Pediatric News

Responses from physicians in eight countries show profound effects from COVID-19 on their personal and professional lives, according to the results of a Medscape survey.

More than 7,500 physicians – nearly 5,000 in the United States, and others in Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom – responded to questions about their struggles to save patients and how the pandemic has changed their income and their lives at home and at work.

The pain was evident in this response from an emergency medicine physician in Spain: “It has been the worst time in my life ever, in both my personal and professional life.”

Conversely, some reported positive effects.

An internist in Brazil wrote: “I feel more proud of my career than ever before.”
 

One quarter of U.S. physicians considering earlier retirement

Physicians in the United States were asked what career changes, if any, they were considering in light of their experience with COVID-19. Although a little more than half (51%) said they were not planning any changes, 25% answered, “retiring earlier than previously planned,” and 12% answered, “a career change away from medicine.”

The number of physicians reporting an income drop was highest in Brazil (63% reported a drop), followed by the United States (62%), Mexico (56%), Portugal (49%), Germany (42%), France (41%), and Spain (31%). The question was not asked in the United Kingdom survey.

In the United States, the size of the drop has been substantial: 9% lost 76%-100% of their income; 14% lost 51%-75%; 28% lost 26%-50%; 33% lost 11%-25%; and 15% lost 1%-10%.

The U.S. specialists with the largest drop in income were ophthalmologists, who lost 51%, followed by allergists (46%), plastic surgeons (46%), and otolaryngologists (45%).

“I’m looking for a new profession due to economic impact,” an otolaryngologist in the United States said. “We are at risk while essentially using our private savings to keep our practice solvent.”

More than half of U.S. physicians (54%) have personally treated patients with COVID-19. Percentages were higher in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom (percentages ranged from 60%-68%).

The United States led all eight countries in treating patients with COVID-19 via telemedicine, at 26%. Germany had the lowest telemedicine percentage, at 10%.
 

Burnout intensifies

About two thirds of US physicians (64%) said that burnout had intensified during the crisis (70% of female physicians and 61% of male physicians said it had).

Many factors are feeding the burnout.

A critical care physician in the United States responded, “It is terrible to see people arriving at their rooms and assuming they were going to die soon; to see people saying goodbye to their families before dying or before being intubated.”

In all eight countries, a substantial percentage of physicians reported they “sometimes, often or always” treated patients with COVID-19 without the proper personal protective equipment. Spain had by far the largest percentage who answered that way (67%), followed by France (45%), Mexico (40%), the United Kingdom (34%), Brazil and Germany (28% each); and the United States and Portugal (23% each).

A U.S. rheumatologist wrote: “The fact that we were sent to take care of infectious patients without proper protection equipment made me feel we were betrayed in this fight.”

Sense of duty to volunteer to treat COVID-19 patients varied substantially among countries, from 69% who felt that way in Spain to 40% in Brazil. Half (50%) in the United States felt that way.

“Altruism must take second place where a real and present threat exists to my own personal existence,” one U.S. internist wrote.
 

Numbers personally infected

One fifth of physicians in Spain and the United Kingdom had personally been infected with the virus. Brazil, France, and Mexico had the next highest numbers, with 13%-15% of physicians infected; 5%-6% in the United States, Germany, and Portugal said they had been infected.

The percentage of physicians who reported that immediate family members had been infected ranged from 25% in Spain to 6% in Portugal. Among US physicians, 9% reported that family members had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

In the United States, 44% of respondents who had family living with them at home during the pandemic reported that relationships at home were more stressed because of stay-at-home guidelines and social distancing. Almost half (47%) said there had been no change, and 9% said relationships were less stressed.
 

Eating is coping mechanism of choice

Physicians were asked what they were doing more of during the pandemic, and food seemed to be the top source of comfort in all eight countries.

Loneliness reports differ across globe

Portugal had the highest percentage (51%) of physicians reporting increased loneliness. Next were Brazil (48%), the United States (46%), the United Kingdom (42%), France (41%), Spain and Mexico (40% each), and Germany (32%).

All eight countries lacked workplace activities to help physicians with grief. More than half (55%) of U.K. physicians reported having such activities available at their workplace, whereas only 25% of physicians in Germany did; 12%-24% of respondents across the countries were unsure about the offerings.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Responses from physicians in eight countries show profound effects from COVID-19 on their personal and professional lives, according to the results of a Medscape survey.

More than 7,500 physicians – nearly 5,000 in the United States, and others in Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom – responded to questions about their struggles to save patients and how the pandemic has changed their income and their lives at home and at work.

The pain was evident in this response from an emergency medicine physician in Spain: “It has been the worst time in my life ever, in both my personal and professional life.”

Conversely, some reported positive effects.

An internist in Brazil wrote: “I feel more proud of my career than ever before.”
 

One quarter of U.S. physicians considering earlier retirement

Physicians in the United States were asked what career changes, if any, they were considering in light of their experience with COVID-19. Although a little more than half (51%) said they were not planning any changes, 25% answered, “retiring earlier than previously planned,” and 12% answered, “a career change away from medicine.”

The number of physicians reporting an income drop was highest in Brazil (63% reported a drop), followed by the United States (62%), Mexico (56%), Portugal (49%), Germany (42%), France (41%), and Spain (31%). The question was not asked in the United Kingdom survey.

In the United States, the size of the drop has been substantial: 9% lost 76%-100% of their income; 14% lost 51%-75%; 28% lost 26%-50%; 33% lost 11%-25%; and 15% lost 1%-10%.

The U.S. specialists with the largest drop in income were ophthalmologists, who lost 51%, followed by allergists (46%), plastic surgeons (46%), and otolaryngologists (45%).

“I’m looking for a new profession due to economic impact,” an otolaryngologist in the United States said. “We are at risk while essentially using our private savings to keep our practice solvent.”

More than half of U.S. physicians (54%) have personally treated patients with COVID-19. Percentages were higher in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom (percentages ranged from 60%-68%).

The United States led all eight countries in treating patients with COVID-19 via telemedicine, at 26%. Germany had the lowest telemedicine percentage, at 10%.
 

Burnout intensifies

About two thirds of US physicians (64%) said that burnout had intensified during the crisis (70% of female physicians and 61% of male physicians said it had).

Many factors are feeding the burnout.

A critical care physician in the United States responded, “It is terrible to see people arriving at their rooms and assuming they were going to die soon; to see people saying goodbye to their families before dying or before being intubated.”

In all eight countries, a substantial percentage of physicians reported they “sometimes, often or always” treated patients with COVID-19 without the proper personal protective equipment. Spain had by far the largest percentage who answered that way (67%), followed by France (45%), Mexico (40%), the United Kingdom (34%), Brazil and Germany (28% each); and the United States and Portugal (23% each).

A U.S. rheumatologist wrote: “The fact that we were sent to take care of infectious patients without proper protection equipment made me feel we were betrayed in this fight.”

Sense of duty to volunteer to treat COVID-19 patients varied substantially among countries, from 69% who felt that way in Spain to 40% in Brazil. Half (50%) in the United States felt that way.

“Altruism must take second place where a real and present threat exists to my own personal existence,” one U.S. internist wrote.
 

Numbers personally infected

One fifth of physicians in Spain and the United Kingdom had personally been infected with the virus. Brazil, France, and Mexico had the next highest numbers, with 13%-15% of physicians infected; 5%-6% in the United States, Germany, and Portugal said they had been infected.

The percentage of physicians who reported that immediate family members had been infected ranged from 25% in Spain to 6% in Portugal. Among US physicians, 9% reported that family members had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

In the United States, 44% of respondents who had family living with them at home during the pandemic reported that relationships at home were more stressed because of stay-at-home guidelines and social distancing. Almost half (47%) said there had been no change, and 9% said relationships were less stressed.
 

Eating is coping mechanism of choice

Physicians were asked what they were doing more of during the pandemic, and food seemed to be the top source of comfort in all eight countries.

Loneliness reports differ across globe

Portugal had the highest percentage (51%) of physicians reporting increased loneliness. Next were Brazil (48%), the United States (46%), the United Kingdom (42%), France (41%), Spain and Mexico (40% each), and Germany (32%).

All eight countries lacked workplace activities to help physicians with grief. More than half (55%) of U.K. physicians reported having such activities available at their workplace, whereas only 25% of physicians in Germany did; 12%-24% of respondents across the countries were unsure about the offerings.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Responses from physicians in eight countries show profound effects from COVID-19 on their personal and professional lives, according to the results of a Medscape survey.

More than 7,500 physicians – nearly 5,000 in the United States, and others in Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom – responded to questions about their struggles to save patients and how the pandemic has changed their income and their lives at home and at work.

The pain was evident in this response from an emergency medicine physician in Spain: “It has been the worst time in my life ever, in both my personal and professional life.”

Conversely, some reported positive effects.

An internist in Brazil wrote: “I feel more proud of my career than ever before.”
 

One quarter of U.S. physicians considering earlier retirement

Physicians in the United States were asked what career changes, if any, they were considering in light of their experience with COVID-19. Although a little more than half (51%) said they were not planning any changes, 25% answered, “retiring earlier than previously planned,” and 12% answered, “a career change away from medicine.”

The number of physicians reporting an income drop was highest in Brazil (63% reported a drop), followed by the United States (62%), Mexico (56%), Portugal (49%), Germany (42%), France (41%), and Spain (31%). The question was not asked in the United Kingdom survey.

In the United States, the size of the drop has been substantial: 9% lost 76%-100% of their income; 14% lost 51%-75%; 28% lost 26%-50%; 33% lost 11%-25%; and 15% lost 1%-10%.

The U.S. specialists with the largest drop in income were ophthalmologists, who lost 51%, followed by allergists (46%), plastic surgeons (46%), and otolaryngologists (45%).

“I’m looking for a new profession due to economic impact,” an otolaryngologist in the United States said. “We are at risk while essentially using our private savings to keep our practice solvent.”

More than half of U.S. physicians (54%) have personally treated patients with COVID-19. Percentages were higher in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom (percentages ranged from 60%-68%).

The United States led all eight countries in treating patients with COVID-19 via telemedicine, at 26%. Germany had the lowest telemedicine percentage, at 10%.
 

Burnout intensifies

About two thirds of US physicians (64%) said that burnout had intensified during the crisis (70% of female physicians and 61% of male physicians said it had).

Many factors are feeding the burnout.

A critical care physician in the United States responded, “It is terrible to see people arriving at their rooms and assuming they were going to die soon; to see people saying goodbye to their families before dying or before being intubated.”

In all eight countries, a substantial percentage of physicians reported they “sometimes, often or always” treated patients with COVID-19 without the proper personal protective equipment. Spain had by far the largest percentage who answered that way (67%), followed by France (45%), Mexico (40%), the United Kingdom (34%), Brazil and Germany (28% each); and the United States and Portugal (23% each).

A U.S. rheumatologist wrote: “The fact that we were sent to take care of infectious patients without proper protection equipment made me feel we were betrayed in this fight.”

Sense of duty to volunteer to treat COVID-19 patients varied substantially among countries, from 69% who felt that way in Spain to 40% in Brazil. Half (50%) in the United States felt that way.

“Altruism must take second place where a real and present threat exists to my own personal existence,” one U.S. internist wrote.
 

Numbers personally infected

One fifth of physicians in Spain and the United Kingdom had personally been infected with the virus. Brazil, France, and Mexico had the next highest numbers, with 13%-15% of physicians infected; 5%-6% in the United States, Germany, and Portugal said they had been infected.

The percentage of physicians who reported that immediate family members had been infected ranged from 25% in Spain to 6% in Portugal. Among US physicians, 9% reported that family members had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

In the United States, 44% of respondents who had family living with them at home during the pandemic reported that relationships at home were more stressed because of stay-at-home guidelines and social distancing. Almost half (47%) said there had been no change, and 9% said relationships were less stressed.
 

Eating is coping mechanism of choice

Physicians were asked what they were doing more of during the pandemic, and food seemed to be the top source of comfort in all eight countries.

Loneliness reports differ across globe

Portugal had the highest percentage (51%) of physicians reporting increased loneliness. Next were Brazil (48%), the United States (46%), the United Kingdom (42%), France (41%), Spain and Mexico (40% each), and Germany (32%).

All eight countries lacked workplace activities to help physicians with grief. More than half (55%) of U.K. physicians reported having such activities available at their workplace, whereas only 25% of physicians in Germany did; 12%-24% of respondents across the countries were unsure about the offerings.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In rural counties, the absence of active labor and delivery (L&D) units is associated with a significant increase in perinatal mortality, according to a retrospective study using county-level data from the Alabama Department of Public Health.

stockce/Thinkstock

Although association does not establish causation, these data raise concern “for the current trend of diminishing L&D units that is occurring in many rural settings,” according to the authors of the study, led by John B. Waits, MD, of Cahaba Medical Care, Centreville, Ala., in Annals of Family Medicine.

When mortality per 1,000 live births was compared over a 15-year period (2003-2017) between 15 counties with and 21 counties without local L&D units, those with the units had lower overall infant mortality (9.23 vs. 7.89; P = .0011), perinatal mortality (8.89 vs. 10.82; P < .001), and neonatal mortality (4.74 vs. 5.67; P = .0034). The percentages of low-birth-weight babies born between 2003 and 2014 were 9.86% versus 10.61% (P < .001) for counties with and without L&D units, respectively.

The relative increased risks (RR) for these adverse outcomes in counties without L&D units were statistically significant and substantial, ranging from about 8% for a pregnancy resulting in a low-birth-weight infant to slightly more than 21% for perinatal mortality.

Over the study period, there were 165,525 live births in the 15 counties with L&D units and 72,177 births in the 21 counties with no such units. In counties without L&D units, the average proportion of White people was higher (73.47% vs. 60.86%), and that of African Americans was lower (22.76% vs. 36.23%). Median income ($40,759 vs. $35,604) and per capita income ($22,474 vs. $20,641) was slightly higher.

Of the 67 counties in Alabama, this study did not include those considered urbanized by the Alabama Office of Management and Budget even if classified rural by other statewide offices, such as the Alabama Rural Health Association. Any county with at least one L&D unit was considered to have a local unit. Three counties with L&D units that closed before the observation period was completed were excluded from the analysis.

The Alabama data appear to identify a major problem in need of an urgent solution, according to John S. Cullen, MD, a family physician in Valdez, Alaska, and chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Board of Directors.

“Almost 20% of U.S. women of reproductive age live in rural communities,” he said in an interview. The data from this study provides compelling evidence “that the loss of rural maternity care in this country has contributed to the increase in newborn mortality in rural communities.”

There are many limitations for this study, according to the authors. They acknowledged that they could not control for many potentially important variables, such as travel time to hospitals for those in counties with L&D units when compared with those without. They also acknowledged the lack of data regarding availability of prenatal care in places with or without L&D units.

If lack of L&D services in rural areas is a source of adverse outcomes, data suggesting that the ongoing decline in L&D units are worrisome, according to the authors. Of studies they cited, one showed nearly a 10% loss in rural L&D services in a recent 10-year period.

The authors also noted that about half of the 3,143 counties in the United States do not have a practicing obstetrician, and that fewer than 7% of obstetricians-gynecologists practice in rural settings.

In many rural counties, including the county where the lead author practices, family practitioners provide 100% of local obstetric care, but access to these clinicians also appears to be declining, according to the paper. The ratio of primary care physicians to patients is already lower in non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas (39.8 vs. 53.3). The American Board of Family Medicine has reported that fewer than 10% of family physicians now provide maternity care, the authors wrote.

“If a causal relationship does exist [between lack of L&D units and adverse perinatal outcomes], then rural populations would definitively benefit from having local access to a L&D unit,” the authors stated.

The lead author, Dr. Waits, said in an interview that there are two obstacles to an increase in rural L&D units: malpractice premiums and reimbursement for indigent deliveries. The large malpractice premiums required to cover OB care are hurdles for caregivers, such as family physicians, as well as the hospitals where they practice.

Reforms from the legislative or regulatory perspective are needed to permit malpractice insurance to be issued at a reasonable cost, according to Dr. Waits. Such reforms are a “moral imperative” so that the malpractice issue is not allowed to “shipwreck infant and maternal mortality,” he said.

Of the many potential solutions, such as increased use of telemedicine, legislative initiatives to reduce the malpractice burden, or new support and incentives for family physicians to deliver OB care, each is burdened with obstacles to overcome, according to Dr. Waits. This does not mean these solutions should not be pursued alone or together, but he made it clear that the no solution is easy. In the meantime, Dr. Waits indicated a need to consider practical and immediate strategies to fix the problem.

“There should be incentives for rural emergency departments and ambulance systems to train in the [American Academy of Family Physicians’] Basic Life Support in Obstetrics (BLSO) certification courses each year. I am not aware of any specific evidence around this, but it is a known fact that, when L&Ds close, institutional memory of OB emergencies recede, and preparedness suffers,” he said.

Dr. Cullen agreed that if the closing of L&D units explains the higher rate of perinatal mortality in rural areas, both short-term and long-term solutions are needed.

“Every community must have a plan for obstetric and newborn emergencies. The decision to not offer maternity care means that rural providers will still provide maternity care but not be ready for emergencies,” he said, echoing a point made by Dr. Waits.

The study authors disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Cullen reported having no disclosures. 

SOURCE: Waits JB et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:446-51.

In rural counties, the absence of active labor and delivery (L&D) units is associated with a significant increase in perinatal mortality, according to a retrospective study using county-level data from the Alabama Department of Public Health.

stockce/Thinkstock

Although association does not establish causation, these data raise concern “for the current trend of diminishing L&D units that is occurring in many rural settings,” according to the authors of the study, led by John B. Waits, MD, of Cahaba Medical Care, Centreville, Ala., in Annals of Family Medicine.

When mortality per 1,000 live births was compared over a 15-year period (2003-2017) between 15 counties with and 21 counties without local L&D units, those with the units had lower overall infant mortality (9.23 vs. 7.89; P = .0011), perinatal mortality (8.89 vs. 10.82; P < .001), and neonatal mortality (4.74 vs. 5.67; P = .0034). The percentages of low-birth-weight babies born between 2003 and 2014 were 9.86% versus 10.61% (P < .001) for counties with and without L&D units, respectively.

The relative increased risks (RR) for these adverse outcomes in counties without L&D units were statistically significant and substantial, ranging from about 8% for a pregnancy resulting in a low-birth-weight infant to slightly more than 21% for perinatal mortality.

Over the study period, there were 165,525 live births in the 15 counties with L&D units and 72,177 births in the 21 counties with no such units. In counties without L&D units, the average proportion of White people was higher (73.47% vs. 60.86%), and that of African Americans was lower (22.76% vs. 36.23%). Median income ($40,759 vs. $35,604) and per capita income ($22,474 vs. $20,641) was slightly higher.

Of the 67 counties in Alabama, this study did not include those considered urbanized by the Alabama Office of Management and Budget even if classified rural by other statewide offices, such as the Alabama Rural Health Association. Any county with at least one L&D unit was considered to have a local unit. Three counties with L&D units that closed before the observation period was completed were excluded from the analysis.

The Alabama data appear to identify a major problem in need of an urgent solution, according to John S. Cullen, MD, a family physician in Valdez, Alaska, and chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Board of Directors.

“Almost 20% of U.S. women of reproductive age live in rural communities,” he said in an interview. The data from this study provides compelling evidence “that the loss of rural maternity care in this country has contributed to the increase in newborn mortality in rural communities.”

There are many limitations for this study, according to the authors. They acknowledged that they could not control for many potentially important variables, such as travel time to hospitals for those in counties with L&D units when compared with those without. They also acknowledged the lack of data regarding availability of prenatal care in places with or without L&D units.

If lack of L&D services in rural areas is a source of adverse outcomes, data suggesting that the ongoing decline in L&D units are worrisome, according to the authors. Of studies they cited, one showed nearly a 10% loss in rural L&D services in a recent 10-year period.

The authors also noted that about half of the 3,143 counties in the United States do not have a practicing obstetrician, and that fewer than 7% of obstetricians-gynecologists practice in rural settings.

In many rural counties, including the county where the lead author practices, family practitioners provide 100% of local obstetric care, but access to these clinicians also appears to be declining, according to the paper. The ratio of primary care physicians to patients is already lower in non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas (39.8 vs. 53.3). The American Board of Family Medicine has reported that fewer than 10% of family physicians now provide maternity care, the authors wrote.

“If a causal relationship does exist [between lack of L&D units and adverse perinatal outcomes], then rural populations would definitively benefit from having local access to a L&D unit,” the authors stated.

The lead author, Dr. Waits, said in an interview that there are two obstacles to an increase in rural L&D units: malpractice premiums and reimbursement for indigent deliveries. The large malpractice premiums required to cover OB care are hurdles for caregivers, such as family physicians, as well as the hospitals where they practice.

Reforms from the legislative or regulatory perspective are needed to permit malpractice insurance to be issued at a reasonable cost, according to Dr. Waits. Such reforms are a “moral imperative” so that the malpractice issue is not allowed to “shipwreck infant and maternal mortality,” he said.

Of the many potential solutions, such as increased use of telemedicine, legislative initiatives to reduce the malpractice burden, or new support and incentives for family physicians to deliver OB care, each is burdened with obstacles to overcome, according to Dr. Waits. This does not mean these solutions should not be pursued alone or together, but he made it clear that the no solution is easy. In the meantime, Dr. Waits indicated a need to consider practical and immediate strategies to fix the problem.

“There should be incentives for rural emergency departments and ambulance systems to train in the [American Academy of Family Physicians’] Basic Life Support in Obstetrics (BLSO) certification courses each year. I am not aware of any specific evidence around this, but it is a known fact that, when L&Ds close, institutional memory of OB emergencies recede, and preparedness suffers,” he said.

Dr. Cullen agreed that if the closing of L&D units explains the higher rate of perinatal mortality in rural areas, both short-term and long-term solutions are needed.

“Every community must have a plan for obstetric and newborn emergencies. The decision to not offer maternity care means that rural providers will still provide maternity care but not be ready for emergencies,” he said, echoing a point made by Dr. Waits.

The study authors disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Cullen reported having no disclosures. 

SOURCE: Waits JB et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:446-51.

In rural counties, the absence of active labor and delivery (L&D) units is associated with a significant increase in perinatal mortality, according to a retrospective study using county-level data from the Alabama Department of Public Health.

stockce/Thinkstock

Although association does not establish causation, these data raise concern “for the current trend of diminishing L&D units that is occurring in many rural settings,” according to the authors of the study, led by John B. Waits, MD, of Cahaba Medical Care, Centreville, Ala., in Annals of Family Medicine.

When mortality per 1,000 live births was compared over a 15-year period (2003-2017) between 15 counties with and 21 counties without local L&D units, those with the units had lower overall infant mortality (9.23 vs. 7.89; P = .0011), perinatal mortality (8.89 vs. 10.82; P < .001), and neonatal mortality (4.74 vs. 5.67; P = .0034). The percentages of low-birth-weight babies born between 2003 and 2014 were 9.86% versus 10.61% (P < .001) for counties with and without L&D units, respectively.

The relative increased risks (RR) for these adverse outcomes in counties without L&D units were statistically significant and substantial, ranging from about 8% for a pregnancy resulting in a low-birth-weight infant to slightly more than 21% for perinatal mortality.

Over the study period, there were 165,525 live births in the 15 counties with L&D units and 72,177 births in the 21 counties with no such units. In counties without L&D units, the average proportion of White people was higher (73.47% vs. 60.86%), and that of African Americans was lower (22.76% vs. 36.23%). Median income ($40,759 vs. $35,604) and per capita income ($22,474 vs. $20,641) was slightly higher.

Of the 67 counties in Alabama, this study did not include those considered urbanized by the Alabama Office of Management and Budget even if classified rural by other statewide offices, such as the Alabama Rural Health Association. Any county with at least one L&D unit was considered to have a local unit. Three counties with L&D units that closed before the observation period was completed were excluded from the analysis.

The Alabama data appear to identify a major problem in need of an urgent solution, according to John S. Cullen, MD, a family physician in Valdez, Alaska, and chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Board of Directors.

“Almost 20% of U.S. women of reproductive age live in rural communities,” he said in an interview. The data from this study provides compelling evidence “that the loss of rural maternity care in this country has contributed to the increase in newborn mortality in rural communities.”

There are many limitations for this study, according to the authors. They acknowledged that they could not control for many potentially important variables, such as travel time to hospitals for those in counties with L&D units when compared with those without. They also acknowledged the lack of data regarding availability of prenatal care in places with or without L&D units.

If lack of L&D services in rural areas is a source of adverse outcomes, data suggesting that the ongoing decline in L&D units are worrisome, according to the authors. Of studies they cited, one showed nearly a 10% loss in rural L&D services in a recent 10-year period.

The authors also noted that about half of the 3,143 counties in the United States do not have a practicing obstetrician, and that fewer than 7% of obstetricians-gynecologists practice in rural settings.

In many rural counties, including the county where the lead author practices, family practitioners provide 100% of local obstetric care, but access to these clinicians also appears to be declining, according to the paper. The ratio of primary care physicians to patients is already lower in non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas (39.8 vs. 53.3). The American Board of Family Medicine has reported that fewer than 10% of family physicians now provide maternity care, the authors wrote.

“If a causal relationship does exist [between lack of L&D units and adverse perinatal outcomes], then rural populations would definitively benefit from having local access to a L&D unit,” the authors stated.

The lead author, Dr. Waits, said in an interview that there are two obstacles to an increase in rural L&D units: malpractice premiums and reimbursement for indigent deliveries. The large malpractice premiums required to cover OB care are hurdles for caregivers, such as family physicians, as well as the hospitals where they practice.

Reforms from the legislative or regulatory perspective are needed to permit malpractice insurance to be issued at a reasonable cost, according to Dr. Waits. Such reforms are a “moral imperative” so that the malpractice issue is not allowed to “shipwreck infant and maternal mortality,” he said.

Of the many potential solutions, such as increased use of telemedicine, legislative initiatives to reduce the malpractice burden, or new support and incentives for family physicians to deliver OB care, each is burdened with obstacles to overcome, according to Dr. Waits. This does not mean these solutions should not be pursued alone or together, but he made it clear that the no solution is easy. In the meantime, Dr. Waits indicated a need to consider practical and immediate strategies to fix the problem.

“There should be incentives for rural emergency departments and ambulance systems to train in the [American Academy of Family Physicians’] Basic Life Support in Obstetrics (BLSO) certification courses each year. I am not aware of any specific evidence around this, but it is a known fact that, when L&Ds close, institutional memory of OB emergencies recede, and preparedness suffers,” he said.

Dr. Cullen agreed that if the closing of L&D units explains the higher rate of perinatal mortality in rural areas, both short-term and long-term solutions are needed.

“Every community must have a plan for obstetric and newborn emergencies. The decision to not offer maternity care means that rural providers will still provide maternity care but not be ready for emergencies,” he said, echoing a point made by Dr. Waits.

The study authors disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Cullen reported having no disclosures. 

SOURCE: Waits JB et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:446-51.

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I have been studying, writing about, and treating posttraumatic stress disorder for many years. Over this time, I have seen PTSD expand to more and more areas of life, including my own view of a “subthreshold” version, which occurs in vulnerable people who experience a job loss, divorce, financial setbacks, or any number of painful life events.

As I noted in my recent book, “Find Freedom Fast,” for some people, PTSD can be triggered in the wake of events that are not life-threatening yet catastrophic for them and not tied to manmade or natural disasters, torture, assault, or war zone experiences.

The expansion of PTSD has led to the disorder being recognized in ICU patients during and after recovery (Crit Care Med. 2015 May;43[5]:1121-9), as well as in people diagnosed with cancer (Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;4[4]:330-8) and other illnesses that may cause emotional trauma – where one feels that one’s life is threatened. In some instances, the person’s life might indeed be in danger, not unlike what can happen in disasters, wars, torture, and even in some encounters with law enforcement.

This leads me to yet another circumstance that in some, may be tied to PTSD – and that is racial, religious, ethnic, and gender-related bigotry. In these cases, individuals feel threatened just for who they are in a society. Being on the receiving end of a circumstance that threatens a person’s very existence would seem to me to place a person as a potential survivor of PTSD, as well as any number of disorders, including anxiety, depression, or even paranoia.

Yes, discrimination and prejudice have been with us for a long time, and what concerns me is the psychological effect it has on children as well as adults. Friends of Irish descent remind me of hearing stories from parents and grandparents about employment signs reading, “Irish need not apply.” Certainly, those of Italian ancestry will easily recall the prejudice focused against them. And members of the Jewish community also can easily remember the bigotry and exclusion they have been subject to in certain neighborhoods and organizations, in addition to the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II, and the anti-Semitic chants in Charlottesville, Va., from just 3 years ago – with gun-carrying militants doing the chanting.

Obviously, in certain circles, we still have private clubs, plus neighborhoods and residential buildings that exclude people for a variety of reasons.

Coming from a medical family, years ago I heard stories that, if you were Roman Catholic, it would be hard to get into certain medical schools – which might explain the establishment of Catholic medical schools that often were open to people of other faiths. Then we had medical school discrimination toward Jewish students, which was followed by the establishment of medical schools focused on admitting more Jewish students. The African American community also responded to discrimination by establishing medical schools, such as the school at Howard University in Washington.

Furthermore, we cannot forget the discrimination that women faced in institutions of higher learning. My father had two women in his medical school class, I was told. In my era, I would say at least 30% were women, and today, in the United States, medical school classes are more equally balanced with men and women. Some schools have more women than men.

The question I ask, is: How did all those women feel for so many years knowing that, for reasons beyond their control, they were prevented from achieving their chosen goals? Some might have felt badly, and others might have internalized the rejection. Others might have developed PTSD based on feelings of rejection.

However, the question here mainly is: Can PTSD result when exclusion and prejudice induce fear and terror in those on the receiving end – especially innocent children? Children separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border and those who witness their parents being shot immediately come to mind. This trauma can last well beyond childhood.

What we know today about structural racism should give the mental health community pause and make us realize the extent to which the African American community has been traumatized. Perhaps we should not be surprised by a study that found that the prevalence of PTSD among African Americans is 9.1%, compared with 6.8% for Whites (J Anxiety Dis. 2009 Jun;23[5]:573-90). Speaking with Black colleagues, friends, and patients, reading books such “The Warmth of Other Suns,” and watching films such as “Green Book,” give us a sense of how dangerous it was for Black families to travel in certain parts of the country in the recent past. I recall as a child hearing that, in Miami Beach, people of color could not stay overnight. (Even as a child I was surprised – having never heard anything like that. After all, I went to school with people of many religions and backgrounds. My parents thought those practices were terrible, and were appalled when they learned that some hotels were closed to Jews and others closed to Catholics.)
 

DSM-5, ICD-10 fall short

The DSM-5 describes trauma using a more or less one-dimensional set of guidelines as the focus. Those guidelines include exposure to direct violence, manmade or natural disasters, war, or torture, as well as exposure to a disaster or a life-threatening situation affecting a loved one. The ICD-10 is less restrictive about trauma but still has some limitations.

While considering potential PTSD, I try to use a less rigid diagnostic multidimensional approach, where I assess individual differences and experiences that play a role in those experiences as well as the patient’s vulnerability to the causation of PTSD – which also has to include any exposure to trauma (Curr Opin Psychol. 2017 Apr;14:29-34) before age 11 or 12. The data suggest that such early exposure leaves people more vulnerable to PTSD as adults (Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:230-40).

In my view, if individuals are frightened because of who they are – be it tied to their religion, race, sexual identity, or ethnicity – and what harm may come to them, and if they live in fear and avoidance of these potential traumatic situations that affect their mental stability and the way they live their lives, they might fit the PTSD model.

If we clinicians focus on what’s currently being brought vividly into the public eye today regarding the African American community, we would see that some of the ongoing fears of racism – whether tied to residential or workplace discrimination, unfair treatment by figures of authority, harassment, health inequities, or microaggressions – may give rise to PTSD. I know we can do better. We should broaden our definition and awareness of this very serious disorder – and be prepared to treat it.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

I have been studying, writing about, and treating posttraumatic stress disorder for many years. Over this time, I have seen PTSD expand to more and more areas of life, including my own view of a “subthreshold” version, which occurs in vulnerable people who experience a job loss, divorce, financial setbacks, or any number of painful life events.

As I noted in my recent book, “Find Freedom Fast,” for some people, PTSD can be triggered in the wake of events that are not life-threatening yet catastrophic for them and not tied to manmade or natural disasters, torture, assault, or war zone experiences.

The expansion of PTSD has led to the disorder being recognized in ICU patients during and after recovery (Crit Care Med. 2015 May;43[5]:1121-9), as well as in people diagnosed with cancer (Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;4[4]:330-8) and other illnesses that may cause emotional trauma – where one feels that one’s life is threatened. In some instances, the person’s life might indeed be in danger, not unlike what can happen in disasters, wars, torture, and even in some encounters with law enforcement.

This leads me to yet another circumstance that in some, may be tied to PTSD – and that is racial, religious, ethnic, and gender-related bigotry. In these cases, individuals feel threatened just for who they are in a society. Being on the receiving end of a circumstance that threatens a person’s very existence would seem to me to place a person as a potential survivor of PTSD, as well as any number of disorders, including anxiety, depression, or even paranoia.

Yes, discrimination and prejudice have been with us for a long time, and what concerns me is the psychological effect it has on children as well as adults. Friends of Irish descent remind me of hearing stories from parents and grandparents about employment signs reading, “Irish need not apply.” Certainly, those of Italian ancestry will easily recall the prejudice focused against them. And members of the Jewish community also can easily remember the bigotry and exclusion they have been subject to in certain neighborhoods and organizations, in addition to the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II, and the anti-Semitic chants in Charlottesville, Va., from just 3 years ago – with gun-carrying militants doing the chanting.

Obviously, in certain circles, we still have private clubs, plus neighborhoods and residential buildings that exclude people for a variety of reasons.

Coming from a medical family, years ago I heard stories that, if you were Roman Catholic, it would be hard to get into certain medical schools – which might explain the establishment of Catholic medical schools that often were open to people of other faiths. Then we had medical school discrimination toward Jewish students, which was followed by the establishment of medical schools focused on admitting more Jewish students. The African American community also responded to discrimination by establishing medical schools, such as the school at Howard University in Washington.

Furthermore, we cannot forget the discrimination that women faced in institutions of higher learning. My father had two women in his medical school class, I was told. In my era, I would say at least 30% were women, and today, in the United States, medical school classes are more equally balanced with men and women. Some schools have more women than men.

The question I ask, is: How did all those women feel for so many years knowing that, for reasons beyond their control, they were prevented from achieving their chosen goals? Some might have felt badly, and others might have internalized the rejection. Others might have developed PTSD based on feelings of rejection.

However, the question here mainly is: Can PTSD result when exclusion and prejudice induce fear and terror in those on the receiving end – especially innocent children? Children separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border and those who witness their parents being shot immediately come to mind. This trauma can last well beyond childhood.

What we know today about structural racism should give the mental health community pause and make us realize the extent to which the African American community has been traumatized. Perhaps we should not be surprised by a study that found that the prevalence of PTSD among African Americans is 9.1%, compared with 6.8% for Whites (J Anxiety Dis. 2009 Jun;23[5]:573-90). Speaking with Black colleagues, friends, and patients, reading books such “The Warmth of Other Suns,” and watching films such as “Green Book,” give us a sense of how dangerous it was for Black families to travel in certain parts of the country in the recent past. I recall as a child hearing that, in Miami Beach, people of color could not stay overnight. (Even as a child I was surprised – having never heard anything like that. After all, I went to school with people of many religions and backgrounds. My parents thought those practices were terrible, and were appalled when they learned that some hotels were closed to Jews and others closed to Catholics.)
 

DSM-5, ICD-10 fall short

The DSM-5 describes trauma using a more or less one-dimensional set of guidelines as the focus. Those guidelines include exposure to direct violence, manmade or natural disasters, war, or torture, as well as exposure to a disaster or a life-threatening situation affecting a loved one. The ICD-10 is less restrictive about trauma but still has some limitations.

While considering potential PTSD, I try to use a less rigid diagnostic multidimensional approach, where I assess individual differences and experiences that play a role in those experiences as well as the patient’s vulnerability to the causation of PTSD – which also has to include any exposure to trauma (Curr Opin Psychol. 2017 Apr;14:29-34) before age 11 or 12. The data suggest that such early exposure leaves people more vulnerable to PTSD as adults (Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:230-40).

In my view, if individuals are frightened because of who they are – be it tied to their religion, race, sexual identity, or ethnicity – and what harm may come to them, and if they live in fear and avoidance of these potential traumatic situations that affect their mental stability and the way they live their lives, they might fit the PTSD model.

If we clinicians focus on what’s currently being brought vividly into the public eye today regarding the African American community, we would see that some of the ongoing fears of racism – whether tied to residential or workplace discrimination, unfair treatment by figures of authority, harassment, health inequities, or microaggressions – may give rise to PTSD. I know we can do better. We should broaden our definition and awareness of this very serious disorder – and be prepared to treat it.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

I have been studying, writing about, and treating posttraumatic stress disorder for many years. Over this time, I have seen PTSD expand to more and more areas of life, including my own view of a “subthreshold” version, which occurs in vulnerable people who experience a job loss, divorce, financial setbacks, or any number of painful life events.

As I noted in my recent book, “Find Freedom Fast,” for some people, PTSD can be triggered in the wake of events that are not life-threatening yet catastrophic for them and not tied to manmade or natural disasters, torture, assault, or war zone experiences.

The expansion of PTSD has led to the disorder being recognized in ICU patients during and after recovery (Crit Care Med. 2015 May;43[5]:1121-9), as well as in people diagnosed with cancer (Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;4[4]:330-8) and other illnesses that may cause emotional trauma – where one feels that one’s life is threatened. In some instances, the person’s life might indeed be in danger, not unlike what can happen in disasters, wars, torture, and even in some encounters with law enforcement.

This leads me to yet another circumstance that in some, may be tied to PTSD – and that is racial, religious, ethnic, and gender-related bigotry. In these cases, individuals feel threatened just for who they are in a society. Being on the receiving end of a circumstance that threatens a person’s very existence would seem to me to place a person as a potential survivor of PTSD, as well as any number of disorders, including anxiety, depression, or even paranoia.

Yes, discrimination and prejudice have been with us for a long time, and what concerns me is the psychological effect it has on children as well as adults. Friends of Irish descent remind me of hearing stories from parents and grandparents about employment signs reading, “Irish need not apply.” Certainly, those of Italian ancestry will easily recall the prejudice focused against them. And members of the Jewish community also can easily remember the bigotry and exclusion they have been subject to in certain neighborhoods and organizations, in addition to the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II, and the anti-Semitic chants in Charlottesville, Va., from just 3 years ago – with gun-carrying militants doing the chanting.

Obviously, in certain circles, we still have private clubs, plus neighborhoods and residential buildings that exclude people for a variety of reasons.

Coming from a medical family, years ago I heard stories that, if you were Roman Catholic, it would be hard to get into certain medical schools – which might explain the establishment of Catholic medical schools that often were open to people of other faiths. Then we had medical school discrimination toward Jewish students, which was followed by the establishment of medical schools focused on admitting more Jewish students. The African American community also responded to discrimination by establishing medical schools, such as the school at Howard University in Washington.

Furthermore, we cannot forget the discrimination that women faced in institutions of higher learning. My father had two women in his medical school class, I was told. In my era, I would say at least 30% were women, and today, in the United States, medical school classes are more equally balanced with men and women. Some schools have more women than men.

The question I ask, is: How did all those women feel for so many years knowing that, for reasons beyond their control, they were prevented from achieving their chosen goals? Some might have felt badly, and others might have internalized the rejection. Others might have developed PTSD based on feelings of rejection.

However, the question here mainly is: Can PTSD result when exclusion and prejudice induce fear and terror in those on the receiving end – especially innocent children? Children separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border and those who witness their parents being shot immediately come to mind. This trauma can last well beyond childhood.

What we know today about structural racism should give the mental health community pause and make us realize the extent to which the African American community has been traumatized. Perhaps we should not be surprised by a study that found that the prevalence of PTSD among African Americans is 9.1%, compared with 6.8% for Whites (J Anxiety Dis. 2009 Jun;23[5]:573-90). Speaking with Black colleagues, friends, and patients, reading books such “The Warmth of Other Suns,” and watching films such as “Green Book,” give us a sense of how dangerous it was for Black families to travel in certain parts of the country in the recent past. I recall as a child hearing that, in Miami Beach, people of color could not stay overnight. (Even as a child I was surprised – having never heard anything like that. After all, I went to school with people of many religions and backgrounds. My parents thought those practices were terrible, and were appalled when they learned that some hotels were closed to Jews and others closed to Catholics.)
 

DSM-5, ICD-10 fall short

The DSM-5 describes trauma using a more or less one-dimensional set of guidelines as the focus. Those guidelines include exposure to direct violence, manmade or natural disasters, war, or torture, as well as exposure to a disaster or a life-threatening situation affecting a loved one. The ICD-10 is less restrictive about trauma but still has some limitations.

While considering potential PTSD, I try to use a less rigid diagnostic multidimensional approach, where I assess individual differences and experiences that play a role in those experiences as well as the patient’s vulnerability to the causation of PTSD – which also has to include any exposure to trauma (Curr Opin Psychol. 2017 Apr;14:29-34) before age 11 or 12. The data suggest that such early exposure leaves people more vulnerable to PTSD as adults (Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:230-40).

In my view, if individuals are frightened because of who they are – be it tied to their religion, race, sexual identity, or ethnicity – and what harm may come to them, and if they live in fear and avoidance of these potential traumatic situations that affect their mental stability and the way they live their lives, they might fit the PTSD model.

If we clinicians focus on what’s currently being brought vividly into the public eye today regarding the African American community, we would see that some of the ongoing fears of racism – whether tied to residential or workplace discrimination, unfair treatment by figures of authority, harassment, health inequities, or microaggressions – may give rise to PTSD. I know we can do better. We should broaden our definition and awareness of this very serious disorder – and be prepared to treat it.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

For children with COVID-19, rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and ventilator use were similar to those of children with influenza, but rates differed in other respects, according to results of a study published online Sept. 11 in JAMA Network Open.

As winter approaches, distinguishing patients with COVID-19 from those with influenza will become a problem. To assist with that, Xiaoyan Song, PhD, director of the office of infection control and epidemiology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and colleagues investigated commonalities and differences between the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and influenza in children.

“Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu and other respiratory viral infections remains a challenge to clinicians. Although our study showed that patients with COVID-19 were more likely than patients with flu to report fever, gastrointestinal, and other clinical symptoms at the time of diagnosis, the two groups do have many overlapping clinical symptoms,” Dr. Song said. “Until future data show us otherwise, clinicians need to prepare for managing coinfections of COVID-19 with flu and/or other respiratory viral infections in the upcoming flu season.”

The retrospective cohort study included 315 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 25 and May 15, 2020, and 1,402 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed seasonal influenza A or influenza B between Oct. 1, 2019, and June 6, 2020, at Children’s National Hospital. The investigation excluded asymptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 and patients with influenza were similar with respect to rates of hospitalization (17% vs. 21%; odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.1; P = .15), admission to the ICU (6% vs. 7%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .42), and use of mechanical ventilation (3% vs. 2%; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.6; P =.17).

The difference in the duration of ventilation for the two groups was not statistically significant. None of the patients who had COVID-19 or influenza B died, but two patients with influenza A did.

No patients had coinfections, which the researchers attribute to the mid-March shutdown of many schools, which they believe limited the spread of seasonal influenza.

Patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were older (median age, 9.7 years; range, 0.06-23.2 years) than those hospitalized with either type of influenza (median age, 4.2 years; range, 0.04-23.1). Patients older than 15 years made up 37% of patients with COVID-19 but only 6% of those with influenza.

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 65% had at least one underlying medical condition, compared with 42% of those hospitalized for either type of influenza (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.7; P = .002).

The most common underlying condition was neurologic problems from global developmental delay or seizures, identified in 11 patients (20%) hospitalized with COVID-19 and in 24 patients (8%) hospitalized with influenza (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.2; P = .002). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to a history of asthma, cardiac disease, hematologic disease, and cancer.

For both groups, fever and cough were the most frequently reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis. However, more patients hospitalized with COVID-19 reported fever (76% vs. 55%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = 01), diarrhea or vomiting (26% vs. 12%; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0; P = .01), headache (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01), myalgia (22% vs. 7%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.8-8.5; P = .001), or chest pain (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01).

The researchers found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in rates of cough, congestion, sore throat, or shortness of breath.

Comparison of the symptom spectrum between COVID-19 and flu differed with respect to influenza type. More patients with COVID-19 reported fever, cough, diarrhea and vomiting, and myalgia than patients hospitalized with influenza A. But rates of fever, cough, diarrhea or vomiting, headache, or chest pain didn’t differ significantly in patients with COVID-19 and those with influenza B.

Larry K. Kociolek, MD, medical director of infection prevention and control at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, noted the lower age of patients with flu. “Differentiating the two infections, which is difficult if not impossible based on symptoms alone, may have prognostic implications, depending on the age of the child. Because this study was performed outside peak influenza season, when coinfections would be less likely to occur, we must be vigilant about the potential clinical implications of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection this fall and winter.”

Clinicians will still have to use a combination of symptoms, examinations, and testing to distinguish the two diseases, said Aimee Sznewajs, MD, medical director of the pediatric hospital medicine department at Children’s Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We will continue to test for influenza and COVID-19 prior to hospitalizations and make decisions about whether to hospitalize based on other clinical factors, such as dehydration, oxygen requirement, and vital sign changes.”

Dr. Sznewajs stressed the importance of maintaining public health strategies, including “ensuring all children get the flu vaccine, encouraging mask wearing and hand hygiene, adequate testing to determine which virus is present, and other mitigation measures if the prevalence of COVID-19 is increasing in the community.”

Dr. Song reiterated those points, noting that clinicians need to make the most of the options they have. “Clinicians already have many great tools on hand. It is extremely important to get the flu vaccine now, especially for kids with underlying medical conditions. Diagnostic tests are available for both COVID-19 and flu. Antiviral treatment for flu is available. Judicious use of these tools will protect the health of providers, kids, and well-being at large.”

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including its retrospective design, that the data came from a single center, and that different platforms were used to detect the viruses.

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

For children with COVID-19, rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and ventilator use were similar to those of children with influenza, but rates differed in other respects, according to results of a study published online Sept. 11 in JAMA Network Open.

As winter approaches, distinguishing patients with COVID-19 from those with influenza will become a problem. To assist with that, Xiaoyan Song, PhD, director of the office of infection control and epidemiology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and colleagues investigated commonalities and differences between the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and influenza in children.

“Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu and other respiratory viral infections remains a challenge to clinicians. Although our study showed that patients with COVID-19 were more likely than patients with flu to report fever, gastrointestinal, and other clinical symptoms at the time of diagnosis, the two groups do have many overlapping clinical symptoms,” Dr. Song said. “Until future data show us otherwise, clinicians need to prepare for managing coinfections of COVID-19 with flu and/or other respiratory viral infections in the upcoming flu season.”

The retrospective cohort study included 315 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 25 and May 15, 2020, and 1,402 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed seasonal influenza A or influenza B between Oct. 1, 2019, and June 6, 2020, at Children’s National Hospital. The investigation excluded asymptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 and patients with influenza were similar with respect to rates of hospitalization (17% vs. 21%; odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.1; P = .15), admission to the ICU (6% vs. 7%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .42), and use of mechanical ventilation (3% vs. 2%; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.6; P =.17).

The difference in the duration of ventilation for the two groups was not statistically significant. None of the patients who had COVID-19 or influenza B died, but two patients with influenza A did.

No patients had coinfections, which the researchers attribute to the mid-March shutdown of many schools, which they believe limited the spread of seasonal influenza.

Patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were older (median age, 9.7 years; range, 0.06-23.2 years) than those hospitalized with either type of influenza (median age, 4.2 years; range, 0.04-23.1). Patients older than 15 years made up 37% of patients with COVID-19 but only 6% of those with influenza.

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 65% had at least one underlying medical condition, compared with 42% of those hospitalized for either type of influenza (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.7; P = .002).

The most common underlying condition was neurologic problems from global developmental delay or seizures, identified in 11 patients (20%) hospitalized with COVID-19 and in 24 patients (8%) hospitalized with influenza (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.2; P = .002). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to a history of asthma, cardiac disease, hematologic disease, and cancer.

For both groups, fever and cough were the most frequently reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis. However, more patients hospitalized with COVID-19 reported fever (76% vs. 55%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = 01), diarrhea or vomiting (26% vs. 12%; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0; P = .01), headache (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01), myalgia (22% vs. 7%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.8-8.5; P = .001), or chest pain (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01).

The researchers found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in rates of cough, congestion, sore throat, or shortness of breath.

Comparison of the symptom spectrum between COVID-19 and flu differed with respect to influenza type. More patients with COVID-19 reported fever, cough, diarrhea and vomiting, and myalgia than patients hospitalized with influenza A. But rates of fever, cough, diarrhea or vomiting, headache, or chest pain didn’t differ significantly in patients with COVID-19 and those with influenza B.

Larry K. Kociolek, MD, medical director of infection prevention and control at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, noted the lower age of patients with flu. “Differentiating the two infections, which is difficult if not impossible based on symptoms alone, may have prognostic implications, depending on the age of the child. Because this study was performed outside peak influenza season, when coinfections would be less likely to occur, we must be vigilant about the potential clinical implications of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection this fall and winter.”

Clinicians will still have to use a combination of symptoms, examinations, and testing to distinguish the two diseases, said Aimee Sznewajs, MD, medical director of the pediatric hospital medicine department at Children’s Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We will continue to test for influenza and COVID-19 prior to hospitalizations and make decisions about whether to hospitalize based on other clinical factors, such as dehydration, oxygen requirement, and vital sign changes.”

Dr. Sznewajs stressed the importance of maintaining public health strategies, including “ensuring all children get the flu vaccine, encouraging mask wearing and hand hygiene, adequate testing to determine which virus is present, and other mitigation measures if the prevalence of COVID-19 is increasing in the community.”

Dr. Song reiterated those points, noting that clinicians need to make the most of the options they have. “Clinicians already have many great tools on hand. It is extremely important to get the flu vaccine now, especially for kids with underlying medical conditions. Diagnostic tests are available for both COVID-19 and flu. Antiviral treatment for flu is available. Judicious use of these tools will protect the health of providers, kids, and well-being at large.”

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including its retrospective design, that the data came from a single center, and that different platforms were used to detect the viruses.

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

For children with COVID-19, rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and ventilator use were similar to those of children with influenza, but rates differed in other respects, according to results of a study published online Sept. 11 in JAMA Network Open.

As winter approaches, distinguishing patients with COVID-19 from those with influenza will become a problem. To assist with that, Xiaoyan Song, PhD, director of the office of infection control and epidemiology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and colleagues investigated commonalities and differences between the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and influenza in children.

“Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu and other respiratory viral infections remains a challenge to clinicians. Although our study showed that patients with COVID-19 were more likely than patients with flu to report fever, gastrointestinal, and other clinical symptoms at the time of diagnosis, the two groups do have many overlapping clinical symptoms,” Dr. Song said. “Until future data show us otherwise, clinicians need to prepare for managing coinfections of COVID-19 with flu and/or other respiratory viral infections in the upcoming flu season.”

The retrospective cohort study included 315 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 25 and May 15, 2020, and 1,402 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed seasonal influenza A or influenza B between Oct. 1, 2019, and June 6, 2020, at Children’s National Hospital. The investigation excluded asymptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 and patients with influenza were similar with respect to rates of hospitalization (17% vs. 21%; odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.1; P = .15), admission to the ICU (6% vs. 7%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .42), and use of mechanical ventilation (3% vs. 2%; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.6; P =.17).

The difference in the duration of ventilation for the two groups was not statistically significant. None of the patients who had COVID-19 or influenza B died, but two patients with influenza A did.

No patients had coinfections, which the researchers attribute to the mid-March shutdown of many schools, which they believe limited the spread of seasonal influenza.

Patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were older (median age, 9.7 years; range, 0.06-23.2 years) than those hospitalized with either type of influenza (median age, 4.2 years; range, 0.04-23.1). Patients older than 15 years made up 37% of patients with COVID-19 but only 6% of those with influenza.

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 65% had at least one underlying medical condition, compared with 42% of those hospitalized for either type of influenza (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.7; P = .002).

The most common underlying condition was neurologic problems from global developmental delay or seizures, identified in 11 patients (20%) hospitalized with COVID-19 and in 24 patients (8%) hospitalized with influenza (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.2; P = .002). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to a history of asthma, cardiac disease, hematologic disease, and cancer.

For both groups, fever and cough were the most frequently reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis. However, more patients hospitalized with COVID-19 reported fever (76% vs. 55%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = 01), diarrhea or vomiting (26% vs. 12%; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0; P = .01), headache (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01), myalgia (22% vs. 7%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.8-8.5; P = .001), or chest pain (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01).

The researchers found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in rates of cough, congestion, sore throat, or shortness of breath.

Comparison of the symptom spectrum between COVID-19 and flu differed with respect to influenza type. More patients with COVID-19 reported fever, cough, diarrhea and vomiting, and myalgia than patients hospitalized with influenza A. But rates of fever, cough, diarrhea or vomiting, headache, or chest pain didn’t differ significantly in patients with COVID-19 and those with influenza B.

Larry K. Kociolek, MD, medical director of infection prevention and control at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, noted the lower age of patients with flu. “Differentiating the two infections, which is difficult if not impossible based on symptoms alone, may have prognostic implications, depending on the age of the child. Because this study was performed outside peak influenza season, when coinfections would be less likely to occur, we must be vigilant about the potential clinical implications of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection this fall and winter.”

Clinicians will still have to use a combination of symptoms, examinations, and testing to distinguish the two diseases, said Aimee Sznewajs, MD, medical director of the pediatric hospital medicine department at Children’s Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We will continue to test for influenza and COVID-19 prior to hospitalizations and make decisions about whether to hospitalize based on other clinical factors, such as dehydration, oxygen requirement, and vital sign changes.”

Dr. Sznewajs stressed the importance of maintaining public health strategies, including “ensuring all children get the flu vaccine, encouraging mask wearing and hand hygiene, adequate testing to determine which virus is present, and other mitigation measures if the prevalence of COVID-19 is increasing in the community.”

Dr. Song reiterated those points, noting that clinicians need to make the most of the options they have. “Clinicians already have many great tools on hand. It is extremely important to get the flu vaccine now, especially for kids with underlying medical conditions. Diagnostic tests are available for both COVID-19 and flu. Antiviral treatment for flu is available. Judicious use of these tools will protect the health of providers, kids, and well-being at large.”

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including its retrospective design, that the data came from a single center, and that different platforms were used to detect the viruses.

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

Conventional chest x-rays combined with artificial intelligence (AI) can identify lung damage from COVID-19 and differentiate coronavirus patients from other patients, improving triage efforts, new research suggests.

The AI tool – developed by Jason Fleischer, PhD, and graduate student Mohammad Tariqul Islam, both from Princeton (N.J.) University – can distinguish COVID-19 patients from those with pneumonia or normal lung tissue with an accuracy of more than 95%.

“We were able to separate the COVID-19 patients with very high fidelity,” Dr. Fleischer said in an interview. “If you give me an x-ray now, I can say with very high confidence whether a patient has COVID-19.”

The diagnostic tool pinpoints patterns on x-ray images that are too subtle for even trained experts to notice. The precision of CT scanning is similar to that of the AI tool, but CT costs much more and has other disadvantages, said Dr. Fleischer, who presented his findings at the virtual European Respiratory Society International Congress 2020.

“CT is more expensive and uses higher doses of radiation,” he said. “Another big thing is that not everyone has tomography facilities – including a lot of rural places and developing countries – so you need something that’s on the spot.”

With machine learning, Dr. Fleischer analyzed 2,300 x-ray images: 1,018 “normal” images from patients who had neither pneumonia nor COVID-19, 1,011 from patients with pneumonia, and 271 from patients with COVID-19.

The AI tool uses a neural network to refine the number and type of lung features being tracked. A UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) clustering algorithm then looks for similarities and differences in those images, he explained.

“We, as users, knew which type each x-ray was – normal, pneumonia positive, or COVID-19 positive – but the network did not,” he added.

Clinicians have observed two basic types of lung problems in COVID-19 patients: pneumonia that fills lung air sacs with fluid and dangerously low blood-oxygen levels despite nearly normal breathing patterns. Because treatment can vary according to type, it would be beneficial to quickly distinguish between them, Dr. Fleischer said.

The AI tool showed that there is a distinct difference in chest x-rays from pneumonia-positive patients and healthy people, he said. It also demonstrated two distinct clusters of COVID-19–positive chest x-rays: those that looked like pneumonia and those with a more normal presentation.

The fact that “the AI system recognizes something unique in chest x-rays from COVID-19–positive patients” indicates that the computer is able to identify visual markers for coronavirus, he explained. “We currently do not know what these markers are.”

Dr. Fleischer said his goal is not to replace physician decision-making, but to supplement it.

“I’m uncomfortable with having computers make the final decision,” he said. “They often have a narrow focus, whereas doctors have the big picture in mind.”

This AI tool is “very interesting,” especially in the context of expanding AI applications in various specialties, said Thierry Fumeaux, MD, from Nyon (Switzerland) Hospital. Some physicians currently disagree on whether a chest x-ray or CT scan is the better tool to help diagnose COVID-19.

“It seems better than the human eye and brain” to pinpoint COVID-19 lung damage, “so it’s very attractive as a technology,” Dr. Fumeaux said in an interview.

And AI can be used to supplement the efforts of busy and fatigued clinicians who might be stretched thin by large caseloads. “I cannot read 200 chest x-rays in a day, but a computer can do that in 2 minutes,” he said.

But Dr. Fumeaux offered a caveat: “Pattern recognition is promising, but at the moment I’m not aware of papers showing that, by using AI, you’re changing anything in the outcome of a patient.”

Ideally, Dr. Fleischer said he hopes that AI will soon be able to accurately indicate which treatments are most effective for individual COVID-19 patients. And the technology might eventually be used to help with treatment decisions for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

But he needs more data before results indicate whether a COVID-19 patient would benefit from ventilator support, for example, and the tool can be used more widely. To contribute data or collaborate with Dr. Fleischer’s efforts, contact him.

“Machine learning is all about data, so you can find these correlations,” he said. “It would be nice to be able to use it to reassure a worried patient that their prognosis is good; to say that most of the people with symptoms like yours will be just fine.”

Dr. Fleischer and Dr. Fumeaux have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Conventional chest x-rays combined with artificial intelligence (AI) can identify lung damage from COVID-19 and differentiate coronavirus patients from other patients, improving triage efforts, new research suggests.

The AI tool – developed by Jason Fleischer, PhD, and graduate student Mohammad Tariqul Islam, both from Princeton (N.J.) University – can distinguish COVID-19 patients from those with pneumonia or normal lung tissue with an accuracy of more than 95%.

“We were able to separate the COVID-19 patients with very high fidelity,” Dr. Fleischer said in an interview. “If you give me an x-ray now, I can say with very high confidence whether a patient has COVID-19.”

The diagnostic tool pinpoints patterns on x-ray images that are too subtle for even trained experts to notice. The precision of CT scanning is similar to that of the AI tool, but CT costs much more and has other disadvantages, said Dr. Fleischer, who presented his findings at the virtual European Respiratory Society International Congress 2020.

“CT is more expensive and uses higher doses of radiation,” he said. “Another big thing is that not everyone has tomography facilities – including a lot of rural places and developing countries – so you need something that’s on the spot.”

With machine learning, Dr. Fleischer analyzed 2,300 x-ray images: 1,018 “normal” images from patients who had neither pneumonia nor COVID-19, 1,011 from patients with pneumonia, and 271 from patients with COVID-19.

The AI tool uses a neural network to refine the number and type of lung features being tracked. A UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) clustering algorithm then looks for similarities and differences in those images, he explained.

“We, as users, knew which type each x-ray was – normal, pneumonia positive, or COVID-19 positive – but the network did not,” he added.

Clinicians have observed two basic types of lung problems in COVID-19 patients: pneumonia that fills lung air sacs with fluid and dangerously low blood-oxygen levels despite nearly normal breathing patterns. Because treatment can vary according to type, it would be beneficial to quickly distinguish between them, Dr. Fleischer said.

The AI tool showed that there is a distinct difference in chest x-rays from pneumonia-positive patients and healthy people, he said. It also demonstrated two distinct clusters of COVID-19–positive chest x-rays: those that looked like pneumonia and those with a more normal presentation.

The fact that “the AI system recognizes something unique in chest x-rays from COVID-19–positive patients” indicates that the computer is able to identify visual markers for coronavirus, he explained. “We currently do not know what these markers are.”

Dr. Fleischer said his goal is not to replace physician decision-making, but to supplement it.

“I’m uncomfortable with having computers make the final decision,” he said. “They often have a narrow focus, whereas doctors have the big picture in mind.”

This AI tool is “very interesting,” especially in the context of expanding AI applications in various specialties, said Thierry Fumeaux, MD, from Nyon (Switzerland) Hospital. Some physicians currently disagree on whether a chest x-ray or CT scan is the better tool to help diagnose COVID-19.

“It seems better than the human eye and brain” to pinpoint COVID-19 lung damage, “so it’s very attractive as a technology,” Dr. Fumeaux said in an interview.

And AI can be used to supplement the efforts of busy and fatigued clinicians who might be stretched thin by large caseloads. “I cannot read 200 chest x-rays in a day, but a computer can do that in 2 minutes,” he said.

But Dr. Fumeaux offered a caveat: “Pattern recognition is promising, but at the moment I’m not aware of papers showing that, by using AI, you’re changing anything in the outcome of a patient.”

Ideally, Dr. Fleischer said he hopes that AI will soon be able to accurately indicate which treatments are most effective for individual COVID-19 patients. And the technology might eventually be used to help with treatment decisions for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

But he needs more data before results indicate whether a COVID-19 patient would benefit from ventilator support, for example, and the tool can be used more widely. To contribute data or collaborate with Dr. Fleischer’s efforts, contact him.

“Machine learning is all about data, so you can find these correlations,” he said. “It would be nice to be able to use it to reassure a worried patient that their prognosis is good; to say that most of the people with symptoms like yours will be just fine.”

Dr. Fleischer and Dr. Fumeaux have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Conventional chest x-rays combined with artificial intelligence (AI) can identify lung damage from COVID-19 and differentiate coronavirus patients from other patients, improving triage efforts, new research suggests.

The AI tool – developed by Jason Fleischer, PhD, and graduate student Mohammad Tariqul Islam, both from Princeton (N.J.) University – can distinguish COVID-19 patients from those with pneumonia or normal lung tissue with an accuracy of more than 95%.

“We were able to separate the COVID-19 patients with very high fidelity,” Dr. Fleischer said in an interview. “If you give me an x-ray now, I can say with very high confidence whether a patient has COVID-19.”

The diagnostic tool pinpoints patterns on x-ray images that are too subtle for even trained experts to notice. The precision of CT scanning is similar to that of the AI tool, but CT costs much more and has other disadvantages, said Dr. Fleischer, who presented his findings at the virtual European Respiratory Society International Congress 2020.

“CT is more expensive and uses higher doses of radiation,” he said. “Another big thing is that not everyone has tomography facilities – including a lot of rural places and developing countries – so you need something that’s on the spot.”

With machine learning, Dr. Fleischer analyzed 2,300 x-ray images: 1,018 “normal” images from patients who had neither pneumonia nor COVID-19, 1,011 from patients with pneumonia, and 271 from patients with COVID-19.

The AI tool uses a neural network to refine the number and type of lung features being tracked. A UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) clustering algorithm then looks for similarities and differences in those images, he explained.

“We, as users, knew which type each x-ray was – normal, pneumonia positive, or COVID-19 positive – but the network did not,” he added.

Clinicians have observed two basic types of lung problems in COVID-19 patients: pneumonia that fills lung air sacs with fluid and dangerously low blood-oxygen levels despite nearly normal breathing patterns. Because treatment can vary according to type, it would be beneficial to quickly distinguish between them, Dr. Fleischer said.

The AI tool showed that there is a distinct difference in chest x-rays from pneumonia-positive patients and healthy people, he said. It also demonstrated two distinct clusters of COVID-19–positive chest x-rays: those that looked like pneumonia and those with a more normal presentation.

The fact that “the AI system recognizes something unique in chest x-rays from COVID-19–positive patients” indicates that the computer is able to identify visual markers for coronavirus, he explained. “We currently do not know what these markers are.”

Dr. Fleischer said his goal is not to replace physician decision-making, but to supplement it.

“I’m uncomfortable with having computers make the final decision,” he said. “They often have a narrow focus, whereas doctors have the big picture in mind.”

This AI tool is “very interesting,” especially in the context of expanding AI applications in various specialties, said Thierry Fumeaux, MD, from Nyon (Switzerland) Hospital. Some physicians currently disagree on whether a chest x-ray or CT scan is the better tool to help diagnose COVID-19.

“It seems better than the human eye and brain” to pinpoint COVID-19 lung damage, “so it’s very attractive as a technology,” Dr. Fumeaux said in an interview.

And AI can be used to supplement the efforts of busy and fatigued clinicians who might be stretched thin by large caseloads. “I cannot read 200 chest x-rays in a day, but a computer can do that in 2 minutes,” he said.

But Dr. Fumeaux offered a caveat: “Pattern recognition is promising, but at the moment I’m not aware of papers showing that, by using AI, you’re changing anything in the outcome of a patient.”

Ideally, Dr. Fleischer said he hopes that AI will soon be able to accurately indicate which treatments are most effective for individual COVID-19 patients. And the technology might eventually be used to help with treatment decisions for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

But he needs more data before results indicate whether a COVID-19 patient would benefit from ventilator support, for example, and the tool can be used more widely. To contribute data or collaborate with Dr. Fleischer’s efforts, contact him.

“Machine learning is all about data, so you can find these correlations,” he said. “It would be nice to be able to use it to reassure a worried patient that their prognosis is good; to say that most of the people with symptoms like yours will be just fine.”

Dr. Fleischer and Dr. Fumeaux have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diagnoses of 12 common pediatric infectious diseases in a large pediatric primary care network declined significantly in the weeks after COVID-19 social distancing (SD) was enacted in Massachusetts, compared with the same time period in 2019, an analysis of EHR data has shown.

ArtMarie/E+

While declines in infectious disease transmission with SD are not surprising, “these data demonstrate the extent to which transmission of common pediatric infections can be altered when close contact with other children is eliminated,” Jonathan Hatoun, MD, MPH of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s in Brookline, Mass., and coauthors wrote in Pediatrics . “Notably, three of the studied diseases, namely, influenza, croup, and bronchiolitis, essentially disappeared with [social distancing].”

The researchers analyzed the weekly incidence of each diagnosis for similar calendar periods in 2019 and 2020. A pre-SD period was defined as week 1-9, starting on Jan. 1, and a post-SD period was defined as week 13-18. (The several-week gap represented an implementation period as social distancing was enacted in the state earlier in 2020, from a declared statewide state of emergency through school closures and stay-at-home advisories.)

To isolate the effect of widespread SD, they performed a “difference-in-differences regression analysis, with diagnosis count as a function of calendar year, time period (pre-SD versus post-SD) and the interaction between the two.” The Massachusetts pediatric network provides care for approximately 375,000 children in 100 locations around the state.

In their research brief, Dr. Hatoun and coauthors presented weekly rates expressed as diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day. The rate of bronchiolitis, for instance, was 18 and 8 in the pre- and post-SD–equivalent weeks of 2019, respectively, and 20 and 0.6 in the pre- and post-SD weeks of 2020. Their analysis showed the rate in the 2020 post-SD period to be 10 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower than they would have expected based on the 2019 trend.

Rates of pneumonia, acute otitis media, and streptococcal pharyngitis were similarly 14, 85, and 31 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower, respectively. The prevalence of each of the other conditions analyzed – the common cold, croup, gastroenteritis, nonstreptococcal pharyngitis, sinusitis, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infection (UTI) – also was significantly lower in the 2020 post-SD period than would be expected based on 2019 data (P < .001 for all diagnoses).
 

Putting things in perspective

“This study puts numbers to the sense that we have all had in pediatrics – that social distancing appears to have had a dramatic impact on the transmission of common childhood infectious diseases, especially other respiratory viral pathogens,” Audrey R. John, MD, PhD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

The authors acknowledged the possible role of families not seeking care, but said that a smaller decrease in diagnoses of UTI – generally not a contagious disease – “suggests that changes in care-seeking behavior had a relatively modest effect on the other observed declines.” (The rate of UTI for the pre- and post-SD periods was 3.3 and 3.7 per 100,000 patients per day in 2019, and 3.4 and 2.4 in 2020, for a difference in differences of –1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, David W. Kimberlin, MD and Erica C. Bjornstad, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the report “provocative” and wrote that similar observations of infections dropping during periods of isolation – namely, dramatic declines in influenza and other respiratory viruses in Seattle after a record snowstorm in 2019 – combined with findings from other modeling studies “suggest that the decline [reported in Boston] is indeed real” (Pediatrics 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-019232).

However, “we also now know that immunization rates for American children have plummeted since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [because of a] ... dramatic decrease in the use of health care during the first months of the pandemic,” they wrote. “Viewed through this lens,” the declines reported in Boston may reflect inflections going “undiagnosed and untreated.”

Ultimately, Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Bjornstad said, “the verdict remains out.”

Dr. John said that she and others are “concerned about children not seeking care in a timely manner, and [concerned] that reductions in reported infections might be due to a lack of recognition rather than a lack of transmission.”

In Philadelphia, however, declines in admissions for asthma exacerbations, “which are often caused by respiratory viral infections, suggests that this may not be the case,” said Dr. John, who was asked to comment on the study.

In addition, she said, the Massachusetts data showing that UTI diagnoses “are nearly as common this year as in 2019” are “reassuring.”
 

Are there lessons for the future?

Coauthor Louis Vernacchio, MD, MSc, chief medical officer of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s network, said in an interview that beyond the pandemic, it’s likely that “more careful attention to proven infection control practices in daycares and schools could reduce the burden of common infectious diseases in children.”

Dr. John similarly sees a long-term value of quantifying the impact of social distancing. “We’ve always known [for instance] that bronchiolitis is the result of viral infection.” Findings like the Massachusetts data “will help us advise families who might be trying to protect their premature infants (at risk for severe bronchiolitis) through social distancing.”

The analysis covered both in-person and telemedicine encounters occurring on weekdays.

The authors of the research brief indicated they have no relevant financial disclosures and there was no external funding. The authors of the commentary also reported they have no relevant financial disclosures, and Dr. John said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460.

Diagnoses of 12 common pediatric infectious diseases in a large pediatric primary care network declined significantly in the weeks after COVID-19 social distancing (SD) was enacted in Massachusetts, compared with the same time period in 2019, an analysis of EHR data has shown.

ArtMarie/E+

While declines in infectious disease transmission with SD are not surprising, “these data demonstrate the extent to which transmission of common pediatric infections can be altered when close contact with other children is eliminated,” Jonathan Hatoun, MD, MPH of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s in Brookline, Mass., and coauthors wrote in Pediatrics . “Notably, three of the studied diseases, namely, influenza, croup, and bronchiolitis, essentially disappeared with [social distancing].”

The researchers analyzed the weekly incidence of each diagnosis for similar calendar periods in 2019 and 2020. A pre-SD period was defined as week 1-9, starting on Jan. 1, and a post-SD period was defined as week 13-18. (The several-week gap represented an implementation period as social distancing was enacted in the state earlier in 2020, from a declared statewide state of emergency through school closures and stay-at-home advisories.)

To isolate the effect of widespread SD, they performed a “difference-in-differences regression analysis, with diagnosis count as a function of calendar year, time period (pre-SD versus post-SD) and the interaction between the two.” The Massachusetts pediatric network provides care for approximately 375,000 children in 100 locations around the state.

In their research brief, Dr. Hatoun and coauthors presented weekly rates expressed as diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day. The rate of bronchiolitis, for instance, was 18 and 8 in the pre- and post-SD–equivalent weeks of 2019, respectively, and 20 and 0.6 in the pre- and post-SD weeks of 2020. Their analysis showed the rate in the 2020 post-SD period to be 10 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower than they would have expected based on the 2019 trend.

Rates of pneumonia, acute otitis media, and streptococcal pharyngitis were similarly 14, 85, and 31 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower, respectively. The prevalence of each of the other conditions analyzed – the common cold, croup, gastroenteritis, nonstreptococcal pharyngitis, sinusitis, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infection (UTI) – also was significantly lower in the 2020 post-SD period than would be expected based on 2019 data (P < .001 for all diagnoses).
 

Putting things in perspective

“This study puts numbers to the sense that we have all had in pediatrics – that social distancing appears to have had a dramatic impact on the transmission of common childhood infectious diseases, especially other respiratory viral pathogens,” Audrey R. John, MD, PhD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

The authors acknowledged the possible role of families not seeking care, but said that a smaller decrease in diagnoses of UTI – generally not a contagious disease – “suggests that changes in care-seeking behavior had a relatively modest effect on the other observed declines.” (The rate of UTI for the pre- and post-SD periods was 3.3 and 3.7 per 100,000 patients per day in 2019, and 3.4 and 2.4 in 2020, for a difference in differences of –1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, David W. Kimberlin, MD and Erica C. Bjornstad, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the report “provocative” and wrote that similar observations of infections dropping during periods of isolation – namely, dramatic declines in influenza and other respiratory viruses in Seattle after a record snowstorm in 2019 – combined with findings from other modeling studies “suggest that the decline [reported in Boston] is indeed real” (Pediatrics 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-019232).

However, “we also now know that immunization rates for American children have plummeted since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [because of a] ... dramatic decrease in the use of health care during the first months of the pandemic,” they wrote. “Viewed through this lens,” the declines reported in Boston may reflect inflections going “undiagnosed and untreated.”

Ultimately, Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Bjornstad said, “the verdict remains out.”

Dr. John said that she and others are “concerned about children not seeking care in a timely manner, and [concerned] that reductions in reported infections might be due to a lack of recognition rather than a lack of transmission.”

In Philadelphia, however, declines in admissions for asthma exacerbations, “which are often caused by respiratory viral infections, suggests that this may not be the case,” said Dr. John, who was asked to comment on the study.

In addition, she said, the Massachusetts data showing that UTI diagnoses “are nearly as common this year as in 2019” are “reassuring.”
 

Are there lessons for the future?

Coauthor Louis Vernacchio, MD, MSc, chief medical officer of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s network, said in an interview that beyond the pandemic, it’s likely that “more careful attention to proven infection control practices in daycares and schools could reduce the burden of common infectious diseases in children.”

Dr. John similarly sees a long-term value of quantifying the impact of social distancing. “We’ve always known [for instance] that bronchiolitis is the result of viral infection.” Findings like the Massachusetts data “will help us advise families who might be trying to protect their premature infants (at risk for severe bronchiolitis) through social distancing.”

The analysis covered both in-person and telemedicine encounters occurring on weekdays.

The authors of the research brief indicated they have no relevant financial disclosures and there was no external funding. The authors of the commentary also reported they have no relevant financial disclosures, and Dr. John said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460.

Diagnoses of 12 common pediatric infectious diseases in a large pediatric primary care network declined significantly in the weeks after COVID-19 social distancing (SD) was enacted in Massachusetts, compared with the same time period in 2019, an analysis of EHR data has shown.

ArtMarie/E+

While declines in infectious disease transmission with SD are not surprising, “these data demonstrate the extent to which transmission of common pediatric infections can be altered when close contact with other children is eliminated,” Jonathan Hatoun, MD, MPH of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s in Brookline, Mass., and coauthors wrote in Pediatrics . “Notably, three of the studied diseases, namely, influenza, croup, and bronchiolitis, essentially disappeared with [social distancing].”

The researchers analyzed the weekly incidence of each diagnosis for similar calendar periods in 2019 and 2020. A pre-SD period was defined as week 1-9, starting on Jan. 1, and a post-SD period was defined as week 13-18. (The several-week gap represented an implementation period as social distancing was enacted in the state earlier in 2020, from a declared statewide state of emergency through school closures and stay-at-home advisories.)

To isolate the effect of widespread SD, they performed a “difference-in-differences regression analysis, with diagnosis count as a function of calendar year, time period (pre-SD versus post-SD) and the interaction between the two.” The Massachusetts pediatric network provides care for approximately 375,000 children in 100 locations around the state.

In their research brief, Dr. Hatoun and coauthors presented weekly rates expressed as diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day. The rate of bronchiolitis, for instance, was 18 and 8 in the pre- and post-SD–equivalent weeks of 2019, respectively, and 20 and 0.6 in the pre- and post-SD weeks of 2020. Their analysis showed the rate in the 2020 post-SD period to be 10 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower than they would have expected based on the 2019 trend.

Rates of pneumonia, acute otitis media, and streptococcal pharyngitis were similarly 14, 85, and 31 diagnoses per 100,000 patients per day lower, respectively. The prevalence of each of the other conditions analyzed – the common cold, croup, gastroenteritis, nonstreptococcal pharyngitis, sinusitis, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infection (UTI) – also was significantly lower in the 2020 post-SD period than would be expected based on 2019 data (P < .001 for all diagnoses).
 

Putting things in perspective

“This study puts numbers to the sense that we have all had in pediatrics – that social distancing appears to have had a dramatic impact on the transmission of common childhood infectious diseases, especially other respiratory viral pathogens,” Audrey R. John, MD, PhD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

The authors acknowledged the possible role of families not seeking care, but said that a smaller decrease in diagnoses of UTI – generally not a contagious disease – “suggests that changes in care-seeking behavior had a relatively modest effect on the other observed declines.” (The rate of UTI for the pre- and post-SD periods was 3.3 and 3.7 per 100,000 patients per day in 2019, and 3.4 and 2.4 in 2020, for a difference in differences of –1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, David W. Kimberlin, MD and Erica C. Bjornstad, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the report “provocative” and wrote that similar observations of infections dropping during periods of isolation – namely, dramatic declines in influenza and other respiratory viruses in Seattle after a record snowstorm in 2019 – combined with findings from other modeling studies “suggest that the decline [reported in Boston] is indeed real” (Pediatrics 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-019232).

However, “we also now know that immunization rates for American children have plummeted since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [because of a] ... dramatic decrease in the use of health care during the first months of the pandemic,” they wrote. “Viewed through this lens,” the declines reported in Boston may reflect inflections going “undiagnosed and untreated.”

Ultimately, Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Bjornstad said, “the verdict remains out.”

Dr. John said that she and others are “concerned about children not seeking care in a timely manner, and [concerned] that reductions in reported infections might be due to a lack of recognition rather than a lack of transmission.”

In Philadelphia, however, declines in admissions for asthma exacerbations, “which are often caused by respiratory viral infections, suggests that this may not be the case,” said Dr. John, who was asked to comment on the study.

In addition, she said, the Massachusetts data showing that UTI diagnoses “are nearly as common this year as in 2019” are “reassuring.”
 

Are there lessons for the future?

Coauthor Louis Vernacchio, MD, MSc, chief medical officer of the Pediatric Physicians’ Organization at Children’s network, said in an interview that beyond the pandemic, it’s likely that “more careful attention to proven infection control practices in daycares and schools could reduce the burden of common infectious diseases in children.”

Dr. John similarly sees a long-term value of quantifying the impact of social distancing. “We’ve always known [for instance] that bronchiolitis is the result of viral infection.” Findings like the Massachusetts data “will help us advise families who might be trying to protect their premature infants (at risk for severe bronchiolitis) through social distancing.”

The analysis covered both in-person and telemedicine encounters occurring on weekdays.

The authors of the research brief indicated they have no relevant financial disclosures and there was no external funding. The authors of the commentary also reported they have no relevant financial disclosures, and Dr. John said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460.

A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.

Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.

An opportune moment

Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”

Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.

Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.

“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.

The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.

Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.

Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
 

‘Uniquely isolated’

Dr. Margolis noted that clinicians “are uniquely isolated, especially those with children” because many parents do not want their children mingling with children of HCPs.

“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.

Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.

Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.

Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.

“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
 

‘Battle buddies’

Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.

Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.

Self-care critical

Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”

Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.

The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”

They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.

The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.

Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.

An opportune moment

Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”

Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.

Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.

“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.

The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.

Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.

Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
 

‘Uniquely isolated’

Dr. Margolis noted that clinicians “are uniquely isolated, especially those with children” because many parents do not want their children mingling with children of HCPs.

“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.

Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.

Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.

Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.

“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
 

‘Battle buddies’

Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.

Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.

Self-care critical

Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”

Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.

The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”

They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.

The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new review offers fresh guidance to help stem the mental health toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinicians.

Investigators gathered practice guidelines and resources from a wide range of health care organizations and professional societies to develop a conceptual framework of mental health support for health care professionals (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients.

An opportune moment

Coauthor Rebecca Margolis, DO, director of well-being in the division of medical education and faculty development, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, said that this is “an opportune moment to look at how we treat frontline providers in this country.”

Studies of previous pandemics have shown heightened distress in HCPs, even years after the pandemic, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic surpass those of previous pandemics, Dr. Margolis said in an interview.

Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Margolis, and coauthors Uma Anand, PhD, LP, and Jina Sinskey, MD, met through the Collaborative for Healing and Renewal in Medicine network, a group of medical educators, leaders in academic medicine, experts in burnout research and interventions, and trainees working together to promote well-being among trainees and practicing physicians.

“We were brought together on a conference call in March, when things were particularly bad in New York, and started looking to see what resources we could get to frontline providers who were suffering. It was great to lean on each other and stand on the shoulders of colleagues in New York, who were the ones we learned from on these calls,” said Dr. Margolis.

The authors recommended addressing clinicians’ basic practical needs, including ensuring essentials like meals and transportation, establishing a “well-being area” within hospitals for staff to rest, and providing well-stocked living quarters so clinicians can safely quarantine from family, as well as personal protective equipment and child care.

Clinicians are often asked to “assume new professional roles to meet evolving needs” during a pandemic, which can increase stress. The authors recommended targeted training, assessment of clinician skills before redeployment to a new clinical role, and clear communication practices around redeployment.

Recognition from hospital and government leaders improves morale and supports clinicians’ ability to continue delivering care. Leadership should “leverage communication strategies to provide clinicians with up-to-date information and reassurance,” they wrote.
 

‘Uniquely isolated’

Dr. Margolis noted that clinicians “are uniquely isolated, especially those with children” because many parents do not want their children mingling with children of HCPs.

“My colleagues feel a sense of moral injury, putting their lives on the line at work, performing the most perilous job, and their kids can’t hang out with other kids, which just puts salt on the wound,” she said.

Additional sources of moral injury are deciding which patients should receive life support in the event of inadequate resources and bearing witness to, or enforcing, policies that lead to patients dying alone.

Leaders should encourage clinicians to “seek informal support from colleagues, managers, or chaplains” and to “provide rapid access to professional help,” the authors noted.

Furthermore, they contended that leaders should “proactively and routinely monitor the psychological well-being of their teams,” since guilt and shame often prevent clinicians from disclosing feelings of moral injury.

“Being provided with routine mental health support should be normalized and it should be part of the job – not only during COVID-19 but in general,” Dr. Schwartz said.
 

‘Battle buddies’

Dr. Margolis recommended the “battle buddy” model for mutual peer support.

Dr. Anand, a mental health clinician at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., elaborated.

Self-care critical

Marcus S. Shaker, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics, medicine, and community and family medicine, Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in Lebanon, N.H., and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said the study was “a much appreciated, timely reminder of the importance of clinician wellness.”

Moreover, “without self-care, our ability to help our patients withers. This article provides a useful conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to provide the right care at the right time in these unprecedented times,” said Dr. Shaker, who was not involved with the study.

The authors agreed, stating that clinicians “require proactive psychological protection specifically because they are a population known for putting others’ needs before their own.”

They recommended several resources for HCPs, including the Physician Support Line; Headspace, a mindfulness Web-based app for reducing stress and anxiety; the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; and the Crisis Text Line.

The authors and Dr. Shaker disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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