparing the safety and cost-effectiveness of first-line therapy, namely oral bisphosphonates, to alternative treatments, particularly parenteral agents, which may improve treatment compliance because of the convenience in dosing frequency.

Osteoporosis is the most prevalent bone disease and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in older people. According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from 2005-2010, there were an estimated 10.2 million adults 50 years and older with osteoporosis and 43.4 million more with low bone mass in the United States.¹ Osteoporotic fracture is a leading cause of hospitalization in the United States for women 55 years or older, ahead of heart attacks, stroke, and breast cancer.² Despite elucidation of the pathogenesis of osteoporosis and the advent of effective and widely available therapies, a “treatment gap” separates the many patients who warrant therapy from the few who receive it. Systematic improvement strategies, such as coordinator-based fracture liaison services, have had a positive impact on addressing this treatment gap.³ There is an opportunity for hospitalists to further narrow this treatment gap.

The American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, in conjunction with the Center for Medical Technology Policy, developed consensus clinical recommendations to address secondary fracture prevention for people 65 years or older who have experienced a hip or vertebral fracture.⁴ We address six of the fundamental and two of the supplemental recommendations as they apply to the practice of hospital medicine.

Recommendations 1 and 2

Communicate key information to the patient and their usual healthcare provider. Patients 65 years or older with a hip or vertebral fracture likely have osteoporosis and are at high risk for subsequent fractures, which can lead to a decline in function and an increase in mortality. Patients must be counseled regarding their diagnosis, their risks, and the actions they can take to manage their disease. Primary care providers must be notified of the occurrence of the fracture, the diagnosis of osteoporosis, and the plans for management.

We recommend hospitalists act as leading advocates for at-risk patients to ensure that this communication occurs during hospitalization. We encourage hospitals and institutions to adopt systematic interventions to facilitate postdischarge care for these patients. These may include implementing a fracture liaison service, with multidisciplinary secondary fracture–prevention strategies using physicians, pharmacists, nurses, social workers, and case managers for care coordination and treatment initiation.

Elderly patients with osteoporotic fragility fractures are at risk for further morbidity and mortality. Coordination of care between the inpatient care team and the primary care provider is necessary to reduce this risk. In addition to verbal communication and especially when verbal communication is not feasible, discharge documents provided to patients and outpatient providers should clearly identify the occurrence of a hip or vertebral fracture and a discharge diagnosis of osteoporosis if not previously documented, regardless of bone mineral density (BMD) results or lack of testing.

Recommendation 3

Regularly assess fall risk. Patients 65 years or older with a current or prior hip or vertebral fracture must be regularly assessed for risk of falls. Hospitalists can assess patients’ ongoing risk for falls at time of admission or during hospitalization. Risk factors include prior falls; advanced age; visual, auditory, or cognitive impairment; decreased muscle strength; gait and balance impairment; diabetes mellitus; use of multiple medications, and others.⁵ Specialist evaluation by a physical therapist or a physiatrist should be considered. Active medications should be reviewed for adverse effects and interactions. The use of diuretics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antiepileptics, and opioids should be minimized.

Recommendations 4, 5, 6, and 11

Offer pharmacologic therapy and initiate calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Recommendations 4 through 6 and 11 advocate pharmacologic interventions including bisphosphonates, denosumab, vitamin D, and/or calcium to reduce the risk of future fractures. Bisphosphonates are the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy for secondary fracture prevention. The efficacy of these agents for prevention of subsequent fractures outweighs the potential for interference in healing of surgically repaired bones.⁶ Oral bisphosphonate therapy should be initiated in the hospital or at discharge. Parenteral bisphosphonates and denosumab may be utilized in patients unable to tolerate or absorb oral bisphosphonates due to esophageal or other gastrointestinal disease. Initiation of these agents should be delayed until after vitamin D and calcium supplementation have been administered for 2 weeks after the fracture to reduce the risk of precipitating hypocalcemia, and they should not be used in patients with confirmed hypocalcemia until that is resolved. BMD measurement is not necessary prior to pharmacologic therapy initiation because the risk of fracture is elevated for these patients regardless of BMD. Patients without significant dental disease or planned oral or maxillofacial procedures may begin bisphosphonate therapy prior to a full dental assessment because risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw is low.

The guidelines recommend people 65 years or older with a hip or vertebral fracture receive daily supplementation of at least 800 IU vitamin D. Patients unable to achieve an intake of 1,200 mg/day of calcium from food sources should receive daily calcium supplementation. The effect of vitamin D monotherapy on fracture risk is not clear; however, strong evidence suggests that fracture risk is reduced when individuals at high risk of deficiency receive supplementation with vitamin D and calcium. Calcium supplementation alone has not demonstrated reduction in fracture risk. Total daily calcium intake above 1,500 mg has not been shown to provide additional benefit and is potentially harmful.

Recommendation 9

Counsel patients on lifestyle modifications and consider physical therapy. Tobacco has a deleterious effect on bone density and increases risk for osteoporotic fragility fracture.⁷ Hospitalists should obtain tobacco use history from all patients with an osteoporotic fracture and provide tobacco cessation counseling when appropriate. Excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of fall injuries.⁸ Hospitalists should counsel patients to limit alcohol intake to a maximum of two drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women.

Weight-bearing and strength-training exercises, particularly those involving balance and trunk muscle strength, are associated with reduction in fall-risk. Exercise must be tailored to the patient’s physical capacity. Hospitalists may partner with physical therapists or physiatrists to facilitate development of an exercise plan to maximize benefit and minimize risk of injury.

We found this document to be highly informative and well cited, with ample evidence to support the recommendations.

Methods in Preparing Guidelines

The multistakeholder coalition did not employ a rigorous and standardized methodology for the guideline, such as GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation); hence, no assessment of evidence quality, benefits and harms of an intervention, or resource use was provided.

Potential Conflicts for Guideline Authors

Eight guideline authors have pharmaceutical relationships with the manufacturer of one of the medications listed on the guidelines (Amgen-denosumab, Novartis-zoledronic acid). There are no disclosures reported from the multistakeholder coalition members who are not listed as guideline authors.

We anticipate future studies may report outcomes focused on secondary prevention of fractures. Additionally, we would like to see new studies investigating patient-centered outcomes such as improvement in functional status and ambulatory independence based on improved postfracture medical therapies. We see an opportunity for studies assessing real-world outcomes to inform future recommendations, particularly after widespread implementation of secondary fracture prevention therapy either initiated during hospitalization or purposefully planned for after discharge.

We would like to see more trial data comparing the safety and cost-effectiveness of first-line therapy, namely oral bisphosphonates, to alternative treatments, particularly parenteral agents, which may improve treatment compliance because of the convenience in dosing frequency.

Osteoporosis is the most prevalent bone disease and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in older people. According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from 2005-2010, there were an estimated 10.2 million adults 50 years and older with osteoporosis and 43.4 million more with low bone mass in the United States.¹ Osteoporotic fracture is a leading cause of hospitalization in the United States for women 55 years or older, ahead of heart attacks, stroke, and breast cancer.² Despite elucidation of the pathogenesis of osteoporosis and the advent of effective and widely available therapies, a “treatment gap” separates the many patients who warrant therapy from the few who receive it. Systematic improvement strategies, such as coordinator-based fracture liaison services, have had a positive impact on addressing this treatment gap.³ There is an opportunity for hospitalists to further narrow this treatment gap.

The American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, in conjunction with the Center for Medical Technology Policy, developed consensus clinical recommendations to address secondary fracture prevention for people 65 years or older who have experienced a hip or vertebral fracture.⁴ We address six of the fundamental and two of the supplemental recommendations as they apply to the practice of hospital medicine.

Recommendations 1 and 2

Communicate key information to the patient and their usual healthcare provider. Patients 65 years or older with a hip or vertebral fracture likely have osteoporosis and are at high risk for subsequent fractures, which can lead to a decline in function and an increase in mortality. Patients must be counseled regarding their diagnosis, their risks, and the actions they can take to manage their disease. Primary care providers must be notified of the occurrence of the fracture, the diagnosis of osteoporosis, and the plans for management.

We recommend hospitalists act as leading advocates for at-risk patients to ensure that this communication occurs during hospitalization. We encourage hospitals and institutions to adopt systematic interventions to facilitate postdischarge care for these patients. These may include implementing a fracture liaison service, with multidisciplinary secondary fracture–prevention strategies using physicians, pharmacists, nurses, social workers, and case managers for care coordination and treatment initiation.

Elderly patients with osteoporotic fragility fractures are at risk for further morbidity and mortality. Coordination of care between the inpatient care team and the primary care provider is necessary to reduce this risk. In addition to verbal communication and especially when verbal communication is not feasible, discharge documents provided to patients and outpatient providers should clearly identify the occurrence of a hip or vertebral fracture and a discharge diagnosis of osteoporosis if not previously documented, regardless of bone mineral density (BMD) results or lack of testing.

Recommendation 3

Regularly assess fall risk. Patients 65 years or older with a current or prior hip or vertebral fracture must be regularly assessed for risk of falls. Hospitalists can assess patients’ ongoing risk for falls at time of admission or during hospitalization. Risk factors include prior falls; advanced age; visual, auditory, or cognitive impairment; decreased muscle strength; gait and balance impairment; diabetes mellitus; use of multiple medications, and others.⁵ Specialist evaluation by a physical therapist or a physiatrist should be considered. Active medications should be reviewed for adverse effects and interactions. The use of diuretics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antiepileptics, and opioids should be minimized.

Recommendations 4, 5, 6, and 11

Offer pharmacologic therapy and initiate calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Recommendations 4 through 6 and 11 advocate pharmacologic interventions including bisphosphonates, denosumab, vitamin D, and/or calcium to reduce the risk of future fractures. Bisphosphonates are the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy for secondary fracture prevention. The efficacy of these agents for prevention of subsequent fractures outweighs the potential for interference in healing of surgically repaired bones.⁶ Oral bisphosphonate therapy should be initiated in the hospital or at discharge. Parenteral bisphosphonates and denosumab may be utilized in patients unable to tolerate or absorb oral bisphosphonates due to esophageal or other gastrointestinal disease. Initiation of these agents should be delayed until after vitamin D and calcium supplementation have been administered for 2 weeks after the fracture to reduce the risk of precipitating hypocalcemia, and they should not be used in patients with confirmed hypocalcemia until that is resolved. BMD measurement is not necessary prior to pharmacologic therapy initiation because the risk of fracture is elevated for these patients regardless of BMD. Patients without significant dental disease or planned oral or maxillofacial procedures may begin bisphosphonate therapy prior to a full dental assessment because risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw is low.

The guidelines recommend people 65 years or older with a hip or vertebral fracture receive daily supplementation of at least 800 IU vitamin D. Patients unable to achieve an intake of 1,200 mg/day of calcium from food sources should receive daily calcium supplementation. The effect of vitamin D monotherapy on fracture risk is not clear; however, strong evidence suggests that fracture risk is reduced when individuals at high risk of deficiency receive supplementation with vitamin D and calcium. Calcium supplementation alone has not demonstrated reduction in fracture risk. Total daily calcium intake above 1,500 mg has not been shown to provide additional benefit and is potentially harmful.

Recommendation 9

Counsel patients on lifestyle modifications and consider physical therapy. Tobacco has a deleterious effect on bone density and increases risk for osteoporotic fragility fracture.⁷ Hospitalists should obtain tobacco use history from all patients with an osteoporotic fracture and provide tobacco cessation counseling when appropriate. Excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of fall injuries.⁸ Hospitalists should counsel patients to limit alcohol intake to a maximum of two drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women.

Weight-bearing and strength-training exercises, particularly those involving balance and trunk muscle strength, are associated with reduction in fall-risk. Exercise must be tailored to the patient’s physical capacity. Hospitalists may partner with physical therapists or physiatrists to facilitate development of an exercise plan to maximize benefit and minimize risk of injury.

We found this document to be highly informative and well cited, with ample evidence to support the recommendations.

Methods in Preparing Guidelines

The multistakeholder coalition did not employ a rigorous and standardized methodology for the guideline, such as GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation); hence, no assessment of evidence quality, benefits and harms of an intervention, or resource use was provided.

Potential Conflicts for Guideline Authors

Eight guideline authors have pharmaceutical relationships with the manufacturer of one of the medications listed on the guidelines (Amgen-denosumab, Novartis-zoledronic acid). There are no disclosures reported from the multistakeholder coalition members who are not listed as guideline authors.

We anticipate future studies may report outcomes focused on secondary prevention of fractures. Additionally, we would like to see new studies investigating patient-centered outcomes such as improvement in functional status and ambulatory independence based on improved postfracture medical therapies. We see an opportunity for studies assessing real-world outcomes to inform future recommendations, particularly after widespread implementation of secondary fracture prevention therapy either initiated during hospitalization or purposefully planned for after discharge.

We would like to see more trial data comparing the safety and cost-effectiveness of first-line therapy, namely oral bisphosphonates, to alternative treatments, particularly parenteral agents, which may improve treatment compliance because of the convenience in dosing frequency.

It was a busy night in the emergency department. EMS called to give a heads up—they were on their way with a girl who was “pretty banged up.” They warned us that the story seemed a little fishy. We thought we were ready. The trauma bay was organized; supplies were at the ready and everyone had a role. Within seconds of her arrival, it was clear that no one could ever have been truly prepared. She was unresponsive and unstable. Her injuries were widespread, brutal, and long term. My seasoned attendings would describe it as no less than horrific. There was no question—someone had done this to her.

After she was stabilized, her wounds were gently tended, her body was bathed, her hair was combed. She died several days later. While distressed, many members of her team took consolation in the idea that, after years of torture, she finally got to be loved.

It’s no wonder that every person involved with her care during her hospitalization was so deeply affected by her. How could anyone do this to another person? Or even worse, to an innocent child? “What a monster,” we said. “Only a monster could have done this.”

While anyone would agree that what this abuser—the girl’s mother—did was brutal and wrong, I would also argue that the underlying danger is much more systemic. We call her the “monster,” but I sense that the real monster is still lurking in the shadows, unnamed. I can’t help but try to understand this woman; it is unfair to condemn her without first learning her story. How were her actions guided by her own history of trauma, abuse, and violent discipline as a child? We preach to each other and to our learners that trauma-informed care is essential; you must not ask what’s wrong with you, but what happened to you. Founder and Director of the Equal Justice Initiative Bryan Stevenson has said that “each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”¹ It’s inhumane of us to dehumanize her for this atrocity, especially without pausing to ask how her environment, personal trauma, and understanding of child development set the risk.

It is important to understand the cycle of trauma and abuse. Traumatic experiences have been shown to alter neurodevelopment and the body’s stress response, particularly when experiences take place early in life, when they are repeated and long term, and when they are severe. We know that adverse childhood experiences are cumulative and result in adverse outcomes as adults, including increased likelihood of violent or criminal activity. We know that prior history of trauma, specifically child abuse, sexual abuse, or domestic violence, is associated with higher potential for child abuse later on.

The effect of experiencing trauma is such that only 22% of adults who experienced abuse or neglect as children will achieve resiliency.² In a world in which social distancing and isolation have become the new normal, we must be even more aware of the effects of trauma on families. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased known risk factors for child abuse, including financial hardship, unemployment, increased anxiety, increased caregiver responsibilities, and decreased access to mental health services and community resources.³ Furthermore, virtual learning environments may have significant implications on the reporting of child abuse. Among cases of maltreatment of children that received an investigation or alternative response in 2018, 20.5% were reported by education personnel.⁴ While remote learning options may be necessary to minimize risk of viral spread, fewer interactions between children and mandatory reporters may result in child maltreatment going undetected. In the face of these challenges, I urge our healthcare system to use current constraints as fuel for creative interventions including the following:

• Applying advances in telemedicine to create a new opportunity to interface with families, provide mental health support, connect them with resources, and offer gentle guidance about safe parenting.
• Improving both screening methods for parental trauma and distress and referrals for support services.
• Advocating for adequate access to life-sustaining resources including shelter, food, and healthcare for all families. This is a necessary foundation for building resilience.
• Providing bias training for mandatory reporters to ensure that all children and their families are approached with respect and compassion.
• Prioritizing innovation that provides long-lasting, sustainable, and equitable access to support and healing.

To best protect our children, we must heal their adult caregivers; we must help them to conquer their monsters.

Our patient and her family have since visited me in my thoughts and dreams, less often now than before. While I never truly knew her, she has left an open void where there should have been the promise of a healthy, growing, and developing child. Within that void resides fear. I fear for other “hidden children” and the abuse they are at risk for experiencing. I fear that her siblings, now living without their mother, will become victims of the instability of being “in the system.” I fear that by turning to punishment as our only solution, we miss opportunities to prevent such tragedy. Despite the darkness, she also brings me hope. I hope that her siblings can rely on each other as a foundation for resilience. I hope that we as a healthcare system can continue to love our patients without question or condition. I hope that we as a society can invest in breaking the cycle of trauma and in supporting parents. I hope that we can create a system in which children can grow up free from abuse.

It was a busy night in the emergency department. EMS called to give a heads up—they were on their way with a girl who was “pretty banged up.” They warned us that the story seemed a little fishy. We thought we were ready. The trauma bay was organized; supplies were at the ready and everyone had a role. Within seconds of her arrival, it was clear that no one could ever have been truly prepared. She was unresponsive and unstable. Her injuries were widespread, brutal, and long term. My seasoned attendings would describe it as no less than horrific. There was no question—someone had done this to her.

After she was stabilized, her wounds were gently tended, her body was bathed, her hair was combed. She died several days later. While distressed, many members of her team took consolation in the idea that, after years of torture, she finally got to be loved.

It’s no wonder that every person involved with her care during her hospitalization was so deeply affected by her. How could anyone do this to another person? Or even worse, to an innocent child? “What a monster,” we said. “Only a monster could have done this.”

While anyone would agree that what this abuser—the girl’s mother—did was brutal and wrong, I would also argue that the underlying danger is much more systemic. We call her the “monster,” but I sense that the real monster is still lurking in the shadows, unnamed. I can’t help but try to understand this woman; it is unfair to condemn her without first learning her story. How were her actions guided by her own history of trauma, abuse, and violent discipline as a child? We preach to each other and to our learners that trauma-informed care is essential; you must not ask what’s wrong with you, but what happened to you. Founder and Director of the Equal Justice Initiative Bryan Stevenson has said that “each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”¹ It’s inhumane of us to dehumanize her for this atrocity, especially without pausing to ask how her environment, personal trauma, and understanding of child development set the risk.

It is important to understand the cycle of trauma and abuse. Traumatic experiences have been shown to alter neurodevelopment and the body’s stress response, particularly when experiences take place early in life, when they are repeated and long term, and when they are severe. We know that adverse childhood experiences are cumulative and result in adverse outcomes as adults, including increased likelihood of violent or criminal activity. We know that prior history of trauma, specifically child abuse, sexual abuse, or domestic violence, is associated with higher potential for child abuse later on.

The effect of experiencing trauma is such that only 22% of adults who experienced abuse or neglect as children will achieve resiliency.² In a world in which social distancing and isolation have become the new normal, we must be even more aware of the effects of trauma on families. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased known risk factors for child abuse, including financial hardship, unemployment, increased anxiety, increased caregiver responsibilities, and decreased access to mental health services and community resources.³ Furthermore, virtual learning environments may have significant implications on the reporting of child abuse. Among cases of maltreatment of children that received an investigation or alternative response in 2018, 20.5% were reported by education personnel.⁴ While remote learning options may be necessary to minimize risk of viral spread, fewer interactions between children and mandatory reporters may result in child maltreatment going undetected. In the face of these challenges, I urge our healthcare system to use current constraints as fuel for creative interventions including the following:

• Applying advances in telemedicine to create a new opportunity to interface with families, provide mental health support, connect them with resources, and offer gentle guidance about safe parenting.
• Improving both screening methods for parental trauma and distress and referrals for support services.
• Advocating for adequate access to life-sustaining resources including shelter, food, and healthcare for all families. This is a necessary foundation for building resilience.
• Providing bias training for mandatory reporters to ensure that all children and their families are approached with respect and compassion.
• Prioritizing innovation that provides long-lasting, sustainable, and equitable access to support and healing.

To best protect our children, we must heal their adult caregivers; we must help them to conquer their monsters.

Our patient and her family have since visited me in my thoughts and dreams, less often now than before. While I never truly knew her, she has left an open void where there should have been the promise of a healthy, growing, and developing child. Within that void resides fear. I fear for other “hidden children” and the abuse they are at risk for experiencing. I fear that her siblings, now living without their mother, will become victims of the instability of being “in the system.” I fear that by turning to punishment as our only solution, we miss opportunities to prevent such tragedy. Despite the darkness, she also brings me hope. I hope that her siblings can rely on each other as a foundation for resilience. I hope that we as a healthcare system can continue to love our patients without question or condition. I hope that we as a society can invest in breaking the cycle of trauma and in supporting parents. I hope that we can create a system in which children can grow up free from abuse.

It was a busy night in the emergency department. EMS called to give a heads up—they were on their way with a girl who was “pretty banged up.” They warned us that the story seemed a little fishy. We thought we were ready. The trauma bay was organized; supplies were at the ready and everyone had a role. Within seconds of her arrival, it was clear that no one could ever have been truly prepared. She was unresponsive and unstable. Her injuries were widespread, brutal, and long term. My seasoned attendings would describe it as no less than horrific. There was no question—someone had done this to her.

After she was stabilized, her wounds were gently tended, her body was bathed, her hair was combed. She died several days later. While distressed, many members of her team took consolation in the idea that, after years of torture, she finally got to be loved.

It’s no wonder that every person involved with her care during her hospitalization was so deeply affected by her. How could anyone do this to another person? Or even worse, to an innocent child? “What a monster,” we said. “Only a monster could have done this.”

While anyone would agree that what this abuser—the girl’s mother—did was brutal and wrong, I would also argue that the underlying danger is much more systemic. We call her the “monster,” but I sense that the real monster is still lurking in the shadows, unnamed. I can’t help but try to understand this woman; it is unfair to condemn her without first learning her story. How were her actions guided by her own history of trauma, abuse, and violent discipline as a child? We preach to each other and to our learners that trauma-informed care is essential; you must not ask what’s wrong with you, but what happened to you. Founder and Director of the Equal Justice Initiative Bryan Stevenson has said that “each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”¹ It’s inhumane of us to dehumanize her for this atrocity, especially without pausing to ask how her environment, personal trauma, and understanding of child development set the risk.

It is important to understand the cycle of trauma and abuse. Traumatic experiences have been shown to alter neurodevelopment and the body’s stress response, particularly when experiences take place early in life, when they are repeated and long term, and when they are severe. We know that adverse childhood experiences are cumulative and result in adverse outcomes as adults, including increased likelihood of violent or criminal activity. We know that prior history of trauma, specifically child abuse, sexual abuse, or domestic violence, is associated with higher potential for child abuse later on.

The effect of experiencing trauma is such that only 22% of adults who experienced abuse or neglect as children will achieve resiliency.² In a world in which social distancing and isolation have become the new normal, we must be even more aware of the effects of trauma on families. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased known risk factors for child abuse, including financial hardship, unemployment, increased anxiety, increased caregiver responsibilities, and decreased access to mental health services and community resources.³ Furthermore, virtual learning environments may have significant implications on the reporting of child abuse. Among cases of maltreatment of children that received an investigation or alternative response in 2018, 20.5% were reported by education personnel.⁴ While remote learning options may be necessary to minimize risk of viral spread, fewer interactions between children and mandatory reporters may result in child maltreatment going undetected. In the face of these challenges, I urge our healthcare system to use current constraints as fuel for creative interventions including the following:

• Applying advances in telemedicine to create a new opportunity to interface with families, provide mental health support, connect them with resources, and offer gentle guidance about safe parenting.
• Improving both screening methods for parental trauma and distress and referrals for support services.
• Advocating for adequate access to life-sustaining resources including shelter, food, and healthcare for all families. This is a necessary foundation for building resilience.
• Providing bias training for mandatory reporters to ensure that all children and their families are approached with respect and compassion.
• Prioritizing innovation that provides long-lasting, sustainable, and equitable access to support and healing.

To best protect our children, we must heal their adult caregivers; we must help them to conquer their monsters.

Our patient and her family have since visited me in my thoughts and dreams, less often now than before. While I never truly knew her, she has left an open void where there should have been the promise of a healthy, growing, and developing child. Within that void resides fear. I fear for other “hidden children” and the abuse they are at risk for experiencing. I fear that her siblings, now living without their mother, will become victims of the instability of being “in the system.” I fear that by turning to punishment as our only solution, we miss opportunities to prevent such tragedy. Despite the darkness, she also brings me hope. I hope that her siblings can rely on each other as a foundation for resilience. I hope that we as a healthcare system can continue to love our patients without question or condition. I hope that we as a society can invest in breaking the cycle of trauma and in supporting parents. I hope that we can create a system in which children can grow up free from abuse.

The day after Memorial Day 2020 marked an important transition in the United States’ experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with many states making initial plans to reopen. Alongside this reopening process, the US healthcare system needed to reopen to provide needed care to communities. This reopening, however, was in the context of several months of staggering financial losses for many medical centers that expected a larger surge than occurred locally and lost profit because of delayed elective procedures, all amid a national economic recession. Each medical center also faced a persistent risk of infection and a call for social equity as each one decided how to reopen. These decisions balanced the risks of reopening from COVID-19 exposure with patients’ medical needs and the healthcare industry’s financial needs.

This year’s widespread healthcare closures were necessary to reduce COVID-19 transmission and prepare for a future patient surge, but these closures had unintended consequences. Nearly half of adults polled said they or someone in their household had foregone or delayed care since the outbreak began.¹ This was especially true for visits to emergency departments and doctors’ offices for strokes, heart attacks, and routine medical care.² In a survey across 49 states, only 7% of primary care practices considered scheduling preventive visits as a high priority.³ Eleven percent of polled adults reported delaying care worsened their condition,¹ and in hard-hit areas such as New York City, non-COVID mortality was 22% higher than expected.⁴

Avoidance of the medical system decreased not only use of necessary, high-value care but also use of low-value care. Low-value services are those in which the “potential for harms exceed the potential benefits,”⁵ such as unnecessary hospitalizations, avoidable emergency department or clinic visits, unwarranted or excessive diagnostic testing (eg, annual physicals), and certain procedures (eg, spinal fusion surgery for low-back pain). Low-value care is costly, with $75.7 to $101.2 billion of the gross domestic product (GDP) spent on overuse.⁶ This care risks contributing to financial and, in turn, clinical harm for patients because the average health plan deductible exceeds a typical family’s available savings⁷and 25% of Americans say they have foregone treatment for a serious medical condition in the past year because of these costs.⁸ Medical centers’ significant financial losses are a sobering reminder of how much our system relies on fee-for-service billing that encourages high-margin profitable services regardless of necessity.⁹ We must avoid quick reactions of increasing these procedures to respond to the sudden financial loses.Medical centers across the country are choosing how to “reboot”—either deliberately changing how services are organized and delivered or returning to prior practices. Medical centers are facing potential for their own Renaissance in transitioning their organizations to modern healthcare delivery. In the 15th century ad, after experiencing the bubonic plague, Europe similarly transitioned toward modernity and great social change. Through the initial pandemic wave, we learned that even the largest health system could change their practices rapidly. COVID-19 achieved in 8 weeks what years of research, policy initiatives (eg, Choosing Wisely®, RightCare, Less Is More), and emphasizing value in reimbursement could not: stopping the delivery of a wide range of low-value services. We share three lessons learned from medical centers that have begun reopening services that can help us to better ensure higher-value, more affordable care that meets patients’ needs.

Medical centers can better focus on high-value care by defining their high-risk patient populations; high-value treatments, procedures, and preventive care; and phases of reopening. During the first pandemic wave, medical centers tried to reassure patients about emergency care, such as coming in for chest pain or neurologic symptoms, through personal outreach and media campaigns. Outpatient virtual visits also continued, including primary care, specialty services, mental health treatment, and physical therapy. While reopening, some medical centers have assessed disparities by relying on their data analytics and, if available, embedded health services researchers to understand what care was stopped and what populations were most affected.

The University of California health systems, for example, had a learning collaborative focused on sharing methods to restore care delivery that prioritizes patient needs. Some campuses conducted analyses using both electronic health record data and input from patients and their care teams to identify clinical needs and determine patient outreach plans. Some approaches used machine learning models to identify patients at highest risk of hospitalization or emergency department visits over the next 12 months and to conduct additional outreach to schedule these patients in primary and specialty care if clinically appropriate. Similarly, surgical specialties identified the highest-priority nonemergent surgeries for scheduling, including cancer resection, radiation therapy, and pain-management procedures. Similar guidance toward the most meaningful care has been prioritized within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

The rapid deployment of telehealth and payment models that reimburse video and in-clinic visits equally created new opportunities for medical centers to expand high-value care in lower-cost home settings. Similarly, new infrastructure is being developed to help define smarter use of virtual visits and home-based lab collection and monitoring.

Medical centers also must pay careful attention to redeploying service capacity for underused, high-value services. The pandemic uncovered existing staff that could be redeployed to support these changes. For example, with an “all hands on deck” mentality during the pandemic, in some medical centers, analysts or care managers from less-prioritized or duplicative areas were reassigned to vital COVID-19 efforts. Medical centers may realize that this staff can provide more value in the future by supporting increased high-value, affordable healthcare.

During the intial wave of the pandemic, medical centers greatly reduced the care they provided, often focusing on delivering essential care. This preparation for a surge of COVID patients had the effect of halting many unnecessary services by moving care from the clinic to home under new reimbursement changes, such as those affecting telehealth payments. The experience of reducing low-value medical services and visits can be extended to limiting unnecessary diagnostic testing. Medical centers could, for example, focus only on tests that advance care plans; reduce unnecessary blood draws, procedures, and vital sign checks on stable patients; shift to medications with less-frequent dosing intervals; and consolidate visits by treatment teams.^10,11

Medical centers, however, now face continued pressures to increase revenue because 75% report their organization’s top priority is focused on increasing patient volume.¹²Nearly 95% of healthcare payments have been based on fee-for-service models,¹³ and the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the financial vulnerability of our health system when we reduce in-person care, especially among rural medical centers who often have no financial reserve.¹⁴ Similarly, nearly half of hospitals’ revenue comes from surgical admissions, though not all of these are necessary.^15-18 The fiscal realities facing medical centers make it challenging to not simply “ramp up” all service, regardless of necessity, in the context of payment models dependent on fee for service, which are present in most areas of the country.

As medical centers reboot, operational and clinical leaders must proactively view changes through an equity lens to avoid exacerbating health disparities among vulnerable populations. The pandemic has focused national attention on the severity and pervasiveness of disparities and created an imperative for substantive action to evaluate how every decision will affect health equity. For example, medical centers are expanding use of telehealth to improve patient outreach. However, in a survey of primary care physicians, 72% said they have patients who are unable to access telehealth because they do not have access to technology.³ Exclusion of these patients from programs risks worsening health disparities. In a recent survey, nearly 65% of medical centers report reexamining existing policies, protocols, and practices for patients at risk of disparities.¹² Medical centers now have an opportunity to strengthen, not eliminate, existing services such as education and community outreach programs that support vulnerable patients to improve trust among patients and improved downstream health outcomes even with recent financial losses in mind.

Medical centers nationwide will need payment reform that provides greater financial stability beyond the pandemic to support high-value care delivery. They also will need flexibility to invest in prevention and to deliver the appropriate intensity of care to meet patients’ and communities’ needs.^15-17 Options to provide this support include prospective population-based payments that may create more resilience in protecting access to care when it is most needed. Models can include fully capitated payment for physician practices.^19,20 For example, after Vermont entered a single accountable care organization (ACO) model with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2018, they not only generated a $97 million Medicaid savings, but also had a financial cushion that was later used in their COVID-19 response.^21,22 The advanced payments allowed primary care practices and community agencies to invest in a digital tool to support outreach to patient at high risk for virus complications.

Hospitals similarly can adapt global budgets that incentivize financial stewardship by encouraging clinicians to resume necessary services and not unnecessary ones.¹⁶ For example, CMS partnered with Pennsylvania’s Department of Health to provide prospective all-payer global budgets for rural hospitals and Maryland’s Health Services Cost Review Commission that negotiates a budget with each hospital. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in these programs have had more financial protection from fluctuating finances by allowing for easier shifts in service delivery location and adjustments in rates to compensate for declines in visits and procedures.²³

Policy makers and payers also can hold medical centers accountable to evidence-based guidelines and appropriate use of care, especially when necessary but expensive (eg, percutaneous coronary interventions, spinal surgeries, or cancer care). Funding agencies, additionally, can support these efforts by focusing on research, dissemination, and reliable implementation of these practices.

The COVID-19 crisis presents a tremendous opportunity for each medical center to revitalize healthcare. This opportunity can be seized only with reform by policy makers, payers, and regulatory agencies who encourage restarting high-value care without low-value services. We must take deliberate action so the nation’s medical centers can better meet patients’ needs to make healthcare more resilient, efficient, and fair.

The day after Memorial Day 2020 marked an important transition in the United States’ experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with many states making initial plans to reopen. Alongside this reopening process, the US healthcare system needed to reopen to provide needed care to communities. This reopening, however, was in the context of several months of staggering financial losses for many medical centers that expected a larger surge than occurred locally and lost profit because of delayed elective procedures, all amid a national economic recession. Each medical center also faced a persistent risk of infection and a call for social equity as each one decided how to reopen. These decisions balanced the risks of reopening from COVID-19 exposure with patients’ medical needs and the healthcare industry’s financial needs.

This year’s widespread healthcare closures were necessary to reduce COVID-19 transmission and prepare for a future patient surge, but these closures had unintended consequences. Nearly half of adults polled said they or someone in their household had foregone or delayed care since the outbreak began.¹ This was especially true for visits to emergency departments and doctors’ offices for strokes, heart attacks, and routine medical care.² In a survey across 49 states, only 7% of primary care practices considered scheduling preventive visits as a high priority.³ Eleven percent of polled adults reported delaying care worsened their condition,¹ and in hard-hit areas such as New York City, non-COVID mortality was 22% higher than expected.⁴

Avoidance of the medical system decreased not only use of necessary, high-value care but also use of low-value care. Low-value services are those in which the “potential for harms exceed the potential benefits,”⁵ such as unnecessary hospitalizations, avoidable emergency department or clinic visits, unwarranted or excessive diagnostic testing (eg, annual physicals), and certain procedures (eg, spinal fusion surgery for low-back pain). Low-value care is costly, with $75.7 to $101.2 billion of the gross domestic product (GDP) spent on overuse.⁶ This care risks contributing to financial and, in turn, clinical harm for patients because the average health plan deductible exceeds a typical family’s available savings⁷and 25% of Americans say they have foregone treatment for a serious medical condition in the past year because of these costs.⁸ Medical centers’ significant financial losses are a sobering reminder of how much our system relies on fee-for-service billing that encourages high-margin profitable services regardless of necessity.⁹ We must avoid quick reactions of increasing these procedures to respond to the sudden financial loses.Medical centers across the country are choosing how to “reboot”—either deliberately changing how services are organized and delivered or returning to prior practices. Medical centers are facing potential for their own Renaissance in transitioning their organizations to modern healthcare delivery. In the 15th century ad, after experiencing the bubonic plague, Europe similarly transitioned toward modernity and great social change. Through the initial pandemic wave, we learned that even the largest health system could change their practices rapidly. COVID-19 achieved in 8 weeks what years of research, policy initiatives (eg, Choosing Wisely®, RightCare, Less Is More), and emphasizing value in reimbursement could not: stopping the delivery of a wide range of low-value services. We share three lessons learned from medical centers that have begun reopening services that can help us to better ensure higher-value, more affordable care that meets patients’ needs.

Medical centers can better focus on high-value care by defining their high-risk patient populations; high-value treatments, procedures, and preventive care; and phases of reopening. During the first pandemic wave, medical centers tried to reassure patients about emergency care, such as coming in for chest pain or neurologic symptoms, through personal outreach and media campaigns. Outpatient virtual visits also continued, including primary care, specialty services, mental health treatment, and physical therapy. While reopening, some medical centers have assessed disparities by relying on their data analytics and, if available, embedded health services researchers to understand what care was stopped and what populations were most affected.

The University of California health systems, for example, had a learning collaborative focused on sharing methods to restore care delivery that prioritizes patient needs. Some campuses conducted analyses using both electronic health record data and input from patients and their care teams to identify clinical needs and determine patient outreach plans. Some approaches used machine learning models to identify patients at highest risk of hospitalization or emergency department visits over the next 12 months and to conduct additional outreach to schedule these patients in primary and specialty care if clinically appropriate. Similarly, surgical specialties identified the highest-priority nonemergent surgeries for scheduling, including cancer resection, radiation therapy, and pain-management procedures. Similar guidance toward the most meaningful care has been prioritized within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

The rapid deployment of telehealth and payment models that reimburse video and in-clinic visits equally created new opportunities for medical centers to expand high-value care in lower-cost home settings. Similarly, new infrastructure is being developed to help define smarter use of virtual visits and home-based lab collection and monitoring.

Medical centers also must pay careful attention to redeploying service capacity for underused, high-value services. The pandemic uncovered existing staff that could be redeployed to support these changes. For example, with an “all hands on deck” mentality during the pandemic, in some medical centers, analysts or care managers from less-prioritized or duplicative areas were reassigned to vital COVID-19 efforts. Medical centers may realize that this staff can provide more value in the future by supporting increased high-value, affordable healthcare.

During the intial wave of the pandemic, medical centers greatly reduced the care they provided, often focusing on delivering essential care. This preparation for a surge of COVID patients had the effect of halting many unnecessary services by moving care from the clinic to home under new reimbursement changes, such as those affecting telehealth payments. The experience of reducing low-value medical services and visits can be extended to limiting unnecessary diagnostic testing. Medical centers could, for example, focus only on tests that advance care plans; reduce unnecessary blood draws, procedures, and vital sign checks on stable patients; shift to medications with less-frequent dosing intervals; and consolidate visits by treatment teams.^10,11

Medical centers, however, now face continued pressures to increase revenue because 75% report their organization’s top priority is focused on increasing patient volume.¹²Nearly 95% of healthcare payments have been based on fee-for-service models,¹³ and the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the financial vulnerability of our health system when we reduce in-person care, especially among rural medical centers who often have no financial reserve.¹⁴ Similarly, nearly half of hospitals’ revenue comes from surgical admissions, though not all of these are necessary.^15-18 The fiscal realities facing medical centers make it challenging to not simply “ramp up” all service, regardless of necessity, in the context of payment models dependent on fee for service, which are present in most areas of the country.

As medical centers reboot, operational and clinical leaders must proactively view changes through an equity lens to avoid exacerbating health disparities among vulnerable populations. The pandemic has focused national attention on the severity and pervasiveness of disparities and created an imperative for substantive action to evaluate how every decision will affect health equity. For example, medical centers are expanding use of telehealth to improve patient outreach. However, in a survey of primary care physicians, 72% said they have patients who are unable to access telehealth because they do not have access to technology.³ Exclusion of these patients from programs risks worsening health disparities. In a recent survey, nearly 65% of medical centers report reexamining existing policies, protocols, and practices for patients at risk of disparities.¹² Medical centers now have an opportunity to strengthen, not eliminate, existing services such as education and community outreach programs that support vulnerable patients to improve trust among patients and improved downstream health outcomes even with recent financial losses in mind.

Medical centers nationwide will need payment reform that provides greater financial stability beyond the pandemic to support high-value care delivery. They also will need flexibility to invest in prevention and to deliver the appropriate intensity of care to meet patients’ and communities’ needs.^15-17 Options to provide this support include prospective population-based payments that may create more resilience in protecting access to care when it is most needed. Models can include fully capitated payment for physician practices.^19,20 For example, after Vermont entered a single accountable care organization (ACO) model with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2018, they not only generated a $97 million Medicaid savings, but also had a financial cushion that was later used in their COVID-19 response.^21,22 The advanced payments allowed primary care practices and community agencies to invest in a digital tool to support outreach to patient at high risk for virus complications.

Hospitals similarly can adapt global budgets that incentivize financial stewardship by encouraging clinicians to resume necessary services and not unnecessary ones.¹⁶ For example, CMS partnered with Pennsylvania’s Department of Health to provide prospective all-payer global budgets for rural hospitals and Maryland’s Health Services Cost Review Commission that negotiates a budget with each hospital. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in these programs have had more financial protection from fluctuating finances by allowing for easier shifts in service delivery location and adjustments in rates to compensate for declines in visits and procedures.²³

Policy makers and payers also can hold medical centers accountable to evidence-based guidelines and appropriate use of care, especially when necessary but expensive (eg, percutaneous coronary interventions, spinal surgeries, or cancer care). Funding agencies, additionally, can support these efforts by focusing on research, dissemination, and reliable implementation of these practices.

The COVID-19 crisis presents a tremendous opportunity for each medical center to revitalize healthcare. This opportunity can be seized only with reform by policy makers, payers, and regulatory agencies who encourage restarting high-value care without low-value services. We must take deliberate action so the nation’s medical centers can better meet patients’ needs to make healthcare more resilient, efficient, and fair.

The day after Memorial Day 2020 marked an important transition in the United States’ experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with many states making initial plans to reopen. Alongside this reopening process, the US healthcare system needed to reopen to provide needed care to communities. This reopening, however, was in the context of several months of staggering financial losses for many medical centers that expected a larger surge than occurred locally and lost profit because of delayed elective procedures, all amid a national economic recession. Each medical center also faced a persistent risk of infection and a call for social equity as each one decided how to reopen. These decisions balanced the risks of reopening from COVID-19 exposure with patients’ medical needs and the healthcare industry’s financial needs.

This year’s widespread healthcare closures were necessary to reduce COVID-19 transmission and prepare for a future patient surge, but these closures had unintended consequences. Nearly half of adults polled said they or someone in their household had foregone or delayed care since the outbreak began.¹ This was especially true for visits to emergency departments and doctors’ offices for strokes, heart attacks, and routine medical care.² In a survey across 49 states, only 7% of primary care practices considered scheduling preventive visits as a high priority.³ Eleven percent of polled adults reported delaying care worsened their condition,¹ and in hard-hit areas such as New York City, non-COVID mortality was 22% higher than expected.⁴

Avoidance of the medical system decreased not only use of necessary, high-value care but also use of low-value care. Low-value services are those in which the “potential for harms exceed the potential benefits,”⁵ such as unnecessary hospitalizations, avoidable emergency department or clinic visits, unwarranted or excessive diagnostic testing (eg, annual physicals), and certain procedures (eg, spinal fusion surgery for low-back pain). Low-value care is costly, with $75.7 to $101.2 billion of the gross domestic product (GDP) spent on overuse.⁶ This care risks contributing to financial and, in turn, clinical harm for patients because the average health plan deductible exceeds a typical family’s available savings⁷and 25% of Americans say they have foregone treatment for a serious medical condition in the past year because of these costs.⁸ Medical centers’ significant financial losses are a sobering reminder of how much our system relies on fee-for-service billing that encourages high-margin profitable services regardless of necessity.⁹ We must avoid quick reactions of increasing these procedures to respond to the sudden financial loses.Medical centers across the country are choosing how to “reboot”—either deliberately changing how services are organized and delivered or returning to prior practices. Medical centers are facing potential for their own Renaissance in transitioning their organizations to modern healthcare delivery. In the 15th century ad, after experiencing the bubonic plague, Europe similarly transitioned toward modernity and great social change. Through the initial pandemic wave, we learned that even the largest health system could change their practices rapidly. COVID-19 achieved in 8 weeks what years of research, policy initiatives (eg, Choosing Wisely®, RightCare, Less Is More), and emphasizing value in reimbursement could not: stopping the delivery of a wide range of low-value services. We share three lessons learned from medical centers that have begun reopening services that can help us to better ensure higher-value, more affordable care that meets patients’ needs.

Medical centers can better focus on high-value care by defining their high-risk patient populations; high-value treatments, procedures, and preventive care; and phases of reopening. During the first pandemic wave, medical centers tried to reassure patients about emergency care, such as coming in for chest pain or neurologic symptoms, through personal outreach and media campaigns. Outpatient virtual visits also continued, including primary care, specialty services, mental health treatment, and physical therapy. While reopening, some medical centers have assessed disparities by relying on their data analytics and, if available, embedded health services researchers to understand what care was stopped and what populations were most affected.

The University of California health systems, for example, had a learning collaborative focused on sharing methods to restore care delivery that prioritizes patient needs. Some campuses conducted analyses using both electronic health record data and input from patients and their care teams to identify clinical needs and determine patient outreach plans. Some approaches used machine learning models to identify patients at highest risk of hospitalization or emergency department visits over the next 12 months and to conduct additional outreach to schedule these patients in primary and specialty care if clinically appropriate. Similarly, surgical specialties identified the highest-priority nonemergent surgeries for scheduling, including cancer resection, radiation therapy, and pain-management procedures. Similar guidance toward the most meaningful care has been prioritized within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

The rapid deployment of telehealth and payment models that reimburse video and in-clinic visits equally created new opportunities for medical centers to expand high-value care in lower-cost home settings. Similarly, new infrastructure is being developed to help define smarter use of virtual visits and home-based lab collection and monitoring.

Medical centers also must pay careful attention to redeploying service capacity for underused, high-value services. The pandemic uncovered existing staff that could be redeployed to support these changes. For example, with an “all hands on deck” mentality during the pandemic, in some medical centers, analysts or care managers from less-prioritized or duplicative areas were reassigned to vital COVID-19 efforts. Medical centers may realize that this staff can provide more value in the future by supporting increased high-value, affordable healthcare.

During the intial wave of the pandemic, medical centers greatly reduced the care they provided, often focusing on delivering essential care. This preparation for a surge of COVID patients had the effect of halting many unnecessary services by moving care from the clinic to home under new reimbursement changes, such as those affecting telehealth payments. The experience of reducing low-value medical services and visits can be extended to limiting unnecessary diagnostic testing. Medical centers could, for example, focus only on tests that advance care plans; reduce unnecessary blood draws, procedures, and vital sign checks on stable patients; shift to medications with less-frequent dosing intervals; and consolidate visits by treatment teams.^10,11

Medical centers, however, now face continued pressures to increase revenue because 75% report their organization’s top priority is focused on increasing patient volume.¹²Nearly 95% of healthcare payments have been based on fee-for-service models,¹³ and the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the financial vulnerability of our health system when we reduce in-person care, especially among rural medical centers who often have no financial reserve.¹⁴ Similarly, nearly half of hospitals’ revenue comes from surgical admissions, though not all of these are necessary.^15-18 The fiscal realities facing medical centers make it challenging to not simply “ramp up” all service, regardless of necessity, in the context of payment models dependent on fee for service, which are present in most areas of the country.

As medical centers reboot, operational and clinical leaders must proactively view changes through an equity lens to avoid exacerbating health disparities among vulnerable populations. The pandemic has focused national attention on the severity and pervasiveness of disparities and created an imperative for substantive action to evaluate how every decision will affect health equity. For example, medical centers are expanding use of telehealth to improve patient outreach. However, in a survey of primary care physicians, 72% said they have patients who are unable to access telehealth because they do not have access to technology.³ Exclusion of these patients from programs risks worsening health disparities. In a recent survey, nearly 65% of medical centers report reexamining existing policies, protocols, and practices for patients at risk of disparities.¹² Medical centers now have an opportunity to strengthen, not eliminate, existing services such as education and community outreach programs that support vulnerable patients to improve trust among patients and improved downstream health outcomes even with recent financial losses in mind.

Medical centers nationwide will need payment reform that provides greater financial stability beyond the pandemic to support high-value care delivery. They also will need flexibility to invest in prevention and to deliver the appropriate intensity of care to meet patients’ and communities’ needs.^15-17 Options to provide this support include prospective population-based payments that may create more resilience in protecting access to care when it is most needed. Models can include fully capitated payment for physician practices.^19,20 For example, after Vermont entered a single accountable care organization (ACO) model with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2018, they not only generated a $97 million Medicaid savings, but also had a financial cushion that was later used in their COVID-19 response.^21,22 The advanced payments allowed primary care practices and community agencies to invest in a digital tool to support outreach to patient at high risk for virus complications.

Hospitals similarly can adapt global budgets that incentivize financial stewardship by encouraging clinicians to resume necessary services and not unnecessary ones.¹⁶ For example, CMS partnered with Pennsylvania’s Department of Health to provide prospective all-payer global budgets for rural hospitals and Maryland’s Health Services Cost Review Commission that negotiates a budget with each hospital. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in these programs have had more financial protection from fluctuating finances by allowing for easier shifts in service delivery location and adjustments in rates to compensate for declines in visits and procedures.²³

Policy makers and payers also can hold medical centers accountable to evidence-based guidelines and appropriate use of care, especially when necessary but expensive (eg, percutaneous coronary interventions, spinal surgeries, or cancer care). Funding agencies, additionally, can support these efforts by focusing on research, dissemination, and reliable implementation of these practices.

The COVID-19 crisis presents a tremendous opportunity for each medical center to revitalize healthcare. This opportunity can be seized only with reform by policy makers, payers, and regulatory agencies who encourage restarting high-value care without low-value services. We must take deliberate action so the nation’s medical centers can better meet patients’ needs to make healthcare more resilient, efficient, and fair.

Professional upheavals caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have affected the academic productivity of many physicians. This is due in part to rapid changes in clinical care and medical education: physician-researchers have been redeployed to frontline clinical care; clinician-educators have been forced to rapidly transition in-person curricula to virtual platforms; and primary care physicians and subspecialists have been forced to transition to telehealth-based practices. In addition to these changes in clinical and educational responsibilities, the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially altered the personal lives of physicians. During the height of the pandemic, clinicians simultaneously wrestled with a lack of available childcare, unexpected home-schooling responsibilities, decreased income, and many other COVID-19-related stresses.¹ Additionally, the ever-present “second pandemic” of structural racism, persistent health disparities, and racial inequity has further increased the personal and professional demands facing academic faculty.²

In particular, the pandemic has placed personal and professional pressure on female and minority faculty members. In spite of these pressures, however, the academic promotions process still requires rigid accounting of scholarly productivity. As the focus of academic practices has shifted to support clinical care during the pandemic, scholarly productivity has suffered for clinicians on the frontline. As a result, academic clinical faculty have expressed significant stress and concerns about failing to meet benchmarks for promotion (eg, publications, curricula development, national presentations). To counter these shifts (and the inherent inequity that they create for female clinicians and for men and women who are Black, Indigenous, and/or of color), academic institutions should not only recognize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on faculty, but also adopt immediate solutions to more equitably account for such disruptions to academic portfolios. In this paper, we explore populations whose career trajectories are most at-risk and propose a framework to capture novel and nontraditional contributions while also acknowledging the rapid changes the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to academic medicine.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, physician mothers, underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups, and junior faculty were most at-risk for career disruptions. The closure of daycare facilities and schools and shift to online learning resulting from the pandemic, along with the common challenges of parenting, have taken a significant toll on the lives of working parents. Because women tend to carry a disproportionate share of childcare and household responsibilities, these changes have inequitably leveraged themselves as a “mommy tax” on working women.^3,4

As underrepresented medicine faculty (particularly Black, Hispanic, Latino, and Native American clinicians) comprise only 8% of the academic medical workforce,they currently face a variety of personal and professional challenges.⁵ This is especially true for Black and Latinx physicians who have been experiencing an increased COVID-19 burden in their communities, while concurrently fighting entrenched structural racism and police violence. In academia, these challenges have worsened because of the “minority tax”—the toll of often uncompensated extra responsibilities (time or money) placed on minority faculty in the name of achieving diversity. The unintended consequences of these responsibilities result in having fewer mentors,⁶ caring for underserved populations,⁷ and performing more clinical care⁸ than non-underrepresented minority faculty. Because minority faculty are unlikely to be in leadership positions, it is reasonable to conclude they have been shouldering heavier clinical obligations and facing greater career disruption of scholarly work due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Junior faculty (eg, instructors and assistant professors) also remain professionally vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because junior faculty are often more clinically focused and less likely to hold leadership positions than senior faculty, they are more likely to have assumed frontline clinical positions, which come at the expense of academic work. Junior faculty are also at a critical building phase in their academic career—a time when they benefit from the opportunity to share their scholarly work and network at conferences. Unfortunately, many conferences have been canceled or moved to a virtual platform. Given that some institutions may be freezing academic funding for conferences due to budgetary shortfalls from the pandemic, junior faculty may be particularly at risk if they are not able to present their work. In addition, junior faculty often face disproportionate struggles at home, trying to balance demands of work and caring for young children. Considering the unique needs of each of these groups, it is especially important to consider intersectionality, or the compounded issues for individuals who exist in multiple disproportionately affected groups (eg, a Black female junior faculty member who is also a mother).

The typical format of a professional curriculum vitae (CV) at most academic institutions does not allow one to document potential disruptions or novel contributions, including those that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a group of academic clinicians, educators, and researchers whose careers have been affected by the pandemic, we created a COVID-19 CV matrix, a potential framework to serve as a supplement for faculty. In this matrix, faculty members may document their contributions, disruptions that affected their work, and caregiving responsibilities during this time period, while also providing a rubric for promotions and tenure committees to equitably evaluate the pandemic period on an academic CV. Our COVID-19 CV matrix consists of six domains: (1) clinical care, (2) research, (3) education, (4) service, (5) advocacy/media, and (6) social media. These domains encompass traditional and nontraditional contributions made by healthcare professionals during the pandemic (Table). This matrix broadens the ability of both faculty and institutions to determine the actual impact of individuals during the pandemic.

ACCOUNT FOR YOUR (NEW) IMPACT

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, academic faculty have been innovative, contributing in novel ways not routinely captured by promotions committees—eg, the digital health researcher who now directs the telemedicine response for their institution and the health disparities researcher who now leads daily webinar sessions on structural racism to medical students. Other novel contributions include advancing COVID-19 innovations and engaging in media and community advocacy (eg, organizing large-scale donations of equipment and funds to support organizations in need). While such nontraditional contributions may not have been readily captured or thought “CV worthy” in the past, faculty should now account for them. More importantly, promotions committees need to recognize that these pivots or alterations in career paths are not signals of professional failure, but rather evidence of a shifting landscape and the respective response of the individual. Furthermore, because these pivots often help fulfill an institutional mission, they are impactful.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE DISRUPTION

It is important for promotions and tenure committees to recognize the impact and disruption COVID-19 has had on traditional academic work, acknowledging the time and energy required for a faculty member to make needed work adjustments. This enables a leader to better assess how a faculty member’s academic portfolio has been affected. For example, researchers have had to halt studies, medical educators have had to redevelop and transition curricula to virtual platforms, and physicians have had to discontinue clinician quality improvement initiatives due to competing hospital priorities. Faculty members who document such unintentional alterations in their academic career path can explain to their institution how they have continued to positively influence their field and the community during the pandemic. This approach is analogous to the current model of accounting for clinical time when judging faculty members’ contributions in scholarly achievement.

The COVID-19 CV matrix has the potential to be annotated to explain the burden of one’s personal situation, which is often “invisible” in the professional environment. For example, many physicians have had to assume additional childcare responsibilities, tend to sick family members, friends, and even themselves. It is also possible that a faculty member has a partner who is also an essential worker, one who had to self-isolate due to COVID-19 exposure or illness, or who has been working overtime due to high patient volumes.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE

How can institutions respond to the altered academic landscape caused by the COVID-19 pandemic? Promotions committees typically have two main tools at their disposal: adjusting the tenure clock or the benchmarks. Extending the period of time available to qualify for tenure is commonplace in the “publish-or-perish” academic tracks of university research professors. Clock adjustments are typically granted to faculty following the birth of a child or for other specific family- or health-related hardships, in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act. Unfortunately, tenure-clock extensions for female faculty members can exacerbate gender inequity: Data on tenure-clock extensions show a higher rate of tenure granted to male faculty compared to female faculty.⁹ For this reason, it is also important to explore adjustments or modifications to benchmark criteria. This could be accomplished by broadening the criteria for promotion, recognizing that impact occurs in many forms, thereby enabling meeting a benchmark. It can also occur by examining the trajectory of an individual within a promotion pathway before it was disrupted to determine impact. To avoid exacerbating social and gender inequities within academia, institutions should use these professional levers and create new ones to provide parity and equality across the promotional playing field. While the CV matrix openly acknowledges the disruptions and tangents the COVID-19 pandemic has had on academic careers, it remains important for academic institutions to recognize these disruptions and innovate the manner in which they acknowledge scholarly contributions.

While academic rigidity and known social taxes (minority and mommy taxes) are particularly problematic in the current climate, these issues have always been at play in evaluating academic success. Improved documentation of novel contributions, disruptions, caregiving, and other challenges can enable more holistic and timely professional advancement for all faculty, regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity, or social background. Ultimately, we hope this framework initiates further conversations among academic institutions on how to define productivity in an age where journal impact factor or number of publications is not the fullest measure of one’s impact in their field.

Professional upheavals caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have affected the academic productivity of many physicians. This is due in part to rapid changes in clinical care and medical education: physician-researchers have been redeployed to frontline clinical care; clinician-educators have been forced to rapidly transition in-person curricula to virtual platforms; and primary care physicians and subspecialists have been forced to transition to telehealth-based practices. In addition to these changes in clinical and educational responsibilities, the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially altered the personal lives of physicians. During the height of the pandemic, clinicians simultaneously wrestled with a lack of available childcare, unexpected home-schooling responsibilities, decreased income, and many other COVID-19-related stresses.¹ Additionally, the ever-present “second pandemic” of structural racism, persistent health disparities, and racial inequity has further increased the personal and professional demands facing academic faculty.²

In particular, the pandemic has placed personal and professional pressure on female and minority faculty members. In spite of these pressures, however, the academic promotions process still requires rigid accounting of scholarly productivity. As the focus of academic practices has shifted to support clinical care during the pandemic, scholarly productivity has suffered for clinicians on the frontline. As a result, academic clinical faculty have expressed significant stress and concerns about failing to meet benchmarks for promotion (eg, publications, curricula development, national presentations). To counter these shifts (and the inherent inequity that they create for female clinicians and for men and women who are Black, Indigenous, and/or of color), academic institutions should not only recognize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on faculty, but also adopt immediate solutions to more equitably account for such disruptions to academic portfolios. In this paper, we explore populations whose career trajectories are most at-risk and propose a framework to capture novel and nontraditional contributions while also acknowledging the rapid changes the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to academic medicine.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, physician mothers, underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups, and junior faculty were most at-risk for career disruptions. The closure of daycare facilities and schools and shift to online learning resulting from the pandemic, along with the common challenges of parenting, have taken a significant toll on the lives of working parents. Because women tend to carry a disproportionate share of childcare and household responsibilities, these changes have inequitably leveraged themselves as a “mommy tax” on working women.^3,4

As underrepresented medicine faculty (particularly Black, Hispanic, Latino, and Native American clinicians) comprise only 8% of the academic medical workforce,they currently face a variety of personal and professional challenges.⁵ This is especially true for Black and Latinx physicians who have been experiencing an increased COVID-19 burden in their communities, while concurrently fighting entrenched structural racism and police violence. In academia, these challenges have worsened because of the “minority tax”—the toll of often uncompensated extra responsibilities (time or money) placed on minority faculty in the name of achieving diversity. The unintended consequences of these responsibilities result in having fewer mentors,⁶ caring for underserved populations,⁷ and performing more clinical care⁸ than non-underrepresented minority faculty. Because minority faculty are unlikely to be in leadership positions, it is reasonable to conclude they have been shouldering heavier clinical obligations and facing greater career disruption of scholarly work due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Junior faculty (eg, instructors and assistant professors) also remain professionally vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because junior faculty are often more clinically focused and less likely to hold leadership positions than senior faculty, they are more likely to have assumed frontline clinical positions, which come at the expense of academic work. Junior faculty are also at a critical building phase in their academic career—a time when they benefit from the opportunity to share their scholarly work and network at conferences. Unfortunately, many conferences have been canceled or moved to a virtual platform. Given that some institutions may be freezing academic funding for conferences due to budgetary shortfalls from the pandemic, junior faculty may be particularly at risk if they are not able to present their work. In addition, junior faculty often face disproportionate struggles at home, trying to balance demands of work and caring for young children. Considering the unique needs of each of these groups, it is especially important to consider intersectionality, or the compounded issues for individuals who exist in multiple disproportionately affected groups (eg, a Black female junior faculty member who is also a mother).

The typical format of a professional curriculum vitae (CV) at most academic institutions does not allow one to document potential disruptions or novel contributions, including those that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a group of academic clinicians, educators, and researchers whose careers have been affected by the pandemic, we created a COVID-19 CV matrix, a potential framework to serve as a supplement for faculty. In this matrix, faculty members may document their contributions, disruptions that affected their work, and caregiving responsibilities during this time period, while also providing a rubric for promotions and tenure committees to equitably evaluate the pandemic period on an academic CV. Our COVID-19 CV matrix consists of six domains: (1) clinical care, (2) research, (3) education, (4) service, (5) advocacy/media, and (6) social media. These domains encompass traditional and nontraditional contributions made by healthcare professionals during the pandemic (Table). This matrix broadens the ability of both faculty and institutions to determine the actual impact of individuals during the pandemic.

ACCOUNT FOR YOUR (NEW) IMPACT

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, academic faculty have been innovative, contributing in novel ways not routinely captured by promotions committees—eg, the digital health researcher who now directs the telemedicine response for their institution and the health disparities researcher who now leads daily webinar sessions on structural racism to medical students. Other novel contributions include advancing COVID-19 innovations and engaging in media and community advocacy (eg, organizing large-scale donations of equipment and funds to support organizations in need). While such nontraditional contributions may not have been readily captured or thought “CV worthy” in the past, faculty should now account for them. More importantly, promotions committees need to recognize that these pivots or alterations in career paths are not signals of professional failure, but rather evidence of a shifting landscape and the respective response of the individual. Furthermore, because these pivots often help fulfill an institutional mission, they are impactful.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE DISRUPTION

It is important for promotions and tenure committees to recognize the impact and disruption COVID-19 has had on traditional academic work, acknowledging the time and energy required for a faculty member to make needed work adjustments. This enables a leader to better assess how a faculty member’s academic portfolio has been affected. For example, researchers have had to halt studies, medical educators have had to redevelop and transition curricula to virtual platforms, and physicians have had to discontinue clinician quality improvement initiatives due to competing hospital priorities. Faculty members who document such unintentional alterations in their academic career path can explain to their institution how they have continued to positively influence their field and the community during the pandemic. This approach is analogous to the current model of accounting for clinical time when judging faculty members’ contributions in scholarly achievement.

The COVID-19 CV matrix has the potential to be annotated to explain the burden of one’s personal situation, which is often “invisible” in the professional environment. For example, many physicians have had to assume additional childcare responsibilities, tend to sick family members, friends, and even themselves. It is also possible that a faculty member has a partner who is also an essential worker, one who had to self-isolate due to COVID-19 exposure or illness, or who has been working overtime due to high patient volumes.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE

How can institutions respond to the altered academic landscape caused by the COVID-19 pandemic? Promotions committees typically have two main tools at their disposal: adjusting the tenure clock or the benchmarks. Extending the period of time available to qualify for tenure is commonplace in the “publish-or-perish” academic tracks of university research professors. Clock adjustments are typically granted to faculty following the birth of a child or for other specific family- or health-related hardships, in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act. Unfortunately, tenure-clock extensions for female faculty members can exacerbate gender inequity: Data on tenure-clock extensions show a higher rate of tenure granted to male faculty compared to female faculty.⁹ For this reason, it is also important to explore adjustments or modifications to benchmark criteria. This could be accomplished by broadening the criteria for promotion, recognizing that impact occurs in many forms, thereby enabling meeting a benchmark. It can also occur by examining the trajectory of an individual within a promotion pathway before it was disrupted to determine impact. To avoid exacerbating social and gender inequities within academia, institutions should use these professional levers and create new ones to provide parity and equality across the promotional playing field. While the CV matrix openly acknowledges the disruptions and tangents the COVID-19 pandemic has had on academic careers, it remains important for academic institutions to recognize these disruptions and innovate the manner in which they acknowledge scholarly contributions.

While academic rigidity and known social taxes (minority and mommy taxes) are particularly problematic in the current climate, these issues have always been at play in evaluating academic success. Improved documentation of novel contributions, disruptions, caregiving, and other challenges can enable more holistic and timely professional advancement for all faculty, regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity, or social background. Ultimately, we hope this framework initiates further conversations among academic institutions on how to define productivity in an age where journal impact factor or number of publications is not the fullest measure of one’s impact in their field.

Professional upheavals caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have affected the academic productivity of many physicians. This is due in part to rapid changes in clinical care and medical education: physician-researchers have been redeployed to frontline clinical care; clinician-educators have been forced to rapidly transition in-person curricula to virtual platforms; and primary care physicians and subspecialists have been forced to transition to telehealth-based practices. In addition to these changes in clinical and educational responsibilities, the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially altered the personal lives of physicians. During the height of the pandemic, clinicians simultaneously wrestled with a lack of available childcare, unexpected home-schooling responsibilities, decreased income, and many other COVID-19-related stresses.¹ Additionally, the ever-present “second pandemic” of structural racism, persistent health disparities, and racial inequity has further increased the personal and professional demands facing academic faculty.²

In particular, the pandemic has placed personal and professional pressure on female and minority faculty members. In spite of these pressures, however, the academic promotions process still requires rigid accounting of scholarly productivity. As the focus of academic practices has shifted to support clinical care during the pandemic, scholarly productivity has suffered for clinicians on the frontline. As a result, academic clinical faculty have expressed significant stress and concerns about failing to meet benchmarks for promotion (eg, publications, curricula development, national presentations). To counter these shifts (and the inherent inequity that they create for female clinicians and for men and women who are Black, Indigenous, and/or of color), academic institutions should not only recognize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on faculty, but also adopt immediate solutions to more equitably account for such disruptions to academic portfolios. In this paper, we explore populations whose career trajectories are most at-risk and propose a framework to capture novel and nontraditional contributions while also acknowledging the rapid changes the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to academic medicine.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, physician mothers, underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups, and junior faculty were most at-risk for career disruptions. The closure of daycare facilities and schools and shift to online learning resulting from the pandemic, along with the common challenges of parenting, have taken a significant toll on the lives of working parents. Because women tend to carry a disproportionate share of childcare and household responsibilities, these changes have inequitably leveraged themselves as a “mommy tax” on working women.^3,4

As underrepresented medicine faculty (particularly Black, Hispanic, Latino, and Native American clinicians) comprise only 8% of the academic medical workforce,they currently face a variety of personal and professional challenges.⁵ This is especially true for Black and Latinx physicians who have been experiencing an increased COVID-19 burden in their communities, while concurrently fighting entrenched structural racism and police violence. In academia, these challenges have worsened because of the “minority tax”—the toll of often uncompensated extra responsibilities (time or money) placed on minority faculty in the name of achieving diversity. The unintended consequences of these responsibilities result in having fewer mentors,⁶ caring for underserved populations,⁷ and performing more clinical care⁸ than non-underrepresented minority faculty. Because minority faculty are unlikely to be in leadership positions, it is reasonable to conclude they have been shouldering heavier clinical obligations and facing greater career disruption of scholarly work due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Junior faculty (eg, instructors and assistant professors) also remain professionally vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because junior faculty are often more clinically focused and less likely to hold leadership positions than senior faculty, they are more likely to have assumed frontline clinical positions, which come at the expense of academic work. Junior faculty are also at a critical building phase in their academic career—a time when they benefit from the opportunity to share their scholarly work and network at conferences. Unfortunately, many conferences have been canceled or moved to a virtual platform. Given that some institutions may be freezing academic funding for conferences due to budgetary shortfalls from the pandemic, junior faculty may be particularly at risk if they are not able to present their work. In addition, junior faculty often face disproportionate struggles at home, trying to balance demands of work and caring for young children. Considering the unique needs of each of these groups, it is especially important to consider intersectionality, or the compounded issues for individuals who exist in multiple disproportionately affected groups (eg, a Black female junior faculty member who is also a mother).

The typical format of a professional curriculum vitae (CV) at most academic institutions does not allow one to document potential disruptions or novel contributions, including those that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a group of academic clinicians, educators, and researchers whose careers have been affected by the pandemic, we created a COVID-19 CV matrix, a potential framework to serve as a supplement for faculty. In this matrix, faculty members may document their contributions, disruptions that affected their work, and caregiving responsibilities during this time period, while also providing a rubric for promotions and tenure committees to equitably evaluate the pandemic period on an academic CV. Our COVID-19 CV matrix consists of six domains: (1) clinical care, (2) research, (3) education, (4) service, (5) advocacy/media, and (6) social media. These domains encompass traditional and nontraditional contributions made by healthcare professionals during the pandemic (Table). This matrix broadens the ability of both faculty and institutions to determine the actual impact of individuals during the pandemic.

ACCOUNT FOR YOUR (NEW) IMPACT

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, academic faculty have been innovative, contributing in novel ways not routinely captured by promotions committees—eg, the digital health researcher who now directs the telemedicine response for their institution and the health disparities researcher who now leads daily webinar sessions on structural racism to medical students. Other novel contributions include advancing COVID-19 innovations and engaging in media and community advocacy (eg, organizing large-scale donations of equipment and funds to support organizations in need). While such nontraditional contributions may not have been readily captured or thought “CV worthy” in the past, faculty should now account for them. More importantly, promotions committees need to recognize that these pivots or alterations in career paths are not signals of professional failure, but rather evidence of a shifting landscape and the respective response of the individual. Furthermore, because these pivots often help fulfill an institutional mission, they are impactful.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE DISRUPTION

It is important for promotions and tenure committees to recognize the impact and disruption COVID-19 has had on traditional academic work, acknowledging the time and energy required for a faculty member to make needed work adjustments. This enables a leader to better assess how a faculty member’s academic portfolio has been affected. For example, researchers have had to halt studies, medical educators have had to redevelop and transition curricula to virtual platforms, and physicians have had to discontinue clinician quality improvement initiatives due to competing hospital priorities. Faculty members who document such unintentional alterations in their academic career path can explain to their institution how they have continued to positively influence their field and the community during the pandemic. This approach is analogous to the current model of accounting for clinical time when judging faculty members’ contributions in scholarly achievement.

The COVID-19 CV matrix has the potential to be annotated to explain the burden of one’s personal situation, which is often “invisible” in the professional environment. For example, many physicians have had to assume additional childcare responsibilities, tend to sick family members, friends, and even themselves. It is also possible that a faculty member has a partner who is also an essential worker, one who had to self-isolate due to COVID-19 exposure or illness, or who has been working overtime due to high patient volumes.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE

How can institutions respond to the altered academic landscape caused by the COVID-19 pandemic? Promotions committees typically have two main tools at their disposal: adjusting the tenure clock or the benchmarks. Extending the period of time available to qualify for tenure is commonplace in the “publish-or-perish” academic tracks of university research professors. Clock adjustments are typically granted to faculty following the birth of a child or for other specific family- or health-related hardships, in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act. Unfortunately, tenure-clock extensions for female faculty members can exacerbate gender inequity: Data on tenure-clock extensions show a higher rate of tenure granted to male faculty compared to female faculty.⁹ For this reason, it is also important to explore adjustments or modifications to benchmark criteria. This could be accomplished by broadening the criteria for promotion, recognizing that impact occurs in many forms, thereby enabling meeting a benchmark. It can also occur by examining the trajectory of an individual within a promotion pathway before it was disrupted to determine impact. To avoid exacerbating social and gender inequities within academia, institutions should use these professional levers and create new ones to provide parity and equality across the promotional playing field. While the CV matrix openly acknowledges the disruptions and tangents the COVID-19 pandemic has had on academic careers, it remains important for academic institutions to recognize these disruptions and innovate the manner in which they acknowledge scholarly contributions.

While academic rigidity and known social taxes (minority and mommy taxes) are particularly problematic in the current climate, these issues have always been at play in evaluating academic success. Improved documentation of novel contributions, disruptions, caregiving, and other challenges can enable more holistic and timely professional advancement for all faculty, regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity, or social background. Ultimately, we hope this framework initiates further conversations among academic institutions on how to define productivity in an age where journal impact factor or number of publications is not the fullest measure of one’s impact in their field.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Americans and the world witnessed a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol inspired by a president and other elected leaders and driven by lies, conspiracy theories, militias, and white supremacy. The violent insurrection was carried out by thousands of citizens, including many with weapons.

MDedge News

Psychiatric organizations condemned the attack and warned about the potential traumatic impact of these events on those directly involved as well as for others in the United States already living under anxiety and fear tied to the surging COVID pandemic.

A major challenge for U.S. society is to prevent other potential future violent attacks. For those who didn’t already know, the Capitol attack made it apparent that the United States faces major problems with white supremacists and domestic terrorism. FBI Director Christopher Wray stipulated that those involved in the Jan. 6 events were violent agitators and extremists.

Addressing the causes and preventing domestic terrorism is also a challenge and opportunity for psychiatry and other mental health professionals. I write as a psychiatrist in academic medicine who has spent more than 10 years advocating for public health approaches to the causes and consequences of violence, especially involving violent extremism. I believe that violence prevention cannot be left exclusively to law enforcement and that psychiatrists have a role to play as part of a whole-of-society coalition with other multidisciplinary practitioners and stakeholders.

Day by day, we learn more and more about those responsible for the insurrection and how to understand their motivations, intentions, and actions. Seditionists incite or commit acts of violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. Domestic terrorists commit violent, criminal acts to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. The mob that attacked the Capitol contained both. What’s more, the Capitol insurrection might inspire others to take similar actions. The risk for even broader and deeper radicalization to violence is a grave concern.

Aided by more than 100,000 tips, the FBI is conducting a massive nationwide manhunt and thus far, dozens of people have been charged with crimes. Given that the United States has no law that makes domestic terrorism a crime, they are being charged with other crimes. Upholding the rule of law is necessary, but it should not be regarded as sufficient to deal with the white supremacism and domestic terrorism threats.

In many countries all over the world, and to a much lesser extent in the United States, there are successful non–law enforcement programs helping people move away from domestic terrorism and other forms of violence. One example in the United States is Life After Hate, a nongovernmental organization that uses former white supremacist extremists to counsel people to leave the movement. Another example is the Colorado Resilience Collaborative, which takes a socioecological approach to prevent terrorism and targeted violence. At Boston Children’s Hospital, a regional prevention initiative is focused on reducing youth risk for targeted violence and terrorism by reducing mental health problems and increasing social belonging among adolescents. These are but three of several initiatives currently being conducted throughout the United States.

Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to become familiar with several of these programs domestically and internationally. These include programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating repatriated foreign fighters and their children and other family members all over the world, including in Kazakhstan. I would like to share some of the lessons learned from these programs to aid in preventing domestic terrorism in the United States.

One lesson learned from combating international terrorism is that intelligence and law enforcement strategies (hard counterterrorism) need to be balanced with civil society–led prevention strategies. Overreliance on hard strategies can harm individuals and communities through oversecuritization. Alternatively, we need to build civil society–led initiatives that focus on other levers, such as addressing the underlying conditions, including individual psychosocial and mental health dimensions, or social dimensions (for example, lack of opportunity), that mitigate a person’s involvement in violent extremism.

A second lesson is not to focus exclusively on ideology and deradicalization. Yes, we need to challenge extremist ideology and disinformation, but a wide range of different factors explains involvement in violent extremism and the many pathways into it. Using a socioecological model, we can identify modifiable risk and protective factors that mitigate for or against extremist violence (for example, family support, job prospects, untreated mental health problems). In addition, it is well-established that prevention programs should seek to disengage, not deradicalize, potential violent extremists.

Third, we should leverage existing evidence-based interventions and best practices in mental health and public health, but we should also invest in building and evaluating new models through research approaches, especially for secondary and tertiary prevention. As much as possible, these should be integrated into broader programs to improve individual and community mental health and health.

A fourth lesson is we must vigorously protect the human rights and civil liberties of individuals and communities involved in these programs, and uphold racial equity. We can learn from public health experts about how to engage vulnerable individuals and communities without adding to their stigmatization. One way is to not focus on single communities, and not just on ideologically motivated violence, but to build violence prevention programs that are broad enough to address multiple forms of violence.

Fifth, if we expect community-based organizations to do the work, then they need adequate resources, capacity building, training and supervision, and quality improvement activities to succeed. For example, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will require additional training to learn how to work effectively and ethically in this space.

MDedge News

Psychiatrists can start by building their knowledge and skills in understanding violent extremism and how it can be assessed and addressed, which is not the same as for suicidality. Psychiatrists can also become involved in established or emerging violence prevention programs, such as threat assessment programs in schools, workplaces, and communities. Across the country, there is a need for building new secondary and tertiary violence prevention initiatives, and they will need psychiatrists to work with them. Academic psychiatrists can become involved in building the models, developing and delivering training, and designing and conducting the program evaluations.

Finally, I suggest that psychiatrists look at domestic terrorism prevention through the lens of public health and not overly “psychiatrize” the issue. A public health approach uses evidence-based programs and policies, addresses underlying causes, and focuses on prevention. Public health builds programs with teams of experts from across disciplines – educators, health care workers, mental health professionals, faith leaders, youth leaders, community advocates, peers, and law enforcement.

As part of a public health–oriented team, psychiatrists can contribute to addressing the grave challenges of domestic terrorism facing our nation today.
 

Dr. Weine is professor of psychiatry, director of global medicine, and director of the Center for Global Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has no conflicts of interest.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Americans and the world witnessed a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol inspired by a president and other elected leaders and driven by lies, conspiracy theories, militias, and white supremacy. The violent insurrection was carried out by thousands of citizens, including many with weapons.

MDedge News

Psychiatric organizations condemned the attack and warned about the potential traumatic impact of these events on those directly involved as well as for others in the United States already living under anxiety and fear tied to the surging COVID pandemic.

A major challenge for U.S. society is to prevent other potential future violent attacks. For those who didn’t already know, the Capitol attack made it apparent that the United States faces major problems with white supremacists and domestic terrorism. FBI Director Christopher Wray stipulated that those involved in the Jan. 6 events were violent agitators and extremists.

Addressing the causes and preventing domestic terrorism is also a challenge and opportunity for psychiatry and other mental health professionals. I write as a psychiatrist in academic medicine who has spent more than 10 years advocating for public health approaches to the causes and consequences of violence, especially involving violent extremism. I believe that violence prevention cannot be left exclusively to law enforcement and that psychiatrists have a role to play as part of a whole-of-society coalition with other multidisciplinary practitioners and stakeholders.

Day by day, we learn more and more about those responsible for the insurrection and how to understand their motivations, intentions, and actions. Seditionists incite or commit acts of violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. Domestic terrorists commit violent, criminal acts to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. The mob that attacked the Capitol contained both. What’s more, the Capitol insurrection might inspire others to take similar actions. The risk for even broader and deeper radicalization to violence is a grave concern.

Aided by more than 100,000 tips, the FBI is conducting a massive nationwide manhunt and thus far, dozens of people have been charged with crimes. Given that the United States has no law that makes domestic terrorism a crime, they are being charged with other crimes. Upholding the rule of law is necessary, but it should not be regarded as sufficient to deal with the white supremacism and domestic terrorism threats.

In many countries all over the world, and to a much lesser extent in the United States, there are successful non–law enforcement programs helping people move away from domestic terrorism and other forms of violence. One example in the United States is Life After Hate, a nongovernmental organization that uses former white supremacist extremists to counsel people to leave the movement. Another example is the Colorado Resilience Collaborative, which takes a socioecological approach to prevent terrorism and targeted violence. At Boston Children’s Hospital, a regional prevention initiative is focused on reducing youth risk for targeted violence and terrorism by reducing mental health problems and increasing social belonging among adolescents. These are but three of several initiatives currently being conducted throughout the United States.

Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to become familiar with several of these programs domestically and internationally. These include programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating repatriated foreign fighters and their children and other family members all over the world, including in Kazakhstan. I would like to share some of the lessons learned from these programs to aid in preventing domestic terrorism in the United States.

One lesson learned from combating international terrorism is that intelligence and law enforcement strategies (hard counterterrorism) need to be balanced with civil society–led prevention strategies. Overreliance on hard strategies can harm individuals and communities through oversecuritization. Alternatively, we need to build civil society–led initiatives that focus on other levers, such as addressing the underlying conditions, including individual psychosocial and mental health dimensions, or social dimensions (for example, lack of opportunity), that mitigate a person’s involvement in violent extremism.

A second lesson is not to focus exclusively on ideology and deradicalization. Yes, we need to challenge extremist ideology and disinformation, but a wide range of different factors explains involvement in violent extremism and the many pathways into it. Using a socioecological model, we can identify modifiable risk and protective factors that mitigate for or against extremist violence (for example, family support, job prospects, untreated mental health problems). In addition, it is well-established that prevention programs should seek to disengage, not deradicalize, potential violent extremists.

Third, we should leverage existing evidence-based interventions and best practices in mental health and public health, but we should also invest in building and evaluating new models through research approaches, especially for secondary and tertiary prevention. As much as possible, these should be integrated into broader programs to improve individual and community mental health and health.

A fourth lesson is we must vigorously protect the human rights and civil liberties of individuals and communities involved in these programs, and uphold racial equity. We can learn from public health experts about how to engage vulnerable individuals and communities without adding to their stigmatization. One way is to not focus on single communities, and not just on ideologically motivated violence, but to build violence prevention programs that are broad enough to address multiple forms of violence.

Fifth, if we expect community-based organizations to do the work, then they need adequate resources, capacity building, training and supervision, and quality improvement activities to succeed. For example, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will require additional training to learn how to work effectively and ethically in this space.

MDedge News

Psychiatrists can start by building their knowledge and skills in understanding violent extremism and how it can be assessed and addressed, which is not the same as for suicidality. Psychiatrists can also become involved in established or emerging violence prevention programs, such as threat assessment programs in schools, workplaces, and communities. Across the country, there is a need for building new secondary and tertiary violence prevention initiatives, and they will need psychiatrists to work with them. Academic psychiatrists can become involved in building the models, developing and delivering training, and designing and conducting the program evaluations.

Finally, I suggest that psychiatrists look at domestic terrorism prevention through the lens of public health and not overly “psychiatrize” the issue. A public health approach uses evidence-based programs and policies, addresses underlying causes, and focuses on prevention. Public health builds programs with teams of experts from across disciplines – educators, health care workers, mental health professionals, faith leaders, youth leaders, community advocates, peers, and law enforcement.

As part of a public health–oriented team, psychiatrists can contribute to addressing the grave challenges of domestic terrorism facing our nation today.
 

Dr. Weine is professor of psychiatry, director of global medicine, and director of the Center for Global Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has no conflicts of interest.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Americans and the world witnessed a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol inspired by a president and other elected leaders and driven by lies, conspiracy theories, militias, and white supremacy. The violent insurrection was carried out by thousands of citizens, including many with weapons.

MDedge News

Psychiatric organizations condemned the attack and warned about the potential traumatic impact of these events on those directly involved as well as for others in the United States already living under anxiety and fear tied to the surging COVID pandemic.

A major challenge for U.S. society is to prevent other potential future violent attacks. For those who didn’t already know, the Capitol attack made it apparent that the United States faces major problems with white supremacists and domestic terrorism. FBI Director Christopher Wray stipulated that those involved in the Jan. 6 events were violent agitators and extremists.

Addressing the causes and preventing domestic terrorism is also a challenge and opportunity for psychiatry and other mental health professionals. I write as a psychiatrist in academic medicine who has spent more than 10 years advocating for public health approaches to the causes and consequences of violence, especially involving violent extremism. I believe that violence prevention cannot be left exclusively to law enforcement and that psychiatrists have a role to play as part of a whole-of-society coalition with other multidisciplinary practitioners and stakeholders.

Day by day, we learn more and more about those responsible for the insurrection and how to understand their motivations, intentions, and actions. Seditionists incite or commit acts of violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. Domestic terrorists commit violent, criminal acts to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. The mob that attacked the Capitol contained both. What’s more, the Capitol insurrection might inspire others to take similar actions. The risk for even broader and deeper radicalization to violence is a grave concern.

Aided by more than 100,000 tips, the FBI is conducting a massive nationwide manhunt and thus far, dozens of people have been charged with crimes. Given that the United States has no law that makes domestic terrorism a crime, they are being charged with other crimes. Upholding the rule of law is necessary, but it should not be regarded as sufficient to deal with the white supremacism and domestic terrorism threats.

In many countries all over the world, and to a much lesser extent in the United States, there are successful non–law enforcement programs helping people move away from domestic terrorism and other forms of violence. One example in the United States is Life After Hate, a nongovernmental organization that uses former white supremacist extremists to counsel people to leave the movement. Another example is the Colorado Resilience Collaborative, which takes a socioecological approach to prevent terrorism and targeted violence. At Boston Children’s Hospital, a regional prevention initiative is focused on reducing youth risk for targeted violence and terrorism by reducing mental health problems and increasing social belonging among adolescents. These are but three of several initiatives currently being conducted throughout the United States.

Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to become familiar with several of these programs domestically and internationally. These include programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating repatriated foreign fighters and their children and other family members all over the world, including in Kazakhstan. I would like to share some of the lessons learned from these programs to aid in preventing domestic terrorism in the United States.

One lesson learned from combating international terrorism is that intelligence and law enforcement strategies (hard counterterrorism) need to be balanced with civil society–led prevention strategies. Overreliance on hard strategies can harm individuals and communities through oversecuritization. Alternatively, we need to build civil society–led initiatives that focus on other levers, such as addressing the underlying conditions, including individual psychosocial and mental health dimensions, or social dimensions (for example, lack of opportunity), that mitigate a person’s involvement in violent extremism.

A second lesson is not to focus exclusively on ideology and deradicalization. Yes, we need to challenge extremist ideology and disinformation, but a wide range of different factors explains involvement in violent extremism and the many pathways into it. Using a socioecological model, we can identify modifiable risk and protective factors that mitigate for or against extremist violence (for example, family support, job prospects, untreated mental health problems). In addition, it is well-established that prevention programs should seek to disengage, not deradicalize, potential violent extremists.

Third, we should leverage existing evidence-based interventions and best practices in mental health and public health, but we should also invest in building and evaluating new models through research approaches, especially for secondary and tertiary prevention. As much as possible, these should be integrated into broader programs to improve individual and community mental health and health.

A fourth lesson is we must vigorously protect the human rights and civil liberties of individuals and communities involved in these programs, and uphold racial equity. We can learn from public health experts about how to engage vulnerable individuals and communities without adding to their stigmatization. One way is to not focus on single communities, and not just on ideologically motivated violence, but to build violence prevention programs that are broad enough to address multiple forms of violence.

Fifth, if we expect community-based organizations to do the work, then they need adequate resources, capacity building, training and supervision, and quality improvement activities to succeed. For example, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will require additional training to learn how to work effectively and ethically in this space.

MDedge News

Psychiatrists can start by building their knowledge and skills in understanding violent extremism and how it can be assessed and addressed, which is not the same as for suicidality. Psychiatrists can also become involved in established or emerging violence prevention programs, such as threat assessment programs in schools, workplaces, and communities. Across the country, there is a need for building new secondary and tertiary violence prevention initiatives, and they will need psychiatrists to work with them. Academic psychiatrists can become involved in building the models, developing and delivering training, and designing and conducting the program evaluations.

Finally, I suggest that psychiatrists look at domestic terrorism prevention through the lens of public health and not overly “psychiatrize” the issue. A public health approach uses evidence-based programs and policies, addresses underlying causes, and focuses on prevention. Public health builds programs with teams of experts from across disciplines – educators, health care workers, mental health professionals, faith leaders, youth leaders, community advocates, peers, and law enforcement.

As part of a public health–oriented team, psychiatrists can contribute to addressing the grave challenges of domestic terrorism facing our nation today.
 

Dr. Weine is professor of psychiatry, director of global medicine, and director of the Center for Global Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has no conflicts of interest.

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

A new recommendation for the treatment of patients with gastric cancer has been proposed on the basis of final results from the phase 3 trial GC-07, which showed survival benefit. The trial was conducted by the Japan Clinical Cancer Research Organization.

Adjuvant treatment with S-1 plus docetaxel is now recommended for patients with pathologic stage III gastric cancer who have undergone D2 gastrectomy and who have not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, say the researchers.

The 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) and 3-year overall survival rates were significantly superior among patients treated with S-1/docetaxel, compared with those treated with S-1 alone, commented lead study author Kazuhiro Yoshida, PhD, MD, director of Gifu University Hospital and professor and chairman of the department of surgical oncology, Gifu (Japan) University.

“The study met its primary endpoint and improved the RFS [recurrence-free survival],” he said. “Postoperative S-1 plus docetaxel was safe and manageable.”

Dr. Yoshida presented the updated findings of the GC-07 trial at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2021, which was held online this year.
 

S-1 widely used in Asia

S-1 is a novel oral dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitory fluoropyrimidine. The drug, which is a biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil, comprises tegafur and two types of enzyme inhibitor. It is widely used to treat various solid tumors in Asia.

“S1 is a standard postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with p-stage II/III gastric cancer in Asia,” said Dr. Yoshida, but the “outcome in p-stage III is unsatisfactory,” he added.

The GC-07 trial set out to further investigate the use of this drug in this patient population. Dr. Yoshida and colleagues included 915 patients with stage III gastric cancer who had undergone R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy and who tested negative on peritoneal-washing cytology. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either S-1 plus docetaxel or S-1 alone for up to 1 year in the postoperative setting.

The data presented at the meeting are the final results from GC-07. They confirm earlier data.

Previously, a second interim analysis showed that the trial had met its primary endpoint. As a result of that analysis, the study was terminated.

That interim analysis showed that the 3-year RFS of the S-1/docetaxel arm was significantly superior to that of the S-1 arm (65.9% vs. 49.6%; hazard ratio, 0.632; P = .0007).

Now, the final results, at a median follow-up of 48.2 months, show that there were 400 recurrences and 324 deaths. The 3-year RFS was 67.7% in the S-1/docetaxel group, which was significantly superior to the 57.4% reported in the S-1 group (HR, 0.715; P = .0008). Similarly, 3-year overall survival was 77.7% in the S-1/docetaxel group, vs. 71.2% in the S-1 group (HR, 0.742; P = .0076).

At 12 months, 62.7% of patients in the S-1 group had experienced treatment failure, compared with 56.2% in the combination-therapy group.

In addition to reducing overall relapse, treatment with combination therapy also decreased the incidence of relapse at specific sites, compared with S-1 alone. These included reductions in lymphatic recurrence (6.4% vs. 15.0%), hematogenous recurrence (9.7% vs. 15.5%), local recurrence (2.9% vs. 4.4%), and peritoneal recurrence (18.8% vs. 21.4%).

No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yoshida commented. Grade 3/4 adverse events that occurred more frequently with S-1/docetaxel than with S-1 alone included neutropenia (39.2% vs. 16.4%), leukopenia (22.4% vs. 2.7%), and febrile neutropenia (5.7% vs. 0.4%).

However, the authors noted that, in a subgroup analysis, patients with stage IIIB disease did not derive the same benefit in RFS and overall survival with combination therapy as the patients with stage IIIA or IIIC disease.

The discussant for this paper, Rutika Mehta, MD, MPH, of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., highlighted differences in benefit among the subgroups, as well as the finding that patients with stage IIIB appeared to benefit less.

However, she noted that the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification, which distinguishes patients on the basis of prognostic subgroups, is inaccurate for stage III disease, and this might have affected the study results. Dr. Mehta pointed to a previous analysis in which more than 33% of individuals with stage IIIB disease, determined in accordance with the seventh edition of the AJCC staging system, were reclassified as having stage IIIC disease, as determined using the more recent eighth edition.

“There were also few T2, N0, and N1 patients, making meaningful deductions in these subgroups not possible,” she said.

She said that despite these limitations, these “results are meaningful and impactful, and the combination of docetaxel and S-1 showed better RFS and overall survival than S-1 alone.

“These results do favor a new recommendation for the use of docetaxel plus S-1 for stage III gastric cancer patients after D2 lymphadenectomy,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the Japan Clinical Cancer Research Organization. Dr. Yoshida has received honoraria and research funding from many pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the abstract.

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

A new recommendation for the treatment of patients with gastric cancer has been proposed on the basis of final results from the phase 3 trial GC-07, which showed survival benefit. The trial was conducted by the Japan Clinical Cancer Research Organization.

Adjuvant treatment with S-1 plus docetaxel is now recommended for patients with pathologic stage III gastric cancer who have undergone D2 gastrectomy and who have not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, say the researchers.

The 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) and 3-year overall survival rates were significantly superior among patients treated with S-1/docetaxel, compared with those treated with S-1 alone, commented lead study author Kazuhiro Yoshida, PhD, MD, director of Gifu University Hospital and professor and chairman of the department of surgical oncology, Gifu (Japan) University.

“The study met its primary endpoint and improved the RFS [recurrence-free survival],” he said. “Postoperative S-1 plus docetaxel was safe and manageable.”

Dr. Yoshida presented the updated findings of the GC-07 trial at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2021, which was held online this year.
 

S-1 widely used in Asia

S-1 is a novel oral dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitory fluoropyrimidine. The drug, which is a biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil, comprises tegafur and two types of enzyme inhibitor. It is widely used to treat various solid tumors in Asia.

“S1 is a standard postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with p-stage II/III gastric cancer in Asia,” said Dr. Yoshida, but the “outcome in p-stage III is unsatisfactory,” he added.

The GC-07 trial set out to further investigate the use of this drug in this patient population. Dr. Yoshida and colleagues included 915 patients with stage III gastric cancer who had undergone R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy and who tested negative on peritoneal-washing cytology. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either S-1 plus docetaxel or S-1 alone for up to 1 year in the postoperative setting.

The data presented at the meeting are the final results from GC-07. They confirm earlier data.

Previously, a second interim analysis showed that the trial had met its primary endpoint. As a result of that analysis, the study was terminated.

That interim analysis showed that the 3-year RFS of the S-1/docetaxel arm was significantly superior to that of the S-1 arm (65.9% vs. 49.6%; hazard ratio, 0.632; P = .0007).

Now, the final results, at a median follow-up of 48.2 months, show that there were 400 recurrences and 324 deaths. The 3-year RFS was 67.7% in the S-1/docetaxel group, which was significantly superior to the 57.4% reported in the S-1 group (HR, 0.715; P = .0008). Similarly, 3-year overall survival was 77.7% in the S-1/docetaxel group, vs. 71.2% in the S-1 group (HR, 0.742; P = .0076).

At 12 months, 62.7% of patients in the S-1 group had experienced treatment failure, compared with 56.2% in the combination-therapy group.

In addition to reducing overall relapse, treatment with combination therapy also decreased the incidence of relapse at specific sites, compared with S-1 alone. These included reductions in lymphatic recurrence (6.4% vs. 15.0%), hematogenous recurrence (9.7% vs. 15.5%), local recurrence (2.9% vs. 4.4%), and peritoneal recurrence (18.8% vs. 21.4%).

No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yoshida commented. Grade 3/4 adverse events that occurred more frequently with S-1/docetaxel than with S-1 alone included neutropenia (39.2% vs. 16.4%), leukopenia (22.4% vs. 2.7%), and febrile neutropenia (5.7% vs. 0.4%).

However, the authors noted that, in a subgroup analysis, patients with stage IIIB disease did not derive the same benefit in RFS and overall survival with combination therapy as the patients with stage IIIA or IIIC disease.

The discussant for this paper, Rutika Mehta, MD, MPH, of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., highlighted differences in benefit among the subgroups, as well as the finding that patients with stage IIIB appeared to benefit less.

However, she noted that the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification, which distinguishes patients on the basis of prognostic subgroups, is inaccurate for stage III disease, and this might have affected the study results. Dr. Mehta pointed to a previous analysis in which more than 33% of individuals with stage IIIB disease, determined in accordance with the seventh edition of the AJCC staging system, were reclassified as having stage IIIC disease, as determined using the more recent eighth edition.

“There were also few T2, N0, and N1 patients, making meaningful deductions in these subgroups not possible,” she said.

She said that despite these limitations, these “results are meaningful and impactful, and the combination of docetaxel and S-1 showed better RFS and overall survival than S-1 alone.

“These results do favor a new recommendation for the use of docetaxel plus S-1 for stage III gastric cancer patients after D2 lymphadenectomy,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the Japan Clinical Cancer Research Organization. Dr. Yoshida has received honoraria and research funding from many pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the abstract.

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

A new recommendation for the treatment of patients with gastric cancer has been proposed on the basis of final results from the phase 3 trial GC-07, which showed survival benefit. The trial was conducted by the Japan Clinical Cancer Research Organization.

Adjuvant treatment with S-1 plus docetaxel is now recommended for patients with pathologic stage III gastric cancer who have undergone D2 gastrectomy and who have not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, say the researchers.

The 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) and 3-year overall survival rates were significantly superior among patients treated with S-1/docetaxel, compared with those treated with S-1 alone, commented lead study author Kazuhiro Yoshida, PhD, MD, director of Gifu University Hospital and professor and chairman of the department of surgical oncology, Gifu (Japan) University.

“The study met its primary endpoint and improved the RFS [recurrence-free survival],” he said. “Postoperative S-1 plus docetaxel was safe and manageable.”

Dr. Yoshida presented the updated findings of the GC-07 trial at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2021, which was held online this year.
 

S-1 widely used in Asia

S-1 is a novel oral dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitory fluoropyrimidine. The drug, which is a biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil, comprises tegafur and two types of enzyme inhibitor. It is widely used to treat various solid tumors in Asia.

“S1 is a standard postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with p-stage II/III gastric cancer in Asia,” said Dr. Yoshida, but the “outcome in p-stage III is unsatisfactory,” he added.

The GC-07 trial set out to further investigate the use of this drug in this patient population. Dr. Yoshida and colleagues included 915 patients with stage III gastric cancer who had undergone R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy and who tested negative on peritoneal-washing cytology. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either S-1 plus docetaxel or S-1 alone for up to 1 year in the postoperative setting.

The data presented at the meeting are the final results from GC-07. They confirm earlier data.

Previously, a second interim analysis showed that the trial had met its primary endpoint. As a result of that analysis, the study was terminated.

That interim analysis showed that the 3-year RFS of the S-1/docetaxel arm was significantly superior to that of the S-1 arm (65.9% vs. 49.6%; hazard ratio, 0.632; P = .0007).

Now, the final results, at a median follow-up of 48.2 months, show that there were 400 recurrences and 324 deaths. The 3-year RFS was 67.7% in the S-1/docetaxel group, which was significantly superior to the 57.4% reported in the S-1 group (HR, 0.715; P = .0008). Similarly, 3-year overall survival was 77.7% in the S-1/docetaxel group, vs. 71.2% in the S-1 group (HR, 0.742; P = .0076).

At 12 months, 62.7% of patients in the S-1 group had experienced treatment failure, compared with 56.2% in the combination-therapy group.

In addition to reducing overall relapse, treatment with combination therapy also decreased the incidence of relapse at specific sites, compared with S-1 alone. These included reductions in lymphatic recurrence (6.4% vs. 15.0%), hematogenous recurrence (9.7% vs. 15.5%), local recurrence (2.9% vs. 4.4%), and peritoneal recurrence (18.8% vs. 21.4%).

No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yoshida commented. Grade 3/4 adverse events that occurred more frequently with S-1/docetaxel than with S-1 alone included neutropenia (39.2% vs. 16.4%), leukopenia (22.4% vs. 2.7%), and febrile neutropenia (5.7% vs. 0.4%).

However, the authors noted that, in a subgroup analysis, patients with stage IIIB disease did not derive the same benefit in RFS and overall survival with combination therapy as the patients with stage IIIA or IIIC disease.

The discussant for this paper, Rutika Mehta, MD, MPH, of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., highlighted differences in benefit among the subgroups, as well as the finding that patients with stage IIIB appeared to benefit less.

However, she noted that the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification, which distinguishes patients on the basis of prognostic subgroups, is inaccurate for stage III disease, and this might have affected the study results. Dr. Mehta pointed to a previous analysis in which more than 33% of individuals with stage IIIB disease, determined in accordance with the seventh edition of the AJCC staging system, were reclassified as having stage IIIC disease, as determined using the more recent eighth edition.

“There were also few T2, N0, and N1 patients, making meaningful deductions in these subgroups not possible,” she said.

She said that despite these limitations, these “results are meaningful and impactful, and the combination of docetaxel and S-1 showed better RFS and overall survival than S-1 alone.

“These results do favor a new recommendation for the use of docetaxel plus S-1 for stage III gastric cancer patients after D2 lymphadenectomy,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the Japan Clinical Cancer Research Organization. Dr. Yoshida has received honoraria and research funding from many pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the abstract.

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