User login
Implementing the Quadruple Aim in Behavioral Health Care
From the Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
Objective: Implementation of the Quadruple Aim of health care must begin with a clearly articulated set of concepts, or core domains (CDs), that comprise each aim. These CDs can then be operationalized with existing or new measures. If aligned to the organization’s mission and strategic goals, these CDs have the potential to focus quality improvement activities and reduce measurement burden. This article represents the efforts of a publicly funded behavioral health system to operationalize the Quadruple Aim through the development of CDs.
Methods: Various stakeholders across the organization were consulted on their perceptions of the Quadruple Aim and the CDs they believed should support it. Then, a review of existing literature on core metrics for health care and population health was completed, summarized, and integrated with the stakeholder feedback.
Results: These efforts led to the development and adoption of 15 CDs, with an accompanying literature review and set of recommendations of new and existing measures for each domain.
Conclusions: It is possible to create a comprehensive yet economical set of CDs and attendant measures that can be implemented in a staged, scalable, enterprise manner. It is hoped that the process articulated here, and the accompanying literature review, may be of some benefit to other public or government-run health systems in their own quality improvement journey to operationalize the Quadruple Aim by developing a set of CDs.
Keywords: quality measures; quality improvement; adult behavioral health.
First articulated in 2008, the Triple Aim proposes that health care systems should simultaneously seek to improve the patient’s experience of care, improve the health of populations, and reduce the per capita costs of care for populations.1 More recently, some have argued that health care provider burnout can deleteriously impact the attainment of the Triple Aim and have therefore advocated for an expanded focus to include a fourth Aim, the work life quality of the staff.2 Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division (BHD), a publicly funded, county-based behavioral health care system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, recently adopted the Quadruple Aim as the framework by which it will organize its quality activities.
Although originally developed for medical organizations, BHD believes that the Quadruple Aim has strong applicability to county-level behavioral health services. Many county-based behavioral health divisions provide a variety of programs to large segments of the county based on financial eligibility and/or clinical need, and thus often have responsibilities to populations or subpopulations, rather than programs. County health divisions, such as Milwaukee County’s Department of Health and Human Services, are often asked to improve outcomes and client experience of care with neutral growth budgets and less reliance on taxes to fund programs, while simultaneously attracting and retaining competent staff.
Crucial to the effective implementation of the Quadruple Aim, however, is a clear set of population- level measures that help organizations assess their progress.3 Unfortunately, as some authors have noted, evaluation of the Quadruple Aim remains a challenge because the “concepts of (population) health, quality of care and costs are not unanimously defined and measures for these concepts are under construction.”4 Several authors have provided some guidance to assist in the development of a set of measures that effectively capture the elements of the Quadruple Aim.5,6 However, the recent rapid proliferation of quality measures in health care7,8 has been both burdensome and costly for providers.9,10 Any measures adopted should not only be as meaningful as possible with regards to assessing progress towards the basic aims of health care, but should also be parsimonious, to limit measurement burden for providers (and patients) and focus attention on important issues.11,12
To select the most effective, parsimonious set of measures possible, one must first select a set of key foci from among the many possible areas of focus that the core measure is intended to represent. The core domains (CDs), if appropriately consistent with the strategic goals of the organization, provide a mechanism to orient the efforts of the organization at every level and help every staff member of the organization understand how his or her work impacts the progress towards these goals.11 The CDs, therefore, represent the opportunity to affect a greater integration of efforts across the organization toward these shared aims, creating uniformity of purpose at every level. Further, increasing organizational attention on the CDs can also help to reduce measurement burden by streamlining and focusing the data capture processes on the most valuable elements of quality and health, and discarding other extraneous measures (albeit not at the expense of other reporting requirements).11 The remainder of this article describes the CDs selected by BHD to assess its progress toward implementation of the Quadruple Aim and are organized by the Aim which they best represent.
Methods
To effectively implement the Quadruple Aim at BHD, it was necessary to clearly define the subpopulation of focus for our efforts.6 In this case, the subpopulation of interest was defined as all adult clients (18 years and older) who received at least 1 service encounter within a specified time frame from a program that BHD either operated or contracted with to provide care. Services provided by the BHD network include everything from psychiatric inpatient services to mental health and addiction treatment and care management. A limited array of social services, including housing and employment services, is also available to eligible consumers. BHD is the county-run behavioral health provider for individuals who are uninsured or underinsured in Milwaukee County, a demographically diverse, primarily urban county of approximately 950,000 people located in Wisconsin. Approximately 15,000 adults receive services at BHD each year.
This work began by obtaining executive sponsorship for the project, in this case from the Chief Operations Officer and Executive Medical Director of BHD. With their backing, an initial review of the literature produced a preliminary set of possible domains, for which we created working definitions. We then made a list of key stakeholders throughout BHD to whom we needed to present the idea of the Quadruple Aim, and the CDs under each Aim, to secure their support. These stakeholders, which included individuals involved in quality activities, program managers, and executive leadership, were strategically selected based on their relative influence within the organization. A set of brief presentations and handouts explaining the project were then developed and shared at different focus groups with these stakeholders over the course of 6 months. These focus groups served to not only educate the organization about the Quadruple Aim and the CDs but afforded participants an opportunity to provide feedback as well.
During the focus groups, we asked participants which domains they believed were most important (were “core”) when operationalizing the Quadruple Aim. The focus groups provided feedback on the domain definitions, feedback that was used to develop uniform, mutually agreed upon definitions for the CDs that were generalizable to all departments at BHD, regardless of the focus of their services within the continuum of care or the continuum of age. This was a crucial step, as it will eventually enable BHD to aggregate data across departments, even if there are minor discrepancies in the specific items they use to assess the CDs. Comments from the focus groups ultimately resulted in a truncated list of domains and definitions, which, coupled with the literature review, resulted in our final set of CDs.
During our review of the literature, we also looked for items that we felt could best represent each CD in the briefest, most meaningful way. (These items were not meant to supersede existing data, but to provide examples that could be implemented with existing data or recommendations that could be utilized in the absence of existing data.) During this process, we made every effort to make use of existing data-reporting requirements. For example, if we had a state mandate to collect data on housing status, we attempted to leverage this required data point to represent the CD related to housing. In other cases, we attempted to utilize claims or other administrative data to operationalize the CD, such as in the cost-of-care metric articulated in the section the Third Aim. For CDs for which no data existed or were insufficient, we emphasized the use of single- versus multi-item scales. For example, if we found a single-item global assessment of quality of life that had good psychometric properties relative to its longer parent scale, we selected the single item. This approach to item selection allowed us to create the most efficient, parsimonious set of measures possible, which we believed would enable us to comprehensively assess all the CDs with the least amount of burden to staff and clients. These items were presented at stakeholder focus groups, during which we asked for comments on the existing measures in their program or department and gave them the opportunity to comment on the new recommended measures.
A working definition is provided for each CD, followed by a brief review of the research base supporting its inclusion in the final list. The item(s) selected by BHD to represent each CD and the source of the item(s) are then supplied. These items were based either on measures currently collected because of existing reporting mandates or, in the case where extant measures were not available, on new items that demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in the research literature. The CDs and items are organized by the Aim they best represent. A full list of the CDs by Quadruple Aim and items by CD is provided in the Appendix of the online version of this article. This article concludes with a brief summary of this effort and a discussion of how staff will utilize these items at different levels throughout the BHD system.
The First Aim: Population Health
Health Outcomes
Deaths. This can be defined as the cause of death, as determined by the medical examiner’s office (where appropriate) or as the age at time of death. This CD can also be reported as proportion of deaths considered premature (eg, before age 75) or calculated as total years of potential life lost.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Rates and causes of premature mortality are critical foci for the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps,13 the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s “Guide to Measuring the Triple Aim,”6 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Community Health Assessment for Population Health Improvement,”14 and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “Vital Signs: Core Metrics for Health and Health Care Progress.”11 There is ample evidence that individuals with serious mental illness are at increased risk of early mortality relative to the general population,15-18 and this risk applies to those with substance use disorders as well.15,19-20 BHD tracks all deaths that occur while patients are receiving BHD-funded, community-based services.
Self-Reported Health and Well-Being. This CD asks patients to rate their current physical and mental health status, as well as their overall quality of life.
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated physical health. Premature mortality among individuals with behavioral health issues appears to be due, in large part, to their increased vulnerability to the development of medical comorbidities.16,21 A single self-rating question has demonstrated considerable sensitivity to premature mortality,22,23 with predictive properties up to a decade prior to death.24,25 Further, self-rated health has been associated with subsequent functional decline,26,27 acute service utilization,28,29 and overall health care costs.28
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated mental health. Mental health disorders are associated with significant disability worldwide,30 and comorbid mental health issues can exacerbate the course of other medical problems. For example, depression is associated with increased rates of mortality among individuals with diabetes and31 cardiovascular disease,32 as well as with rates of overall mortality,33 and psychiatric comorbidity is associated with longer lengths of stay and higher costs among patients hospitalized for medical problems.34 Research has found that a single-item measure of self-rated mental health is associated with the presence of psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptoms, and subsequent depression and serious mental illness up to 1 year post-assessment.35,36 There is even evidence that self-rated mental health may be more strongly associated with self-ratings of overall health than self-ratings of physical health.37
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated quality of life. Quality of life is a critical component of the recovery journey and overall health.38 For example, the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps lists “quality of life” as 1 of its key “health outcomes” in its County Health Rankings.13 As some authors have noted, quality of life is often inferred from other “objective” recovery domains, such as employment, health status, or housing status. However, there is evidence that these objective domains are functionally distinct from the inherently subjective construct of quality of life.39 This has led other authors to conclude that these domains should be assessed separately when evaluating outcomes.40 Single-item quality of life assessments have been used in research with individuals with cancer,41 adults with disabilities,42 patients with cystic fibrosis,43 and children with epilepsy.44 For this effort, BHD selected the first global quality of life item from the World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment,45 an item used in other quality of life research.46
Health Factors
Substance Use. This CD is a composite of 4 different types of substance use, any recent heavy alcohol use (defined as 5 or more drinks in one sitting), any recent drug use, any recent prescription drug abuse, and any recent tobacco use.
Brief review and suggested item(s). As noted, substance use disorders confer an increased risk for early mortality15,19 and are significantly implicated in disease disability burden worldwide.30 Substance use has also been associated with both the onset47,48 and exacerbation of mental health diagnoses.49-51 Further, substance use appears to heighten the risk of violence in the general population52 and especially among those with a co-occurring mental illness.53,54 The County Health Rankings & Roadmaps list alcohol and drug use as key behaviors to address to improve the overall health of a given county,13 and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has endorsed initiation and engagement in addiction treatment as one of the measures in its Adult Core Set.55
Tobacco use continues to be one of the most significant risk factors for early mortality worldwide, and evidence indicates that it is associated with a lower life expectancy of nearly 10 years.56 Unfortunately, rates of tobacco use are even higher among those with severe mental illness relative to the general population, and their rates of smoking cessation are lower.57,58 Tobacco use is a significant risk factor for the high rates of early mortality in individuals with severe mental illness.18 Further, a recent meta-analysis noted that, relative to those who continued to smoke, those who ceased smoking had reduced rates of psychological distress and increased quality of life rankings.59 Reducing tobacco use is one of the key components of the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, and medication assistance with smoking and tobacco use cessation is also listed in the CMS Adult Core Set.13,55
An accumulating body of evidence suggests that single-item measures can adequately detect alcohol60-62 and drug use disorders.60-64 McNeely and colleagues recently developed and tested a brief 4-item screen, the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool.65,66 Preliminary evidence suggests that the TAPS tool can effectively identify the presence of problematic and disordered use of tobacco, alcohol, prescription medications, and other drugs.65-67 BHD will use the 4 items from the TAPS tool to represent its substance use CD.
Education/Employment Status. This CD assesses the proportion of BHD members who have completed high school, who are in some type of educational or training program, or who are engaged in some type of employment activity (defined as full-time, part-time, supported, sheltered workshop, or as a full-time homemaker).
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research indicates that unemployment is a risk factor for mortality, even after controlling for other risk factors (eg, age, sex, socioeconomic status [SES], health).68 Unemployment is associated with poorer physical and mental health in the general population and among those with disabilities.69-71 Promisingly, evidence suggests that gaining employment or re-employment is associated with better health,72 even for individuals with substance use disorders73 or moderate74 to severe mental health disorders.75-78 Some authors have even proposed that, above and beyond the associated health benefits, employment may also help to realize a modest cost savings due to reduced service utilization and disability.79,80 Employment is a core tenet in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) model of recovery,81 and is also listed as an important recovery goal for individuals with behavioral health issues.82 BHD collects data on employment status on all the patients it serves as part of its state-mandated reporting requirements and will use this item in the CD data set.83
Living Situation. This is measured as the proportion of people who live in permanent, supportive, stable housing; it may also be measured as the percentage of the population living with severe housing problems or who are homeless.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Housing problems can be conceptualized as 3 inter-related components: conditions within the home, neighborhood conditions, and housing affordability, each of which can contribute uniquely to poorer physical and mental health of individuals and families84 and to educational outcomes for children.85,86 Further, individuals who are homeless have a standardized mortality ratio 2 to 5 times that of the general population,87-89 even after controlling for low income status,90 and some evidence suggests these rates are even higher among unsheltered versus sheltered homeless individuals.91 Interventions to improve the condition of housing have demonstrated positive impacts on both physical and mental health,92 and a recent study found that individuals receiving housing assistance in the form of public housing or multifamily housing from the Department of Housing and Urban Development had better self-rated physical and mental health relative to individuals on the wait list for housing assistance.93 Moreover, the provision of housing has been shown to promote reductions in substance use and health service utilization among homeless individuals with substance use disorders.94 Rog and colleagues reviewed the literature on permanent supportive housing for individuals with substance use or mental health disorders who were homeless or disabled, and found that provision of housing led to reduced rates of homelessness, emergency department (ED) and inpatient utilization and increased consumer satisfaction.95
Importantly, evidence suggests that housing is viewed as facilitative of recovery. For example, in a recent qualitative study of homeless individuals with mental illness, housing was seen as a critical first step in recovery, providing a sense of security, increasing feelings of personal independence and autonomy, improving perceptions of health and well-being, and affording a stable environment to rebuild relationships with important others.96 BHD collects data on housing status on all the patients it serves as part of its state-mandated reporting requirements and will utilize this item in the CD data set.83
Social Relationships. This is defined as recent interactions with family, supportive networks (formal and informal), and other recovery services.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research has long established that social relationships have a significant impact on health, including rates of mortality as well as physical and mental health morbidity.97-99 Social connectedness is another of the pillars supporting an individual’s recovery in SAMHSA’s formulation. Several reviews of the recovery literature38,82 support its importance to the recovery process and inclusion in any assessment of holistic recovery. Social support has been shown to promote recovery among individuals with severe mental illness100-102 and substance use disorders,103 and may mitigate the progression of chronic, life-threatening physical illnesses.97 For the purposes of BHD’s CD data set, the social support question from the “100 Million Healthier Lives Common Questionnaire for Adults” will be used to assess individuals’ perceived adequacy of social support.104
Legal Involvement. Defined as involvement with the civil or criminal justice system, including arrests, imprisonment, or detainment.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Involvement in the criminal justice system is both disruptive for the individual in recovery and expensive to the larger health care system.105 Individuals with substance use106 and severe mental health disorders107 are over-represented in the prison system, and evidence suggests that general physical and mental health declines while individuals are in prison.108,109 Perhaps even more concerning, numerous studies have demonstrated an increase in mortality rates for individuals recently released from prison relative to the general population, particularly during the period immediately following release.108-110 This relationship may even persist long term.111 Further, research indicates that individuals recently released from prison have increased emergency care and hospital utilization.112,113
Incarceration can have significant impacts on the health of the broader community as well. For example, research has found an association between parental incarceration to rates of infant mortality,114 increased behavioral and developmental problems of children of incarcerated parents,115,116 lower rates of child support payments,117 and poorer cardiovascular health of female partners of incarcerated individuals.118 Formerly incarcerated individuals experience slower wage growth as well.119 However, evidence also indicates that engagement in mental health120 and substance abuse121 treatment can reduce the likelihood of subsequent recidivism. As part of its state-mandated reporting, BHD is required to provide information on the criminal justice system involvement of its clients in the previous 6 months, including whether they have been jailed or imprisoned,83 and this will function as its measure of legal involvement in its CD data set.
Socioeconomic Status. Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation. It can also be defined subjectively, such as one’s evaluation of status relative to similar others or based on an individual’s interpretation of her or his financial needs.
Brief review and suggested item(s). A large body of evidence supports the existence of a robust relationship between lower SES and poor health, including mortality and chronic medical diseases,122-124 as well as mental illness.125-127 Although previous research has examined this relationship using objective indicators of SES (eg, income, education level, occupation), there has recently been an increased interest in exploring the relationship of subjective SES with health indices. Subjective SES is generally assessed by asking individuals to rate themselves relative to others in the society in which they live, in terms of wealth, occupation, educational level, or other indicators of social status. Evidence suggests that subjective SES is associated with objective measures of SES,128-130 and relates to measures of physical and mental health as well, even after controlling for objective SES.130-135 BHD will be using a modified version of the Subject SES Scale,131,135 which is deployed in the “100 Million Healthier Lives Common Questionnaire for Adults.”104
Acute Service Use. This is defined as an admission to a medical or psychiatric emergency room or to a medical or psychiatric hospital or to a detoxification facility.
Brief review and suggested item(s). The CMS Adult Core Set includes “plan all cause readmissions” as a key quality metric.55 Hospital readmissions are also endorsed by the National Committee on Quality Assurance as one of its Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures and by the National Quality Forum. Readmissions, despite their widespread endorsement, are a somewhat controversial measure. Although readmissions are costly to the health care system,136 the relationship between readmissions and quality is inconsistent. For example, Krumholz and colleagues137 found differential rates of readmission for the same patient discharged from 2 different hospitals, which were categorized based on previous readmission rates, suggesting that hospitals do have different levels of performance even when treating the same patient. However, other data indicate that 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized readmission rates are not associated with hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rates.138
Chin and colleague found that readmissions to the hospital that occurred more than 7 days post-discharge were likely due to community- and household-related factors, rather than hospital-related quality factors.139 Transitional care interventions that have successfully reduced 30-day readmission rates are most often multicomponent and focus not just on hospital-based interventions (eg, discharge planning, education) but on follow-up care in the community by formal supports (eg, in-home visits, telephone calls, outpatient clinic appointments, case management) and informal supports (eg, family and friends).140-143 Further, qualitative evidence suggests that some individuals perceive psychiatric hospitalizations to be the result of insufficient resources or unsuccessful attempts to maintain their stability in the community.144 Thus, unplanned or avoidable hospital readmissions may represent a failure of the continuum of care not only from the perspective of the health care system, but from the patient perspective as well.
Frequent or nonurgent use of EDs is conceptually similar to excessive or avoidable inpatient utilization in several ways. For example, overuse of EDs is costly, with some estimates suggesting that it is responsible for up to $38 billion in wasteful spending each year.145 Individuals with frequent ED visits have a greater disease burden146 and an increased risk of mortality compared to nonfrequent users.147 Research suggests that individuals who visit the ED for non-urgent issues do so because of perceived difficulties associated with accessing primary care, and the convenience of EDs relative to primary care.148-150 Moreover, similar to the hospital readmission literature discussed earlier, successful strategies to reduce high rates of ED utilization generally focus on continuum of care interventions, such as provision of case management services.151-155
This evidence implies that frequent ED utilization and hospital readmissions may not be a fundamental issue of quality (or lack thereof) in hospitals or EDs but rather a lack of, or ineffectual, transitional and continuum of care strategies and services. To underscore this point, some authors have argued that a system that is excessively crisis-oriented hinders recovery because it is reactive rather than proactive, predicated on the notion that one’s condition must deteriorate to receive care.156
Although some organizations may have access to claims data or may function as self-contained health systems (eg, the Veterans Health Administration [VHA] ), others may not have access to such data. In the absence of claims data, patient self-report of service utilization has been used as a proxy for actual agency records.157 Although concordance between medical and/or agency records and patient self-report has been variable,157 evidence generally suggests that rates of agreement are higher the shorter the recall time interval.158,159 BHD does not have access to comprehensive claims data and has therefore chosen to use 5 dichotomously scored (yes/no) questions—related to medical inpatient, medical ED, psychiatric inpatient, psychiatric ED, and detoxification use in the last 30 days—to represent the CD of acute service utilization.
The Second Aim: Quality of Care
Safety
Safety is defined as avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them.
Brief review and suggested item(s). As noted in “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” the IOM’s seminal document, “the health care environment should be safe for all patients, in all of its processes, all the time.”160 The landmark Harvard Medical Practice Study in 1991 found that adverse events occurred in nearly 4% of all hospital admissions and, among these, over a quarter were due to negligence.161 Other estimates of adverse events range as high as 17%.162 Indeed, a recent article by Makary and Daniel estimated that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.163 Unfortunately, research on safety in the mental health field has lagged behind that of physical health,164 with evidence indicating that research in nonhospital settings in mental health care may be particularly scarce.165 In a study of adverse events that occurred in psychiatric inpatient units in the VHA system between 2015 and 2016, Mills and colleagues found that of the 87 root cause analysis reports, suicide attempts were the most frequent, and, among safety events, falls were the most frequently reported, followed by medication events.166 Another report on data collected from psychiatric inpatient units in the VHA revealed that nearly one-fifth of patients experienced a safety event, over half of which were deemed preventable.167 These numbers likely represent an underestimation of the true volume of safety events, as another study by the same research group found that less than 40% of safety events described in patient medical records were documented in the incident reporting system.168 BHD will utilize the total number of complaints and incident reports submitted within a given time frame as its “safety” metric in the CD data set.
Wait Time for Service
The CD is defined as the length of time between the date a patient first contacted BHD for services and the date of their first clinical service.
Brief review and suggested item(s). “Timeliness” was listed among the 6 aims for improvement in “Crossing the Quality Chasm” in 2001, and it remains no less relevant today.160 For example, evidence indicates that access to primary care is inversely related to avoidable hospitalizations.169 One study found that, of patients hospitalized for cardiovascular problems, those who had difficulty accessing routine care post discharge had higher 30-day readmission rates.170 Among VHA patients, longer wait times are associated with more avoidable hospitalizations and higher rates of mortality.171 Longer wait times appear to decrease the likelihood of attending a first appointment for individuals with substance use172,173 and mental health disorders.174 Importantly, longer wait times are associated with lower ratings of the patient experience of care, including perceptions of the quality of and satisfaction with care,175 and may be associated with worse outcomes for individuals in early intervention for psychosis treatment.176 For the purposes of the CD data set, BHD will monitor the length of time between the date a patient first contacted BHD for services and the date of their first clinical service.
Patient Satisfaction
Patient satisfaction is defined as the degree of patients’ satisfaction with the care they have received.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research has consistently demonstrated the relationship of the patient’s experience of care to a variety of safety and clinical effectiveness measures in medical health care,177 and the therapeutic alliance is one of the most consistent predictors of outcomes in behavioral health, regardless of therapeutic modality.178 Patient satisfaction is a commonly assessed aspect of the patient experience of care. Patient satisfaction scores have been correlated with patient adherence to recommended treatment regimens, care quality, and health outcomes.179 For example, Aiken et al found that patient satisfaction with hospital care was associated with higher ratings of the quality and safety of nursing care in these hospitals.180 Increased satisfaction with inpatient care has been associated with lower 30-day readmission rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia,181 and patients with schizophrenia who reported higher treatment satisfaction also reported better quality of life.182,183 Many satisfaction survey options exist to evaluate this CD, including the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire; BHD will utilize an outpatient behavioral health survey from a third-party vendor.
The Third Aim: Cost of Care
Cost of Care
This can be defined as the average cost to provide care per patient per month.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Per capita cost, or rather, the total cost of providing care to a circumscribed population divided by the total population, has been espoused as an important metric for the Triple Aim and the County Health Rankings.6,13 Indeed, between 1960 and 2016, per capita expenditures for health care have grown 70-fold, and the percent of the national gross domestic product accounted for by health expenditures has more than tripled (5.0% to 17.9%).184 One of the more common metrics deployed for assessing health care cost is the per capita per month cost, or rather, the per member per month cost of the predefined population for a given health care system.6,185,186 In fact, some authors have proposed that cost of care can be used not only to track efficient resource allocation, but can also be a proxy for a healthier population as well (ie, as health improves, individuals use fewer and less-expensive services, thus costing the system less).187 To assess this metric, BHD will calculate the total amount billed for patient care provided within BHD’s health network each month (irrespective of funding source) and then divide this sum by the number of members served each month. Although this measure does not account for care received at other health care facilities outside BHD’s provider network, nor does it include all the overhead costs associated with the care provided by BHD itself, it is consistent with the claims-based approach used or recommended by other authors.6,188
The Fourth Aim: Staff Well-being
Staff Quality of Work Life
This can be defined as the quality of the work life of health care clinicians and staff.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Some authors have suggested that the Triple Aim framework is incomplete and have proffered compelling arguments that provider well-being and the quality of work life constitutes a fourth aim.2 Provider burnout is prevalent in both medical2,189 and behavioral health care.190,191 Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with higher rates of perceived medical errors,192 lower patient satisfaction scores,189,193 lower rates of provider empathy,194 more negative attitudes towards patients,195 and poorer staff mental and physical health.191
Burnout is also associated with higher rates of absenteeism, turnover intentions, and turnover.190,191,196,197 However, burnout is not the only predictor of staff turnover; for example, turnover rates are a useful proxy for staff quality of work life for several reasons.198 First, turnover is associated with substantial direct and indirect costs, including lost productivity, increased errors, and lost revenue and recruitment costs, with some turnover cost estimates as high as $17 billion for physicians and $14 billion for nurses annually.199-201 Second, research indicates that staff turnover can have a deleterious impact on implementation of evidence-based interventions.202-205 Finally, consistent with the philosophy of utilizing existing data sources for the CD measures, turnover can be relatively easily extracted from administrative data for operated or contracted programs, and its collection does not place any additional burden on staff. As a large behavioral health system that is both a provider and payer of care, BHD will therefore examine the turnover rates of its internal administrative and clinical staff as well as the turnover of staff in its contracted provider network as its measures for the Staff Quality of Work Life CD.
Clinical Implications
These metrics can be deployed at any level of the organization. Clinicians may use 1 or more of the measures to track the recovery of individual clients, or in aggregate for their entire caseload. Similarly, managers can use these measures to assess the overall effectiveness of the programs for which they are responsible. Executive leaders can evaluate the impact of several programs or the system of care on the health of a subpopulation of clients with a specific condition, or for all their enrolled members. Further, not all measures need be utilized for every dashboard or evaluative effort. The benefit of a comprehensive set of measures lies in their flexibility—1 or more of the measures may be selected depending on the project being implemented or the interests of the stakeholder.
It is important to note that many of the CDs (and their accompanying measures) are aligned to/consistent with social determinants of health.206,207 Evidence suggests that social determinants make substantial contributions to the overall health of individuals and populations and may even account for a greater proportion of variance in health outcomes than health care itself.208 The measures articulated here, therefore, can be used to assess whether and how effectively care provision has addressed these social determinants, as well as the relative impact their resolution may have on other health outcomes (eg, mortality, self-rated health).
These measures can also be used to stratify clients by clinical severity or degree of socioeconomic deprivation. The ability to adjust for risk has many applications in health care, particularly when organizations are attempting to implement value-based purchasing models, such as pay-for-performance contracts or other alternative payment models (population health-based payment models).209 Indeed, once fully implemented, the CDs and measures will enable BHD to more effectively build and execute different conceptual models of “value” (see references 210 and 211 for examples). We will be able to assess the progress our clients have made in care, the cost associated with that degree of improvement, the experience of those clients receiving that care, and the clinical and social variables that may influence the relative degree of improvement (or lack thereof). Thus, the CDs provide a conceptual and data-driven foundation for the Quadruple Aim and any quality initiatives that either catalyze or augment its implementation.
Conclusion
This article provides an overview of the CDs selected by BHD to help organize, focus, advance, and track its quality efforts within the framework of the Quadruple Aim. Although items aligned to each of these CDs are offered, the CDs themselves have been broadly conceptualized such that they can flexibly admit a variety of possible items and/or assessments to operationalize each CD and thus have potential applicability to other behavioral health systems, particularly public systems that have state-mandated and other data reporting requirements.
Bearing in mind the burden that growing data collection requirements can have on the provision of quality care and staff work satisfaction and burnout,10,212 the CDs (and the items selected to represent each) are designed with “strategic parsimony” in mind. Although the CDs are inclusive in that they cover care quality, cost of care, staff quality of life, and general population health, only CDs and items undergirded by a solid evidence base and high value with regards to BHD’s mission and values, as determined by key stakeholders, were selected. Moreover, BHD attempted to make use of existing data collection and reporting mandates when selecting the final pool of items to reduce the measurement burden on staff and clients. Thus, the final set of CDs and items are designed to be comprehensive yet economical.
The CDs are deeply interrelated. Although each CD may be individually viewed as a valuable metric, improvements in any 1 CD will impact the others (eg, increasing care quality should impact population health, increasing staff quality of life should impact the quality of care). Moreover, this idea of interrelatedness acknowledges the need to view health systems and the populations they serve holistically, in that improvement is not simply the degree of change in any given metric (whether individually or collectively), but rather something more entirely. The concepts of value, quality, and health are complex, multidimensional, and dynamic, and the CDs that comprise these concepts should not be considered independently from one another. The CDs (and items) offered in this article are scalable in that they can be used at different levels of an organization depending on the question or stakeholder, and can be used individually or in combination with one another. Moreover, they are adaptable to a variety of risk-adjusted program, population health, and value-based evaluation models. It is hoped that the process articulated here, and the accompanying literature review, may benefit other public or government-run health systems in their own quality journey to operationalize the Quadruple Aim by developing a set of CDs.
Corresponding author: Walter Matthew Drymalski, PhD; walter.drymalski@milwaukeecountywi.gov.
Financial disclosures: None.
1. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The Triple Aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759-769.
2. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573-576.
3. Whittington JW, Nolan K, Lewis N, Torres T. Pursuing the Triple Aim: The first 7 years. Milbank Q. 2015;93(2):263-300.
4. Hendrikx RJP, Drewes HW, Spreeuwenberg M, et al. Which Triple Aim related measures are being used to evaluate population management initiatives? An international comparative analysis. Health Policy. 2016;120(5):471-485.
5. Kassler WJ, Howerton M, Thompson A, et al. Population Health Measurement at Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Bridging the gap between public health and clinical quality. Popul Health Manag. 2017;20(3):173-180.
6. Stiefel MC, Nolan K. A Guide to Measuring the Triple Aim: Population health, experience of care, and per capita cost. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012.
7. Panzer RJ, Gitomer RS, Greene WH, et al. Increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA. 2013;310(18):1971-1980.
8. Schuster MA, Onorato SE, Meltzer DO. Measuring the cost of quality measurement: a missing link in quality strategy. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1219-1220.
9. Casalino LP, Gans D, Weber R, et al. US physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(3):401-406.
10. Rao SK, Kimball AB, Lehrhoff SR, et al. The impact of administrative burden on academic physicians: results of a hospital-wide physician survey. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):237-243.
11. Institute of Medicine. Vital signs: Core metrics for health and health care progress. National Academies Press; 2015.
12. Meyer GS, Nelson EC, Pryor DB, et al. More quality measures versus measuring what matters: a call for balance and parsimony: Table 1. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(11):964-968.
13. County Health Rankings. Measures & data sources. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/measures-data-sources
14. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Health Assessment for population health improvement: Resource of most frequently recommended health outcomes and determinants. Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services; 2013.
15. Chang C-K, Hayes RD, Perera G, et al. Life expectancy at birth for people with serious mental illness and other major disorders from a secondary mental health care case register in London. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19590.
16. De Hert M, Correll CU, Bobes J, et al. Physical illness in patients with severe mental disorders. I. Prevalence, impact of medications and disparities in health care. World Psychiatry. 2011;10(1):52-77.
17. Druss BG, Zhao L, Von Esenwein S, Morrato EH, Marcus SC. Understanding excess mortality in persons with mental illness: 17-year follow up of a nationally representative US survey. Med Care. 2011;49(6):599-604.
18. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council. Morbidity and mortality in people with serious mental illness. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council; 2006.
19. Nordentoft M, Wahlbeck K, Hällgren J, et al. Excess mortality, causes of death and life expectancy in 270,770 patients with recent onset of mental disorders in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e55176.
20. Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, et al. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1015-1035.
21. Walker ER, Druss BG. A public health perspective on mental and medical comorbidity. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1104-1105.
22. DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, et al. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;21(3):267-275.
23. Mavaddat N, Parker RA, Sanderson S, et al. Relationship of self-rated health with fatal and non-fatal outcomes in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103509.
24. Lima-Costa MF, Cesar CC, Chor D, Proietti FA. Self-rated health compared with objectively measured health status as a tool for mortality risk screening in older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Bambui Cohort Study of Aging. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(3):228-235.
25. Stenholm S, Pentti J, Kawachi I, et al. Self-rated health in the last 12 years of life compared to matched surviving controls: the Health and Retirement Study. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107879.
26. Lee Y. The predictive value of self-assessed general, physical, and mental health on functional decline and mortality in older adults. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(2):123-129.
27. Tomioka K, Kurumatani N, Hosoi H. Self-rated health predicts decline in instrumental activities of daily living among high-functioning community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing. 2017;46(2):265-270.
28. DeSalvo KB, Jones TM, Peabody J, et al. Health care expenditure prediction with a single item, self-rated health measure. Med Care. 2009;47(4):440-447.
29. Farkas J, Kosnik M, Flezar M, Suskovic S, Lainscak M. Self-rated health predicts acute exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with COPD. Chest. 2010;138(2):323-330.
30. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;382(9904):1575-1586.
31. Park M, Katon WJ, Wolf FM. Depression and risk of mortality in individuals with diabetes: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(3):217-225.
32. Hare DL, Toukhsati SR, Johansson P, Jaarsma T. Depression and cardiovascular disease: a clinical review. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(21):1365-1372.
33. Cuijpers P, Schoevers RA. Increased mortality in depressive disorders: a review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2004;6(6):430-437.
34. Jansen L, van Schijndel M, van Waarde J, van Busschbach J. Health-economic outcomes in hospital patients with medical-psychiatric comorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194029.
35. Ahmad F, Jhajj AK, Stewart DE, et al. Single item measures of self-rated mental health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:398.
36. McAlpine DD, McCreedy E, Alang S. The meaning and predictive value of self-rated mental health among persons with a mental health problem. J Health Soc Behav. 2018;59(2):200-214.
37. Levinson D, Kaplan G. What does self-rated mental health represent? J Public Health Res. 2014;3(3):287.
38. Leamy M, Bird V, Boutillier CL, et al. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):445-452.
39. Smith KW, Avis NE, Assmann SF. Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(5):447-459.
40. Hamming JF, De Vries J. Measuring quality of life. Br J Surg. 2007;94(8):923-924.
41. Singh JA, Satele D, Pattabasavaiah S, et al. Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):187.
42. Siebens HC, Tsukerman D, Adkins RH, et al. Correlates of a single-item quality-of-life measure in people aging with disabilities. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(12):1065-1074.
43. Yohannes AM, Dodd M, Morris J, Webb K. Reliability and validity of a single item measure of quality of life scale for adult patients with cystic fibrosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):105.
44. Conway L, Widjaja E, Smith ML. Single-item measure for assessing quality of life in children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Epilepsia Open. 2018;3(1):46-54.
45. Skevington SM, Lofty M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299-310.
46. Atroszko PA, Baginska P, Mokosinska M, et al. Validity and reliability of single-item self-report measures of general quality of life, general health and sleep quality. In: CER Comparative European Research Conference: Research Track. Vol 2. Sciemcee Publishing; 2015:207-211.
47. Beaulieu S, Saury S, Sareen J, et al.
48. Marconi A, Di Forti M, Lewis CM, et al. Meta-analysis of the association between the level of cannabis use and risk of psychosis. Schizophr Bull. 2016;42(5):1262-1269.
49. Baker AL, Hiles SA, Thornton LK, et al. A systematic review of psychological interventions for excessive alcohol consumption among people with psychotic disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;126(4):243-255.
50. Baker AL, Hides L, Lubman DI. Treatment of cannabis use among people with psychotic or depressive disorders: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71(3):247-254.
51. Berenz EC, Coffey SF. Treatment of co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(5):469-477.
52. Pickard H, Fazel S. Substance abuse as a risk factor for violence in mental illness: some implications for forensic psychiatric practice and clinical ethics. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2013;26(4):349-354.
53. Fazel S, Gulati G, Linsell L, Geddes JR, Grann M. Schizophrenia and violence: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000120.
54. Van Dorn R, Volavka J, Johnson N. Mental disorder and violence: Is there a relationship beyond substance use? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(3):487-503.
55. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2019 Core set of adult health care quality measures for Medicaid (adult core set). Adult health care quality measures. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of-care/performance-measurement/adult-core-set/index.html.
56. Jha P, Peto R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(1):60-68.
57. Lê Cook B, Wayne GF, Kafali EN, et al. Trends in smoking among adults with mental illness and association between mental health treatment and smoking cessation. JAMA. 2014;311(2):172-182.
58. Smith PH, Mazure CM, McKee SA. Smoking and mental illness in the US population. Tob Control. 2014;23(0):e147-e153.
59. Taylor G, McNeill A, Girling A, et al. Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g1151.
60. McNeely J, Cleland CM, Strauss SM, et al. Validation of self-administered single-item screening questions (SISQs) for unhealthy alcohol and drug use in primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(12):1757-1764.
61. Saitz R, Cheng DM, Allensworth-Davies D, et al. The ability of single screening questions for unhealthy alcohol and other drug use to identify substance dependence in primary care. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014;75(1):153-157.
62. Smith PC, Schmidt SM, Allensworth-Davies D, Saitz R. Primary care validation of a single-question alcohol screening test. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(7):783-788.
63. Dawson DA, Compton WM, Grant BF. Frequency of 5+/4+ drinks as a screener for drug use and drug-use disorders. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71(5):751-760.
64. Smith PC, Schmidt SM, Allensworth-Davies D, Saitz R. A single-question screening test for drug use in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(13):1155-1160.
65. McNeely J, Strauss SM, Saitz R, et al. A brief patient self-administered substance use screening tool for primary care: two-site validation study of the Substance Use Brief Screen (SUBS). Am J Med. 2015;128(7):784.e9-784.e19.
66. McNeely J, Wu L-T, Subramaniam G, et al. Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool for substance use screening in primary care patients. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(10):690-699.
67. Gryczynski J, McNeely J, Wu L-T, et al. Validation of the TAPS-1: a four-item screening tool to identify unhealthy substance use in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(9):990-996.
68. Roelfs DJ, Shor E, Davidson KW, Schwartz JE. Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):840-854.
69. McKee-Ryan F, Song Z, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(1):53-76.
70. Zhang S, Bhavsar V. Unemployment as a risk factor for mental illness: combining social and psychiatric literature. Adv Appl Sociol. 2013;03(02):131-136.
71. Goodman N. The impact of employment on the health status and health care costs of working-age people with disabilities. The Lead Center. November 2015. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.leadcenter.org/system/files/resource/downloadable_version/impact_of_employment_health_status_health_care_costs_0.pdf
72. Hergenrather KC, Zeglin RJ, McGuire-Kuletz M, Rhodes SD. Employment as a social determinant of health: a systematic review of longitudinal studies exploring the relationship between employment status and physical health. Rehabil Res Policy Educ. 2015;29(1):2-26.
73. Walton MT, Hall MT. The effects of employment interventions on addiction treatment outcomes: a review of the literature. J Soc Work Pract Addict. 2016;16(4):358-384.
74. Schuring M, Robroek SJ, Burdorf A. The benefits of paid employment among persons with common mental health problems: evidence for the selection and causation mechanism. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(6):540-549.
75. Burns T, Catty J, White S, et al. The impact of supported employment and working on clinical and social functioning: results of an international study of individual placement and support. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(5):949-958.
76. Kilian R, Lauber C, Kalkan R, et al. The relationships between employment, clinical status, and psychiatric hospitalisation in patients with schizophrenia receiving either IPS or a conventional vocational rehabilitation programme. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(9):1381-1389.
77. Marwaha S, Johnson S. Schizophrenia and employment. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004;39(5):337-349.
78. Mueser KT, Drake RE, Bond GR. Recent advances in supported employment for people with serious mental illness. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2016;29(3):196-201.
79. Bush PW, Drake RE, Xie H, et al. The long-term impact of employment on mental health service use and costs for persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(8):1024-1031.
80. Drake RE, Skinner JS, Bond GR, Goldman HH. Social security and mental illness: reducing disability with supported employment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(3):761-770.
81. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA’s working definition of recovery. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Published 2012. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://store.samhsa.gov/system/files/pep12-recdef.pdf
82. Drake RE, Whitley R. Recovery and severe mental illness: description and analysis. Can J Psychiatry. 2014;59(5):236-242.
83. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. PPS Mental Health Module Handbook. Published 2018. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p02182.pdf
84. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Housing and Health. How does housing affect health? May 1, 2011. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/05/housing-and-health.html
85. Cunningham MK, MacDonald G. Housing as a platform for improving education outcomes among low-income children. Urban Institute. May 2012. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25331/412554-Housing-as-a-Platform-for-Improving-Education-Outcomes-among-Low-Income-Children.PDF
86. Friedman D. Social impact of poor housing. ECOTEC. March 2010. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://southdevonrural.co.uk/userfiles/file/JC-JC13-Social-impact-of-poor-housing.pdf
87. Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;384(9953):1529-1540.
88. Nusselder WJ, Slockers MT, Krol L, et al. Mortality and life expectancy in homeless men and women in Rotterdam: 2001–2010. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e73979.
89. O’Connell JJ. Premature mortality in homeless populations: a review of the literature. National Health Care for the Homeless Council. Published 2005. Accessed April 23, 2019. http://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf
90. Hwang SW, Wilkins R, Tjepkema M, et al. Mortality among residents of shelters, rooming houses, and hotels in Canada: 11 year follow-up study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4036.
91. Roncarati JS, Baggett TP, O’Connell JJ, et al. Mortality among unsheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts, 2000-2009. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1242-1248.
92. Thomson H, Thomas S, Sellstrom E, Petticrew M. Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD008657.
93. Fenelon A, Mayne P, Simon AE, et al. Housing assistance programs and adult health in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(4):571-578.
94. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ganann R, Krishnaratne S, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):638.
95. Rog DJ, Marshall T, Dougherty RH, et al. Permanent supportive housing: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(3):287-294.
96. Kirst M, Zerger S, Wise Harris D, et al. The promise of recovery: narratives of hope among homeless individuals with mental illness participating in a Housing First randomised controlled trial in Toronto, Canada: Table 1. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e004379.
97. Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D. Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(4):375-378.
98. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988;241(4865):540-545.
99. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social ties and mental health. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):458-467.
100. Schön U-K, Denhov A, Topor A. Social relationships as a decisive factor in recovering from severe mental illness. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2009;55(4):336-347.
101. Soundy A, Stubbs B, Roskell C, et al. Identifying the facilitators and processes which influence recovery in individuals with schizophrenia: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. J Ment Health. 2015;24(2):103-110.
102. Tew J, Ramon S, Slade M, et al. Social factors and recovery from mental health difficulties: a review of the evidence. Br J Soc Work. 2012;42(3):443-460.
103. Moos RH. Theory-based processes that promote the remission of substance use disorders. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27(5):537-551.
104. Stiefel MC, Riley CL, Roy B, et al. 100 Million Healthier Lives Measurement System: Progress to date. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2016:41. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.100mlives.org
105. Swanson JW, Frisman LK, Robertson AG, et al. Costs of criminal justice involvement among persons with serious mental illness in Connecticut. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(7):630-637.
106. Fazel S, Bains P, Doll H. Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review. Addiction. 2006;101(2):181-191.
107. Fazel S, Seewald K. Severe mental illness in 33 588 prisoners worldwide: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(05):364-373.
108. Fazel S, Baillargeon J. The health of prisoners. Lancet. 2011;377(9769):956-965.
109. Wildeman C, Wang EA. Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1464-1474.
110. Zlodre J, Fazel S. All-cause and external mortality in released prisoners: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):e67-e75.
111. Massoglia M, Pridemore WA. Incarceration and health. Annu Rev Sociol. 2015;41:291-310.
112. Kouyoumdjian FG, Cheng SY, Fung K, et al. The health care utilization of people in prison and after prison release: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0201592.
113. Winkelman TNA, Genao I, Wildeman C, Wang EA. Emergency department and hospital use among adolescents with justice system involvement. Pediatrics. 2017;140(5):e20171144.
114. Wildeman C. Imprisonment and infant mortality. Soc Prob. 2012;59:228-257.
115. Geller A, Cooper CE, Garfinkel I, et al. Beyond absenteeism: father incarceration and child development. Demography. 2012;49(1):49-76.
116. Turney K. Stress proliferation across generations? Examining the relationship between parental incarceration and childhood health. J Health Soc Behav. 2014;55(3):302-319.
117. Geller A, Garfinkel I, Western B. Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography. 2011;48(1):25-47.
118. Lee H, Wildeman C, Wang EA, et al. A heavy burden: the cardiovascular health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):421-427.
119. Western B. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. Am Sociol Rev. 2002;67(4):526-546.
120. Constantine R, Andel R, Petrila J, et al. Characteristics and experiences of adults with a serious mental illness who were involved in the criminal justice system. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61(5):451-457.
121. Garnick DW, Horgan CM, Acevedo A, et al. Criminal justice outcomes after engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(3):295-305.
122. Adler NE, Ostrove JM. Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what we don’t. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896(1):3-15.
123. Luo Y, Waite LJ. The impact of childhood and adult SES on physical, mental, and cognitive well-being in later life. J Gerontol Ser B. 2005;60(2):S93-S101.
124. Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam A-JR, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(23):2468-2481.
125. Hudson CG. Socioeconomic status and mental illness: tests of the social causation and selection hypotheses. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2005;75(1):3-18.
126. McLaughlin KA, Breslau J, Green JG, et al. Childhood socio-economic status and the onset, persistence, and severity of DSM-IV mental disorders in a US national sample. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(7):1088-1096.
127. Muntaner C. Socioeconomic position and major mental disorders. Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26(1):53-62.
128. Präg P, Mills MC, Wittek R. Subjective socioeconomic status and health in cross-national comparison. Soc Sci Med. 2016;149:84-92.
129. Shaked D, Williams M, Evans MK, Zonderman AB. Indicators of subjective social status: differential associations across race and sex. SSM Popul Health. 2016;2:700-707.
130. Singh-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG. Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(6):1321-1333.
131. Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19(6):586-592.
132. Cundiff JM, Matthews KA. Is subjective social status a unique correlate of physical health? A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2017;36(12):1109-1125.
133. Demakakos P, Biddulph JP, de Oliveira C, et al. Subjective social status and mortality: The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(8):729-739.
134. Quon EC, McGrath JJ. Subjective socioeconomic status and adolescent health: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2014;33(5):433-447.
135. Scott KM, Al-Hamzawi AO, Andrade LH, et al. Associations between subjective social status and DSM-IV mental disorders: Results from the World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(12):1400-1408.
136. Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428.
137. Krumholz HM, Wang K, Lin Z, et al. Hospital-readmission risk—Isolating hospital effects from patient effects. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1055-1064.
138. Krumholz HM, Lin Z, Keenan PS, et al. Relationship of hospital performance with readmission and mortality rates for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309(6):587-593.
139. Chin DL, Bang H, Manickam RN, Romano PS. Rethinking thirty-day hospital readmissions: Shorter intervals might be better indicators of quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(10):1867-1875.
140. Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(11):774-784.
141. Hudon C, Chouinard M-C, Lambert M, et al. Effectiveness of case management interventions for frequent users of healthcare services: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e012353.
142. Kripalani S, Theobald CN, Anctil B, Vasilevskis EE. Reducing hospital readmission: current strategies and future directions. Annu Rev Med. 2014;65:471-485.
143. Verhaegh KJ, MacNeil-Vroomen JL, Eslami S, et al. Transitional care interventions prevent hospital readmissions for adults with chronic illnesses. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(9):1531-1539.
144. Duhig M, Gunasekara I, Patterson S. Understanding readmission to psychiatric hospital in Australia from the service users’ perspective: a qualitative study. Health Soc Care Community. 2017;25(1):75-82.
145. New England Healthcare Institute. A matter of urgency: Reducing emergency department overuse. Published 2010. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.nehi.net/writable/publication_files/file/nehi_ed_overuse_issue_brief_032610finaledits.pdf
146. Billings J, Raven MC. Dispelling an urban legend: Frequent emergency department users have substantial burden of disease. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(12):2099-2108.
147. Moe J, Kirkland S, Ospina MB, et al. Mortality, admission rates and outpatient use among frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(3):230-236.
148. Carret MLV, Fassa ACG, Domingues MR. Inappropriate use of emergency services: a systematic review of prevalence and associated factors. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009;25(1):7-28.
149. Durand A-C, Palazzolo S, Tanti-Hardouin N, et al. Nonurgent patients in emergency departments: rational or irresponsible consumers? Perceptions of professionals and patients. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5(1):525.
150. Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, et al. Deciding to visit the emergency department for non-urgent conditions: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(1):47-59.
151. Kumar GS, Klein R. Effectiveness of case management strategies in reducing emergency department visits in frequent user patient populations: a systematic review. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(3):717-729.
152. Moe J, Kirkland SW, Rawe E, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to decrease emergency department visits by adult frequent users: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(1):40-52.
153. Raven MC, Kushel M, Ko MJ, et al. The effectiveness of emergency department visit reduction programs: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(4):467-483.e15.
154. Soril LJJ, Leggett LE, Lorenzetti DL, et al. Reducing frequent visits to the emergency department: a systematic review of interventions. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123660.
155. Van den Heede K, Van de Voorde C. Interventions to reduce emergency department utilisation: a review of reviews. Health Policy. 2016;120(12):1337-1349.
156. Onken SJ, Dumont JM, Ridgway P, et al. Mental health recovery: What helps and what hinders? October 2002. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files//MHSIPReport%281%29.pdf
157. Leggett LE, Khadaroo RG, Holroyd-Leduc J, et al. Measuring resource utilization. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(10):e2759.
158. Bhandari A, Wagner T. Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):217-235.
159. Short ME, Goetzel RZ, Pei X, et al. How accurate are self-reports? An analysis of self-reported healthcare utilization and absence when compared to administrative data. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(7):786-796.
160. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press; 2001.
161. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(6):370-376.
162. Rafter N, Hickey A, Condell S, et al. Adverse events in healthcare: learning from mistakes. QJM. 2015;108(4):273-277.
163. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;3(353):i2139.
164. D’Lima D, Crawford MJ, Darzi A, Archer S. Patient safety and quality of care in mental health: A world of its own? BJPsych Bull. 2017;41(5):241-243.
165. Maidment ID, Lelliott P, Paton C. Medication errors in mental healthcare: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(6):409-413.
166. Mills PD, Watts BV, Shiner B, Hemphill RR. Adverse events occurring on mental health units. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018;50:63-68.
167. Marcus SC, Hermann RC, Frankel MR, Cullen SW. Safety of psychiatric inpatients at the Veterans Health Administration. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;69(2):204-210.
168. Reilly CA, Cullen SW, Watts BV, et al. How well do incident reporting systems work on inpatient psychiatric units? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45:63-69.
169. Rosano A, Loha CA, Falvo R, et al. The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(3):356-360.
170. Dupre ME, Xu H, Granger BB, et al. Access to routine care and risks for 30-day readmission in patients with cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J. 2018;196:9-17.
171. Pizer SD, Prentice JC. What are the consequences of waiting for health care in the veteran population? J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(S2):676-682.
172. Festinger DS, Lamb RJ, Kirby KC, Marlowe DB. The accelerated intake: a method for increasing initial attendance to outpatient cocaine treatment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996;29(3):387-389.
173. Festinger DS, Lamb RJ, Marlowe DB, Kirby KC. From telephone to office: intake attendance as a function of appointment delay. Addict Behav. 2002;27(1):131-137.
174. Gallucci G, Swartz W, Hackerman F. Brief reports: Impact of the wait for an initial appointment on the rate of kept appointments at a mental health center. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(3):344-346.
175. Bleustein C, Rothschild DB, Valen A, et al. Wait times, patient satisfaction scores, and the perception of care. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(5):393-400.
176. Reichert A, Jacobs R. The impact of waiting time on patient outcomes: Evidence from early intervention in psychosis services in England. Health Econ. 2018;27(11):1772-1787.
177. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001570.
178. Horvath AO, Del Re AC, Flückiger C, Symonds D. Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy. 2011;48(1):9-16.
179. Farley H, Enguidanos ER, Coletti CM, et al. Patient satisfaction surveys and quality of care: an information paper. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64(4):351-357.
180. Aiken LH, Sermeus W, Van den Heede K, et al. Patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital care: cross sectional surveys of nurses and patients in 12 countries in Europe and the United States. BMJ. 2012;344:e1717.
181. Boulding W, Glickman SW, Manary MP, Schulman KA, Staelin R. Relationship between patient satisfaction with inpatient care and hospital readmission within 30 days. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(1):41-48.
182. Rohland BM, Langbehn DR, Rohrer JE. Relationship between service effectiveness and satisfaction among persons receiving Medicaid mental health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2000;51(2):248-250.
183. Zendjidjian X-Y, Baumstarck K, Auquier P, et al. Satisfaction of hospitalized psychiatry patients: Why should clinicians care? Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:575-583.
184. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditures; aggregate and per capita amounts, annual percent change and percent distribution: Calendar years 1960-2016. National Health Expenditure Data. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nationalhealthaccountshistorical.html. Published 2018. Accessed August 21, 2018.
185. DuBard CA. Running the numbers. N C Med J. 2016;77(4):297-300.
186. Peikes D, Chen A, Schore J, Brown R. Effects of care coordination on hospitalization, quality of care, and health care expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries: 15 randomized trials. JAMA. 2009;301(6):603-618.
187. Seow H-Y, Sibley LM. Developing a dashboard to help measure and achieve the triple aim: A population-based cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):363.
188. Lee VS, Kawamoto K, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1061.
189. Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD, Sinsky CA, et al. Burnout among health care professionals: A call to explore and address this underrecognized threat to safe, high-quality care discussion paper. National Academy of Medicine. July 5, 2017. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://nam.edu/burnout-among-health-care-professionals-a-call-to-explore-and-address-this-underrecognized-threat-to-safe-high-quality-care/
190. Johnson J, Hall LH, Berzins K, et al. Mental healthcare staff well-being and burnout: a narrative review of trends, causes, implications, and recommendations for future interventions. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018;27(1):20-32.
191. Morse G, Salyers MP, Rollins AL, et al. Burnout in mental health services: a review of the problem and its remediation. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2012;39(5):341-352.
192. Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, et al. Healthcare staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159015.
193. Garman AN, Corrigan PW, Morris S. Staff burnout and patient satisfaction: evidence of relationships at the care unit level. J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7(3):235-241.
194. Wilkinson H, Whittington R, Perry L, Eames C. Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Burn Res. 2017;6:18-29.
195. Holmqvist R, Jeanneau M. Burnout and psychiatric staff’s feelings towards patients. Psychiatry Res. 2006;145(2-3):207-213.
196. Leiter MP, Maslach C. Nurse turnover: the mediating role of burnout. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17(3):331-339.
197. Zhang Y, Feng X. The relationship between job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intention among physicians from urban state-owned medical institutions in Hubei, China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):235.
198. Halter M, Boiko O, Pelone F, et al. The determinants and consequences of adult nursing staff turnover: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):824.
199. Hamidi MS, Bohman B, Sandborg C, et al. Estimating institutional physician turnover attributable to self-reported burnout and associated financial burden: a case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):851.
200. National Taskforce for Humanity in Healthcare. The business case for humanity in healthcare position paper. April 2018. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.vocera.com/public/pdf/NTHBusinessCase_final003.pdf
201. Waldman JD, Kelly F, Arora S, Smith HL. The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Care Manage Rev. 2004;29(1):2-7.
202. Brunette MF, Asher D, Whitley R, et al. Implementation of integrated dual disorders treatment: a qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(9):989-995.
203. Mancini AD, Moser LL, Whitley R, et al. Assertive community treatment: facilitators and barriers to implementation in routine mental health settings. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(2):189-195.
204. Rollins AL, Salyers MP, Tsai J, Lydick JM. Staff turnover in statewide implementation of ACT: Relationship with ACT fidelity and other team characteristics. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010;37(5):417-426.
205. Woltmann EM, Whitley R, McHugo GJ, et al. The role of staff turnover in the implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health care. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(7):732-737.
206. Alegría M, NeMoyer A, Falgàs Bagué I, et al. Social determinants of mental health: Where we are and where we need to go. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20(11):95.
207. Daniel H, Bornstein SS, Kane GC. Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: an American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):577-578.
208. Park H, Roubal AM, Jovaag A, Gennuso KP, Catlin BB. Relative contributions of a set of health factors to selected health outcomes. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(6):961-969.
209. Ash AS, Mick EO, Ellis RP, et al. Social determinants of health in managed care payment formulas. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(10):1424.
210. de Beurs E, Warmerdam EH, Oudejans SCC, et al. Treatment outcome, duration, and costs: a comparison of performance indicators using data from eight mental health care providers in the Netherlands. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018;45(2):212-223.
211. Dunbar-Rees R. Paying for what matters most: the future of outcomes-based payments in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2018;5(2):98-102.
212. Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. physicians’ working hours and lowers their career satisfaction. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):635-642.
From the Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
Objective: Implementation of the Quadruple Aim of health care must begin with a clearly articulated set of concepts, or core domains (CDs), that comprise each aim. These CDs can then be operationalized with existing or new measures. If aligned to the organization’s mission and strategic goals, these CDs have the potential to focus quality improvement activities and reduce measurement burden. This article represents the efforts of a publicly funded behavioral health system to operationalize the Quadruple Aim through the development of CDs.
Methods: Various stakeholders across the organization were consulted on their perceptions of the Quadruple Aim and the CDs they believed should support it. Then, a review of existing literature on core metrics for health care and population health was completed, summarized, and integrated with the stakeholder feedback.
Results: These efforts led to the development and adoption of 15 CDs, with an accompanying literature review and set of recommendations of new and existing measures for each domain.
Conclusions: It is possible to create a comprehensive yet economical set of CDs and attendant measures that can be implemented in a staged, scalable, enterprise manner. It is hoped that the process articulated here, and the accompanying literature review, may be of some benefit to other public or government-run health systems in their own quality improvement journey to operationalize the Quadruple Aim by developing a set of CDs.
Keywords: quality measures; quality improvement; adult behavioral health.
First articulated in 2008, the Triple Aim proposes that health care systems should simultaneously seek to improve the patient’s experience of care, improve the health of populations, and reduce the per capita costs of care for populations.1 More recently, some have argued that health care provider burnout can deleteriously impact the attainment of the Triple Aim and have therefore advocated for an expanded focus to include a fourth Aim, the work life quality of the staff.2 Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division (BHD), a publicly funded, county-based behavioral health care system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, recently adopted the Quadruple Aim as the framework by which it will organize its quality activities.
Although originally developed for medical organizations, BHD believes that the Quadruple Aim has strong applicability to county-level behavioral health services. Many county-based behavioral health divisions provide a variety of programs to large segments of the county based on financial eligibility and/or clinical need, and thus often have responsibilities to populations or subpopulations, rather than programs. County health divisions, such as Milwaukee County’s Department of Health and Human Services, are often asked to improve outcomes and client experience of care with neutral growth budgets and less reliance on taxes to fund programs, while simultaneously attracting and retaining competent staff.
Crucial to the effective implementation of the Quadruple Aim, however, is a clear set of population- level measures that help organizations assess their progress.3 Unfortunately, as some authors have noted, evaluation of the Quadruple Aim remains a challenge because the “concepts of (population) health, quality of care and costs are not unanimously defined and measures for these concepts are under construction.”4 Several authors have provided some guidance to assist in the development of a set of measures that effectively capture the elements of the Quadruple Aim.5,6 However, the recent rapid proliferation of quality measures in health care7,8 has been both burdensome and costly for providers.9,10 Any measures adopted should not only be as meaningful as possible with regards to assessing progress towards the basic aims of health care, but should also be parsimonious, to limit measurement burden for providers (and patients) and focus attention on important issues.11,12
To select the most effective, parsimonious set of measures possible, one must first select a set of key foci from among the many possible areas of focus that the core measure is intended to represent. The core domains (CDs), if appropriately consistent with the strategic goals of the organization, provide a mechanism to orient the efforts of the organization at every level and help every staff member of the organization understand how his or her work impacts the progress towards these goals.11 The CDs, therefore, represent the opportunity to affect a greater integration of efforts across the organization toward these shared aims, creating uniformity of purpose at every level. Further, increasing organizational attention on the CDs can also help to reduce measurement burden by streamlining and focusing the data capture processes on the most valuable elements of quality and health, and discarding other extraneous measures (albeit not at the expense of other reporting requirements).11 The remainder of this article describes the CDs selected by BHD to assess its progress toward implementation of the Quadruple Aim and are organized by the Aim which they best represent.
Methods
To effectively implement the Quadruple Aim at BHD, it was necessary to clearly define the subpopulation of focus for our efforts.6 In this case, the subpopulation of interest was defined as all adult clients (18 years and older) who received at least 1 service encounter within a specified time frame from a program that BHD either operated or contracted with to provide care. Services provided by the BHD network include everything from psychiatric inpatient services to mental health and addiction treatment and care management. A limited array of social services, including housing and employment services, is also available to eligible consumers. BHD is the county-run behavioral health provider for individuals who are uninsured or underinsured in Milwaukee County, a demographically diverse, primarily urban county of approximately 950,000 people located in Wisconsin. Approximately 15,000 adults receive services at BHD each year.
This work began by obtaining executive sponsorship for the project, in this case from the Chief Operations Officer and Executive Medical Director of BHD. With their backing, an initial review of the literature produced a preliminary set of possible domains, for which we created working definitions. We then made a list of key stakeholders throughout BHD to whom we needed to present the idea of the Quadruple Aim, and the CDs under each Aim, to secure their support. These stakeholders, which included individuals involved in quality activities, program managers, and executive leadership, were strategically selected based on their relative influence within the organization. A set of brief presentations and handouts explaining the project were then developed and shared at different focus groups with these stakeholders over the course of 6 months. These focus groups served to not only educate the organization about the Quadruple Aim and the CDs but afforded participants an opportunity to provide feedback as well.
During the focus groups, we asked participants which domains they believed were most important (were “core”) when operationalizing the Quadruple Aim. The focus groups provided feedback on the domain definitions, feedback that was used to develop uniform, mutually agreed upon definitions for the CDs that were generalizable to all departments at BHD, regardless of the focus of their services within the continuum of care or the continuum of age. This was a crucial step, as it will eventually enable BHD to aggregate data across departments, even if there are minor discrepancies in the specific items they use to assess the CDs. Comments from the focus groups ultimately resulted in a truncated list of domains and definitions, which, coupled with the literature review, resulted in our final set of CDs.
During our review of the literature, we also looked for items that we felt could best represent each CD in the briefest, most meaningful way. (These items were not meant to supersede existing data, but to provide examples that could be implemented with existing data or recommendations that could be utilized in the absence of existing data.) During this process, we made every effort to make use of existing data-reporting requirements. For example, if we had a state mandate to collect data on housing status, we attempted to leverage this required data point to represent the CD related to housing. In other cases, we attempted to utilize claims or other administrative data to operationalize the CD, such as in the cost-of-care metric articulated in the section the Third Aim. For CDs for which no data existed or were insufficient, we emphasized the use of single- versus multi-item scales. For example, if we found a single-item global assessment of quality of life that had good psychometric properties relative to its longer parent scale, we selected the single item. This approach to item selection allowed us to create the most efficient, parsimonious set of measures possible, which we believed would enable us to comprehensively assess all the CDs with the least amount of burden to staff and clients. These items were presented at stakeholder focus groups, during which we asked for comments on the existing measures in their program or department and gave them the opportunity to comment on the new recommended measures.
A working definition is provided for each CD, followed by a brief review of the research base supporting its inclusion in the final list. The item(s) selected by BHD to represent each CD and the source of the item(s) are then supplied. These items were based either on measures currently collected because of existing reporting mandates or, in the case where extant measures were not available, on new items that demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in the research literature. The CDs and items are organized by the Aim they best represent. A full list of the CDs by Quadruple Aim and items by CD is provided in the Appendix of the online version of this article. This article concludes with a brief summary of this effort and a discussion of how staff will utilize these items at different levels throughout the BHD system.
The First Aim: Population Health
Health Outcomes
Deaths. This can be defined as the cause of death, as determined by the medical examiner’s office (where appropriate) or as the age at time of death. This CD can also be reported as proportion of deaths considered premature (eg, before age 75) or calculated as total years of potential life lost.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Rates and causes of premature mortality are critical foci for the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps,13 the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s “Guide to Measuring the Triple Aim,”6 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Community Health Assessment for Population Health Improvement,”14 and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “Vital Signs: Core Metrics for Health and Health Care Progress.”11 There is ample evidence that individuals with serious mental illness are at increased risk of early mortality relative to the general population,15-18 and this risk applies to those with substance use disorders as well.15,19-20 BHD tracks all deaths that occur while patients are receiving BHD-funded, community-based services.
Self-Reported Health and Well-Being. This CD asks patients to rate their current physical and mental health status, as well as their overall quality of life.
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated physical health. Premature mortality among individuals with behavioral health issues appears to be due, in large part, to their increased vulnerability to the development of medical comorbidities.16,21 A single self-rating question has demonstrated considerable sensitivity to premature mortality,22,23 with predictive properties up to a decade prior to death.24,25 Further, self-rated health has been associated with subsequent functional decline,26,27 acute service utilization,28,29 and overall health care costs.28
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated mental health. Mental health disorders are associated with significant disability worldwide,30 and comorbid mental health issues can exacerbate the course of other medical problems. For example, depression is associated with increased rates of mortality among individuals with diabetes and31 cardiovascular disease,32 as well as with rates of overall mortality,33 and psychiatric comorbidity is associated with longer lengths of stay and higher costs among patients hospitalized for medical problems.34 Research has found that a single-item measure of self-rated mental health is associated with the presence of psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptoms, and subsequent depression and serious mental illness up to 1 year post-assessment.35,36 There is even evidence that self-rated mental health may be more strongly associated with self-ratings of overall health than self-ratings of physical health.37
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated quality of life. Quality of life is a critical component of the recovery journey and overall health.38 For example, the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps lists “quality of life” as 1 of its key “health outcomes” in its County Health Rankings.13 As some authors have noted, quality of life is often inferred from other “objective” recovery domains, such as employment, health status, or housing status. However, there is evidence that these objective domains are functionally distinct from the inherently subjective construct of quality of life.39 This has led other authors to conclude that these domains should be assessed separately when evaluating outcomes.40 Single-item quality of life assessments have been used in research with individuals with cancer,41 adults with disabilities,42 patients with cystic fibrosis,43 and children with epilepsy.44 For this effort, BHD selected the first global quality of life item from the World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment,45 an item used in other quality of life research.46
Health Factors
Substance Use. This CD is a composite of 4 different types of substance use, any recent heavy alcohol use (defined as 5 or more drinks in one sitting), any recent drug use, any recent prescription drug abuse, and any recent tobacco use.
Brief review and suggested item(s). As noted, substance use disorders confer an increased risk for early mortality15,19 and are significantly implicated in disease disability burden worldwide.30 Substance use has also been associated with both the onset47,48 and exacerbation of mental health diagnoses.49-51 Further, substance use appears to heighten the risk of violence in the general population52 and especially among those with a co-occurring mental illness.53,54 The County Health Rankings & Roadmaps list alcohol and drug use as key behaviors to address to improve the overall health of a given county,13 and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has endorsed initiation and engagement in addiction treatment as one of the measures in its Adult Core Set.55
Tobacco use continues to be one of the most significant risk factors for early mortality worldwide, and evidence indicates that it is associated with a lower life expectancy of nearly 10 years.56 Unfortunately, rates of tobacco use are even higher among those with severe mental illness relative to the general population, and their rates of smoking cessation are lower.57,58 Tobacco use is a significant risk factor for the high rates of early mortality in individuals with severe mental illness.18 Further, a recent meta-analysis noted that, relative to those who continued to smoke, those who ceased smoking had reduced rates of psychological distress and increased quality of life rankings.59 Reducing tobacco use is one of the key components of the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, and medication assistance with smoking and tobacco use cessation is also listed in the CMS Adult Core Set.13,55
An accumulating body of evidence suggests that single-item measures can adequately detect alcohol60-62 and drug use disorders.60-64 McNeely and colleagues recently developed and tested a brief 4-item screen, the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool.65,66 Preliminary evidence suggests that the TAPS tool can effectively identify the presence of problematic and disordered use of tobacco, alcohol, prescription medications, and other drugs.65-67 BHD will use the 4 items from the TAPS tool to represent its substance use CD.
Education/Employment Status. This CD assesses the proportion of BHD members who have completed high school, who are in some type of educational or training program, or who are engaged in some type of employment activity (defined as full-time, part-time, supported, sheltered workshop, or as a full-time homemaker).
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research indicates that unemployment is a risk factor for mortality, even after controlling for other risk factors (eg, age, sex, socioeconomic status [SES], health).68 Unemployment is associated with poorer physical and mental health in the general population and among those with disabilities.69-71 Promisingly, evidence suggests that gaining employment or re-employment is associated with better health,72 even for individuals with substance use disorders73 or moderate74 to severe mental health disorders.75-78 Some authors have even proposed that, above and beyond the associated health benefits, employment may also help to realize a modest cost savings due to reduced service utilization and disability.79,80 Employment is a core tenet in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) model of recovery,81 and is also listed as an important recovery goal for individuals with behavioral health issues.82 BHD collects data on employment status on all the patients it serves as part of its state-mandated reporting requirements and will use this item in the CD data set.83
Living Situation. This is measured as the proportion of people who live in permanent, supportive, stable housing; it may also be measured as the percentage of the population living with severe housing problems or who are homeless.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Housing problems can be conceptualized as 3 inter-related components: conditions within the home, neighborhood conditions, and housing affordability, each of which can contribute uniquely to poorer physical and mental health of individuals and families84 and to educational outcomes for children.85,86 Further, individuals who are homeless have a standardized mortality ratio 2 to 5 times that of the general population,87-89 even after controlling for low income status,90 and some evidence suggests these rates are even higher among unsheltered versus sheltered homeless individuals.91 Interventions to improve the condition of housing have demonstrated positive impacts on both physical and mental health,92 and a recent study found that individuals receiving housing assistance in the form of public housing or multifamily housing from the Department of Housing and Urban Development had better self-rated physical and mental health relative to individuals on the wait list for housing assistance.93 Moreover, the provision of housing has been shown to promote reductions in substance use and health service utilization among homeless individuals with substance use disorders.94 Rog and colleagues reviewed the literature on permanent supportive housing for individuals with substance use or mental health disorders who were homeless or disabled, and found that provision of housing led to reduced rates of homelessness, emergency department (ED) and inpatient utilization and increased consumer satisfaction.95
Importantly, evidence suggests that housing is viewed as facilitative of recovery. For example, in a recent qualitative study of homeless individuals with mental illness, housing was seen as a critical first step in recovery, providing a sense of security, increasing feelings of personal independence and autonomy, improving perceptions of health and well-being, and affording a stable environment to rebuild relationships with important others.96 BHD collects data on housing status on all the patients it serves as part of its state-mandated reporting requirements and will utilize this item in the CD data set.83
Social Relationships. This is defined as recent interactions with family, supportive networks (formal and informal), and other recovery services.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research has long established that social relationships have a significant impact on health, including rates of mortality as well as physical and mental health morbidity.97-99 Social connectedness is another of the pillars supporting an individual’s recovery in SAMHSA’s formulation. Several reviews of the recovery literature38,82 support its importance to the recovery process and inclusion in any assessment of holistic recovery. Social support has been shown to promote recovery among individuals with severe mental illness100-102 and substance use disorders,103 and may mitigate the progression of chronic, life-threatening physical illnesses.97 For the purposes of BHD’s CD data set, the social support question from the “100 Million Healthier Lives Common Questionnaire for Adults” will be used to assess individuals’ perceived adequacy of social support.104
Legal Involvement. Defined as involvement with the civil or criminal justice system, including arrests, imprisonment, or detainment.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Involvement in the criminal justice system is both disruptive for the individual in recovery and expensive to the larger health care system.105 Individuals with substance use106 and severe mental health disorders107 are over-represented in the prison system, and evidence suggests that general physical and mental health declines while individuals are in prison.108,109 Perhaps even more concerning, numerous studies have demonstrated an increase in mortality rates for individuals recently released from prison relative to the general population, particularly during the period immediately following release.108-110 This relationship may even persist long term.111 Further, research indicates that individuals recently released from prison have increased emergency care and hospital utilization.112,113
Incarceration can have significant impacts on the health of the broader community as well. For example, research has found an association between parental incarceration to rates of infant mortality,114 increased behavioral and developmental problems of children of incarcerated parents,115,116 lower rates of child support payments,117 and poorer cardiovascular health of female partners of incarcerated individuals.118 Formerly incarcerated individuals experience slower wage growth as well.119 However, evidence also indicates that engagement in mental health120 and substance abuse121 treatment can reduce the likelihood of subsequent recidivism. As part of its state-mandated reporting, BHD is required to provide information on the criminal justice system involvement of its clients in the previous 6 months, including whether they have been jailed or imprisoned,83 and this will function as its measure of legal involvement in its CD data set.
Socioeconomic Status. Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation. It can also be defined subjectively, such as one’s evaluation of status relative to similar others or based on an individual’s interpretation of her or his financial needs.
Brief review and suggested item(s). A large body of evidence supports the existence of a robust relationship between lower SES and poor health, including mortality and chronic medical diseases,122-124 as well as mental illness.125-127 Although previous research has examined this relationship using objective indicators of SES (eg, income, education level, occupation), there has recently been an increased interest in exploring the relationship of subjective SES with health indices. Subjective SES is generally assessed by asking individuals to rate themselves relative to others in the society in which they live, in terms of wealth, occupation, educational level, or other indicators of social status. Evidence suggests that subjective SES is associated with objective measures of SES,128-130 and relates to measures of physical and mental health as well, even after controlling for objective SES.130-135 BHD will be using a modified version of the Subject SES Scale,131,135 which is deployed in the “100 Million Healthier Lives Common Questionnaire for Adults.”104
Acute Service Use. This is defined as an admission to a medical or psychiatric emergency room or to a medical or psychiatric hospital or to a detoxification facility.
Brief review and suggested item(s). The CMS Adult Core Set includes “plan all cause readmissions” as a key quality metric.55 Hospital readmissions are also endorsed by the National Committee on Quality Assurance as one of its Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures and by the National Quality Forum. Readmissions, despite their widespread endorsement, are a somewhat controversial measure. Although readmissions are costly to the health care system,136 the relationship between readmissions and quality is inconsistent. For example, Krumholz and colleagues137 found differential rates of readmission for the same patient discharged from 2 different hospitals, which were categorized based on previous readmission rates, suggesting that hospitals do have different levels of performance even when treating the same patient. However, other data indicate that 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized readmission rates are not associated with hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rates.138
Chin and colleague found that readmissions to the hospital that occurred more than 7 days post-discharge were likely due to community- and household-related factors, rather than hospital-related quality factors.139 Transitional care interventions that have successfully reduced 30-day readmission rates are most often multicomponent and focus not just on hospital-based interventions (eg, discharge planning, education) but on follow-up care in the community by formal supports (eg, in-home visits, telephone calls, outpatient clinic appointments, case management) and informal supports (eg, family and friends).140-143 Further, qualitative evidence suggests that some individuals perceive psychiatric hospitalizations to be the result of insufficient resources or unsuccessful attempts to maintain their stability in the community.144 Thus, unplanned or avoidable hospital readmissions may represent a failure of the continuum of care not only from the perspective of the health care system, but from the patient perspective as well.
Frequent or nonurgent use of EDs is conceptually similar to excessive or avoidable inpatient utilization in several ways. For example, overuse of EDs is costly, with some estimates suggesting that it is responsible for up to $38 billion in wasteful spending each year.145 Individuals with frequent ED visits have a greater disease burden146 and an increased risk of mortality compared to nonfrequent users.147 Research suggests that individuals who visit the ED for non-urgent issues do so because of perceived difficulties associated with accessing primary care, and the convenience of EDs relative to primary care.148-150 Moreover, similar to the hospital readmission literature discussed earlier, successful strategies to reduce high rates of ED utilization generally focus on continuum of care interventions, such as provision of case management services.151-155
This evidence implies that frequent ED utilization and hospital readmissions may not be a fundamental issue of quality (or lack thereof) in hospitals or EDs but rather a lack of, or ineffectual, transitional and continuum of care strategies and services. To underscore this point, some authors have argued that a system that is excessively crisis-oriented hinders recovery because it is reactive rather than proactive, predicated on the notion that one’s condition must deteriorate to receive care.156
Although some organizations may have access to claims data or may function as self-contained health systems (eg, the Veterans Health Administration [VHA] ), others may not have access to such data. In the absence of claims data, patient self-report of service utilization has been used as a proxy for actual agency records.157 Although concordance between medical and/or agency records and patient self-report has been variable,157 evidence generally suggests that rates of agreement are higher the shorter the recall time interval.158,159 BHD does not have access to comprehensive claims data and has therefore chosen to use 5 dichotomously scored (yes/no) questions—related to medical inpatient, medical ED, psychiatric inpatient, psychiatric ED, and detoxification use in the last 30 days—to represent the CD of acute service utilization.
The Second Aim: Quality of Care
Safety
Safety is defined as avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them.
Brief review and suggested item(s). As noted in “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” the IOM’s seminal document, “the health care environment should be safe for all patients, in all of its processes, all the time.”160 The landmark Harvard Medical Practice Study in 1991 found that adverse events occurred in nearly 4% of all hospital admissions and, among these, over a quarter were due to negligence.161 Other estimates of adverse events range as high as 17%.162 Indeed, a recent article by Makary and Daniel estimated that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.163 Unfortunately, research on safety in the mental health field has lagged behind that of physical health,164 with evidence indicating that research in nonhospital settings in mental health care may be particularly scarce.165 In a study of adverse events that occurred in psychiatric inpatient units in the VHA system between 2015 and 2016, Mills and colleagues found that of the 87 root cause analysis reports, suicide attempts were the most frequent, and, among safety events, falls were the most frequently reported, followed by medication events.166 Another report on data collected from psychiatric inpatient units in the VHA revealed that nearly one-fifth of patients experienced a safety event, over half of which were deemed preventable.167 These numbers likely represent an underestimation of the true volume of safety events, as another study by the same research group found that less than 40% of safety events described in patient medical records were documented in the incident reporting system.168 BHD will utilize the total number of complaints and incident reports submitted within a given time frame as its “safety” metric in the CD data set.
Wait Time for Service
The CD is defined as the length of time between the date a patient first contacted BHD for services and the date of their first clinical service.
Brief review and suggested item(s). “Timeliness” was listed among the 6 aims for improvement in “Crossing the Quality Chasm” in 2001, and it remains no less relevant today.160 For example, evidence indicates that access to primary care is inversely related to avoidable hospitalizations.169 One study found that, of patients hospitalized for cardiovascular problems, those who had difficulty accessing routine care post discharge had higher 30-day readmission rates.170 Among VHA patients, longer wait times are associated with more avoidable hospitalizations and higher rates of mortality.171 Longer wait times appear to decrease the likelihood of attending a first appointment for individuals with substance use172,173 and mental health disorders.174 Importantly, longer wait times are associated with lower ratings of the patient experience of care, including perceptions of the quality of and satisfaction with care,175 and may be associated with worse outcomes for individuals in early intervention for psychosis treatment.176 For the purposes of the CD data set, BHD will monitor the length of time between the date a patient first contacted BHD for services and the date of their first clinical service.
Patient Satisfaction
Patient satisfaction is defined as the degree of patients’ satisfaction with the care they have received.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research has consistently demonstrated the relationship of the patient’s experience of care to a variety of safety and clinical effectiveness measures in medical health care,177 and the therapeutic alliance is one of the most consistent predictors of outcomes in behavioral health, regardless of therapeutic modality.178 Patient satisfaction is a commonly assessed aspect of the patient experience of care. Patient satisfaction scores have been correlated with patient adherence to recommended treatment regimens, care quality, and health outcomes.179 For example, Aiken et al found that patient satisfaction with hospital care was associated with higher ratings of the quality and safety of nursing care in these hospitals.180 Increased satisfaction with inpatient care has been associated with lower 30-day readmission rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia,181 and patients with schizophrenia who reported higher treatment satisfaction also reported better quality of life.182,183 Many satisfaction survey options exist to evaluate this CD, including the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire; BHD will utilize an outpatient behavioral health survey from a third-party vendor.
The Third Aim: Cost of Care
Cost of Care
This can be defined as the average cost to provide care per patient per month.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Per capita cost, or rather, the total cost of providing care to a circumscribed population divided by the total population, has been espoused as an important metric for the Triple Aim and the County Health Rankings.6,13 Indeed, between 1960 and 2016, per capita expenditures for health care have grown 70-fold, and the percent of the national gross domestic product accounted for by health expenditures has more than tripled (5.0% to 17.9%).184 One of the more common metrics deployed for assessing health care cost is the per capita per month cost, or rather, the per member per month cost of the predefined population for a given health care system.6,185,186 In fact, some authors have proposed that cost of care can be used not only to track efficient resource allocation, but can also be a proxy for a healthier population as well (ie, as health improves, individuals use fewer and less-expensive services, thus costing the system less).187 To assess this metric, BHD will calculate the total amount billed for patient care provided within BHD’s health network each month (irrespective of funding source) and then divide this sum by the number of members served each month. Although this measure does not account for care received at other health care facilities outside BHD’s provider network, nor does it include all the overhead costs associated with the care provided by BHD itself, it is consistent with the claims-based approach used or recommended by other authors.6,188
The Fourth Aim: Staff Well-being
Staff Quality of Work Life
This can be defined as the quality of the work life of health care clinicians and staff.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Some authors have suggested that the Triple Aim framework is incomplete and have proffered compelling arguments that provider well-being and the quality of work life constitutes a fourth aim.2 Provider burnout is prevalent in both medical2,189 and behavioral health care.190,191 Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with higher rates of perceived medical errors,192 lower patient satisfaction scores,189,193 lower rates of provider empathy,194 more negative attitudes towards patients,195 and poorer staff mental and physical health.191
Burnout is also associated with higher rates of absenteeism, turnover intentions, and turnover.190,191,196,197 However, burnout is not the only predictor of staff turnover; for example, turnover rates are a useful proxy for staff quality of work life for several reasons.198 First, turnover is associated with substantial direct and indirect costs, including lost productivity, increased errors, and lost revenue and recruitment costs, with some turnover cost estimates as high as $17 billion for physicians and $14 billion for nurses annually.199-201 Second, research indicates that staff turnover can have a deleterious impact on implementation of evidence-based interventions.202-205 Finally, consistent with the philosophy of utilizing existing data sources for the CD measures, turnover can be relatively easily extracted from administrative data for operated or contracted programs, and its collection does not place any additional burden on staff. As a large behavioral health system that is both a provider and payer of care, BHD will therefore examine the turnover rates of its internal administrative and clinical staff as well as the turnover of staff in its contracted provider network as its measures for the Staff Quality of Work Life CD.
Clinical Implications
These metrics can be deployed at any level of the organization. Clinicians may use 1 or more of the measures to track the recovery of individual clients, or in aggregate for their entire caseload. Similarly, managers can use these measures to assess the overall effectiveness of the programs for which they are responsible. Executive leaders can evaluate the impact of several programs or the system of care on the health of a subpopulation of clients with a specific condition, or for all their enrolled members. Further, not all measures need be utilized for every dashboard or evaluative effort. The benefit of a comprehensive set of measures lies in their flexibility—1 or more of the measures may be selected depending on the project being implemented or the interests of the stakeholder.
It is important to note that many of the CDs (and their accompanying measures) are aligned to/consistent with social determinants of health.206,207 Evidence suggests that social determinants make substantial contributions to the overall health of individuals and populations and may even account for a greater proportion of variance in health outcomes than health care itself.208 The measures articulated here, therefore, can be used to assess whether and how effectively care provision has addressed these social determinants, as well as the relative impact their resolution may have on other health outcomes (eg, mortality, self-rated health).
These measures can also be used to stratify clients by clinical severity or degree of socioeconomic deprivation. The ability to adjust for risk has many applications in health care, particularly when organizations are attempting to implement value-based purchasing models, such as pay-for-performance contracts or other alternative payment models (population health-based payment models).209 Indeed, once fully implemented, the CDs and measures will enable BHD to more effectively build and execute different conceptual models of “value” (see references 210 and 211 for examples). We will be able to assess the progress our clients have made in care, the cost associated with that degree of improvement, the experience of those clients receiving that care, and the clinical and social variables that may influence the relative degree of improvement (or lack thereof). Thus, the CDs provide a conceptual and data-driven foundation for the Quadruple Aim and any quality initiatives that either catalyze or augment its implementation.
Conclusion
This article provides an overview of the CDs selected by BHD to help organize, focus, advance, and track its quality efforts within the framework of the Quadruple Aim. Although items aligned to each of these CDs are offered, the CDs themselves have been broadly conceptualized such that they can flexibly admit a variety of possible items and/or assessments to operationalize each CD and thus have potential applicability to other behavioral health systems, particularly public systems that have state-mandated and other data reporting requirements.
Bearing in mind the burden that growing data collection requirements can have on the provision of quality care and staff work satisfaction and burnout,10,212 the CDs (and the items selected to represent each) are designed with “strategic parsimony” in mind. Although the CDs are inclusive in that they cover care quality, cost of care, staff quality of life, and general population health, only CDs and items undergirded by a solid evidence base and high value with regards to BHD’s mission and values, as determined by key stakeholders, were selected. Moreover, BHD attempted to make use of existing data collection and reporting mandates when selecting the final pool of items to reduce the measurement burden on staff and clients. Thus, the final set of CDs and items are designed to be comprehensive yet economical.
The CDs are deeply interrelated. Although each CD may be individually viewed as a valuable metric, improvements in any 1 CD will impact the others (eg, increasing care quality should impact population health, increasing staff quality of life should impact the quality of care). Moreover, this idea of interrelatedness acknowledges the need to view health systems and the populations they serve holistically, in that improvement is not simply the degree of change in any given metric (whether individually or collectively), but rather something more entirely. The concepts of value, quality, and health are complex, multidimensional, and dynamic, and the CDs that comprise these concepts should not be considered independently from one another. The CDs (and items) offered in this article are scalable in that they can be used at different levels of an organization depending on the question or stakeholder, and can be used individually or in combination with one another. Moreover, they are adaptable to a variety of risk-adjusted program, population health, and value-based evaluation models. It is hoped that the process articulated here, and the accompanying literature review, may benefit other public or government-run health systems in their own quality journey to operationalize the Quadruple Aim by developing a set of CDs.
Corresponding author: Walter Matthew Drymalski, PhD; walter.drymalski@milwaukeecountywi.gov.
Financial disclosures: None.
From the Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
Objective: Implementation of the Quadruple Aim of health care must begin with a clearly articulated set of concepts, or core domains (CDs), that comprise each aim. These CDs can then be operationalized with existing or new measures. If aligned to the organization’s mission and strategic goals, these CDs have the potential to focus quality improvement activities and reduce measurement burden. This article represents the efforts of a publicly funded behavioral health system to operationalize the Quadruple Aim through the development of CDs.
Methods: Various stakeholders across the organization were consulted on their perceptions of the Quadruple Aim and the CDs they believed should support it. Then, a review of existing literature on core metrics for health care and population health was completed, summarized, and integrated with the stakeholder feedback.
Results: These efforts led to the development and adoption of 15 CDs, with an accompanying literature review and set of recommendations of new and existing measures for each domain.
Conclusions: It is possible to create a comprehensive yet economical set of CDs and attendant measures that can be implemented in a staged, scalable, enterprise manner. It is hoped that the process articulated here, and the accompanying literature review, may be of some benefit to other public or government-run health systems in their own quality improvement journey to operationalize the Quadruple Aim by developing a set of CDs.
Keywords: quality measures; quality improvement; adult behavioral health.
First articulated in 2008, the Triple Aim proposes that health care systems should simultaneously seek to improve the patient’s experience of care, improve the health of populations, and reduce the per capita costs of care for populations.1 More recently, some have argued that health care provider burnout can deleteriously impact the attainment of the Triple Aim and have therefore advocated for an expanded focus to include a fourth Aim, the work life quality of the staff.2 Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division (BHD), a publicly funded, county-based behavioral health care system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, recently adopted the Quadruple Aim as the framework by which it will organize its quality activities.
Although originally developed for medical organizations, BHD believes that the Quadruple Aim has strong applicability to county-level behavioral health services. Many county-based behavioral health divisions provide a variety of programs to large segments of the county based on financial eligibility and/or clinical need, and thus often have responsibilities to populations or subpopulations, rather than programs. County health divisions, such as Milwaukee County’s Department of Health and Human Services, are often asked to improve outcomes and client experience of care with neutral growth budgets and less reliance on taxes to fund programs, while simultaneously attracting and retaining competent staff.
Crucial to the effective implementation of the Quadruple Aim, however, is a clear set of population- level measures that help organizations assess their progress.3 Unfortunately, as some authors have noted, evaluation of the Quadruple Aim remains a challenge because the “concepts of (population) health, quality of care and costs are not unanimously defined and measures for these concepts are under construction.”4 Several authors have provided some guidance to assist in the development of a set of measures that effectively capture the elements of the Quadruple Aim.5,6 However, the recent rapid proliferation of quality measures in health care7,8 has been both burdensome and costly for providers.9,10 Any measures adopted should not only be as meaningful as possible with regards to assessing progress towards the basic aims of health care, but should also be parsimonious, to limit measurement burden for providers (and patients) and focus attention on important issues.11,12
To select the most effective, parsimonious set of measures possible, one must first select a set of key foci from among the many possible areas of focus that the core measure is intended to represent. The core domains (CDs), if appropriately consistent with the strategic goals of the organization, provide a mechanism to orient the efforts of the organization at every level and help every staff member of the organization understand how his or her work impacts the progress towards these goals.11 The CDs, therefore, represent the opportunity to affect a greater integration of efforts across the organization toward these shared aims, creating uniformity of purpose at every level. Further, increasing organizational attention on the CDs can also help to reduce measurement burden by streamlining and focusing the data capture processes on the most valuable elements of quality and health, and discarding other extraneous measures (albeit not at the expense of other reporting requirements).11 The remainder of this article describes the CDs selected by BHD to assess its progress toward implementation of the Quadruple Aim and are organized by the Aim which they best represent.
Methods
To effectively implement the Quadruple Aim at BHD, it was necessary to clearly define the subpopulation of focus for our efforts.6 In this case, the subpopulation of interest was defined as all adult clients (18 years and older) who received at least 1 service encounter within a specified time frame from a program that BHD either operated or contracted with to provide care. Services provided by the BHD network include everything from psychiatric inpatient services to mental health and addiction treatment and care management. A limited array of social services, including housing and employment services, is also available to eligible consumers. BHD is the county-run behavioral health provider for individuals who are uninsured or underinsured in Milwaukee County, a demographically diverse, primarily urban county of approximately 950,000 people located in Wisconsin. Approximately 15,000 adults receive services at BHD each year.
This work began by obtaining executive sponsorship for the project, in this case from the Chief Operations Officer and Executive Medical Director of BHD. With their backing, an initial review of the literature produced a preliminary set of possible domains, for which we created working definitions. We then made a list of key stakeholders throughout BHD to whom we needed to present the idea of the Quadruple Aim, and the CDs under each Aim, to secure their support. These stakeholders, which included individuals involved in quality activities, program managers, and executive leadership, were strategically selected based on their relative influence within the organization. A set of brief presentations and handouts explaining the project were then developed and shared at different focus groups with these stakeholders over the course of 6 months. These focus groups served to not only educate the organization about the Quadruple Aim and the CDs but afforded participants an opportunity to provide feedback as well.
During the focus groups, we asked participants which domains they believed were most important (were “core”) when operationalizing the Quadruple Aim. The focus groups provided feedback on the domain definitions, feedback that was used to develop uniform, mutually agreed upon definitions for the CDs that were generalizable to all departments at BHD, regardless of the focus of their services within the continuum of care or the continuum of age. This was a crucial step, as it will eventually enable BHD to aggregate data across departments, even if there are minor discrepancies in the specific items they use to assess the CDs. Comments from the focus groups ultimately resulted in a truncated list of domains and definitions, which, coupled with the literature review, resulted in our final set of CDs.
During our review of the literature, we also looked for items that we felt could best represent each CD in the briefest, most meaningful way. (These items were not meant to supersede existing data, but to provide examples that could be implemented with existing data or recommendations that could be utilized in the absence of existing data.) During this process, we made every effort to make use of existing data-reporting requirements. For example, if we had a state mandate to collect data on housing status, we attempted to leverage this required data point to represent the CD related to housing. In other cases, we attempted to utilize claims or other administrative data to operationalize the CD, such as in the cost-of-care metric articulated in the section the Third Aim. For CDs for which no data existed or were insufficient, we emphasized the use of single- versus multi-item scales. For example, if we found a single-item global assessment of quality of life that had good psychometric properties relative to its longer parent scale, we selected the single item. This approach to item selection allowed us to create the most efficient, parsimonious set of measures possible, which we believed would enable us to comprehensively assess all the CDs with the least amount of burden to staff and clients. These items were presented at stakeholder focus groups, during which we asked for comments on the existing measures in their program or department and gave them the opportunity to comment on the new recommended measures.
A working definition is provided for each CD, followed by a brief review of the research base supporting its inclusion in the final list. The item(s) selected by BHD to represent each CD and the source of the item(s) are then supplied. These items were based either on measures currently collected because of existing reporting mandates or, in the case where extant measures were not available, on new items that demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in the research literature. The CDs and items are organized by the Aim they best represent. A full list of the CDs by Quadruple Aim and items by CD is provided in the Appendix of the online version of this article. This article concludes with a brief summary of this effort and a discussion of how staff will utilize these items at different levels throughout the BHD system.
The First Aim: Population Health
Health Outcomes
Deaths. This can be defined as the cause of death, as determined by the medical examiner’s office (where appropriate) or as the age at time of death. This CD can also be reported as proportion of deaths considered premature (eg, before age 75) or calculated as total years of potential life lost.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Rates and causes of premature mortality are critical foci for the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps,13 the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s “Guide to Measuring the Triple Aim,”6 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Community Health Assessment for Population Health Improvement,”14 and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “Vital Signs: Core Metrics for Health and Health Care Progress.”11 There is ample evidence that individuals with serious mental illness are at increased risk of early mortality relative to the general population,15-18 and this risk applies to those with substance use disorders as well.15,19-20 BHD tracks all deaths that occur while patients are receiving BHD-funded, community-based services.
Self-Reported Health and Well-Being. This CD asks patients to rate their current physical and mental health status, as well as their overall quality of life.
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated physical health. Premature mortality among individuals with behavioral health issues appears to be due, in large part, to their increased vulnerability to the development of medical comorbidities.16,21 A single self-rating question has demonstrated considerable sensitivity to premature mortality,22,23 with predictive properties up to a decade prior to death.24,25 Further, self-rated health has been associated with subsequent functional decline,26,27 acute service utilization,28,29 and overall health care costs.28
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated mental health. Mental health disorders are associated with significant disability worldwide,30 and comorbid mental health issues can exacerbate the course of other medical problems. For example, depression is associated with increased rates of mortality among individuals with diabetes and31 cardiovascular disease,32 as well as with rates of overall mortality,33 and psychiatric comorbidity is associated with longer lengths of stay and higher costs among patients hospitalized for medical problems.34 Research has found that a single-item measure of self-rated mental health is associated with the presence of psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptoms, and subsequent depression and serious mental illness up to 1 year post-assessment.35,36 There is even evidence that self-rated mental health may be more strongly associated with self-ratings of overall health than self-ratings of physical health.37
Brief review and suggested item(s): Self-rated quality of life. Quality of life is a critical component of the recovery journey and overall health.38 For example, the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps lists “quality of life” as 1 of its key “health outcomes” in its County Health Rankings.13 As some authors have noted, quality of life is often inferred from other “objective” recovery domains, such as employment, health status, or housing status. However, there is evidence that these objective domains are functionally distinct from the inherently subjective construct of quality of life.39 This has led other authors to conclude that these domains should be assessed separately when evaluating outcomes.40 Single-item quality of life assessments have been used in research with individuals with cancer,41 adults with disabilities,42 patients with cystic fibrosis,43 and children with epilepsy.44 For this effort, BHD selected the first global quality of life item from the World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment,45 an item used in other quality of life research.46
Health Factors
Substance Use. This CD is a composite of 4 different types of substance use, any recent heavy alcohol use (defined as 5 or more drinks in one sitting), any recent drug use, any recent prescription drug abuse, and any recent tobacco use.
Brief review and suggested item(s). As noted, substance use disorders confer an increased risk for early mortality15,19 and are significantly implicated in disease disability burden worldwide.30 Substance use has also been associated with both the onset47,48 and exacerbation of mental health diagnoses.49-51 Further, substance use appears to heighten the risk of violence in the general population52 and especially among those with a co-occurring mental illness.53,54 The County Health Rankings & Roadmaps list alcohol and drug use as key behaviors to address to improve the overall health of a given county,13 and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has endorsed initiation and engagement in addiction treatment as one of the measures in its Adult Core Set.55
Tobacco use continues to be one of the most significant risk factors for early mortality worldwide, and evidence indicates that it is associated with a lower life expectancy of nearly 10 years.56 Unfortunately, rates of tobacco use are even higher among those with severe mental illness relative to the general population, and their rates of smoking cessation are lower.57,58 Tobacco use is a significant risk factor for the high rates of early mortality in individuals with severe mental illness.18 Further, a recent meta-analysis noted that, relative to those who continued to smoke, those who ceased smoking had reduced rates of psychological distress and increased quality of life rankings.59 Reducing tobacco use is one of the key components of the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, and medication assistance with smoking and tobacco use cessation is also listed in the CMS Adult Core Set.13,55
An accumulating body of evidence suggests that single-item measures can adequately detect alcohol60-62 and drug use disorders.60-64 McNeely and colleagues recently developed and tested a brief 4-item screen, the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool.65,66 Preliminary evidence suggests that the TAPS tool can effectively identify the presence of problematic and disordered use of tobacco, alcohol, prescription medications, and other drugs.65-67 BHD will use the 4 items from the TAPS tool to represent its substance use CD.
Education/Employment Status. This CD assesses the proportion of BHD members who have completed high school, who are in some type of educational or training program, or who are engaged in some type of employment activity (defined as full-time, part-time, supported, sheltered workshop, or as a full-time homemaker).
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research indicates that unemployment is a risk factor for mortality, even after controlling for other risk factors (eg, age, sex, socioeconomic status [SES], health).68 Unemployment is associated with poorer physical and mental health in the general population and among those with disabilities.69-71 Promisingly, evidence suggests that gaining employment or re-employment is associated with better health,72 even for individuals with substance use disorders73 or moderate74 to severe mental health disorders.75-78 Some authors have even proposed that, above and beyond the associated health benefits, employment may also help to realize a modest cost savings due to reduced service utilization and disability.79,80 Employment is a core tenet in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) model of recovery,81 and is also listed as an important recovery goal for individuals with behavioral health issues.82 BHD collects data on employment status on all the patients it serves as part of its state-mandated reporting requirements and will use this item in the CD data set.83
Living Situation. This is measured as the proportion of people who live in permanent, supportive, stable housing; it may also be measured as the percentage of the population living with severe housing problems or who are homeless.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Housing problems can be conceptualized as 3 inter-related components: conditions within the home, neighborhood conditions, and housing affordability, each of which can contribute uniquely to poorer physical and mental health of individuals and families84 and to educational outcomes for children.85,86 Further, individuals who are homeless have a standardized mortality ratio 2 to 5 times that of the general population,87-89 even after controlling for low income status,90 and some evidence suggests these rates are even higher among unsheltered versus sheltered homeless individuals.91 Interventions to improve the condition of housing have demonstrated positive impacts on both physical and mental health,92 and a recent study found that individuals receiving housing assistance in the form of public housing or multifamily housing from the Department of Housing and Urban Development had better self-rated physical and mental health relative to individuals on the wait list for housing assistance.93 Moreover, the provision of housing has been shown to promote reductions in substance use and health service utilization among homeless individuals with substance use disorders.94 Rog and colleagues reviewed the literature on permanent supportive housing for individuals with substance use or mental health disorders who were homeless or disabled, and found that provision of housing led to reduced rates of homelessness, emergency department (ED) and inpatient utilization and increased consumer satisfaction.95
Importantly, evidence suggests that housing is viewed as facilitative of recovery. For example, in a recent qualitative study of homeless individuals with mental illness, housing was seen as a critical first step in recovery, providing a sense of security, increasing feelings of personal independence and autonomy, improving perceptions of health and well-being, and affording a stable environment to rebuild relationships with important others.96 BHD collects data on housing status on all the patients it serves as part of its state-mandated reporting requirements and will utilize this item in the CD data set.83
Social Relationships. This is defined as recent interactions with family, supportive networks (formal and informal), and other recovery services.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research has long established that social relationships have a significant impact on health, including rates of mortality as well as physical and mental health morbidity.97-99 Social connectedness is another of the pillars supporting an individual’s recovery in SAMHSA’s formulation. Several reviews of the recovery literature38,82 support its importance to the recovery process and inclusion in any assessment of holistic recovery. Social support has been shown to promote recovery among individuals with severe mental illness100-102 and substance use disorders,103 and may mitigate the progression of chronic, life-threatening physical illnesses.97 For the purposes of BHD’s CD data set, the social support question from the “100 Million Healthier Lives Common Questionnaire for Adults” will be used to assess individuals’ perceived adequacy of social support.104
Legal Involvement. Defined as involvement with the civil or criminal justice system, including arrests, imprisonment, or detainment.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Involvement in the criminal justice system is both disruptive for the individual in recovery and expensive to the larger health care system.105 Individuals with substance use106 and severe mental health disorders107 are over-represented in the prison system, and evidence suggests that general physical and mental health declines while individuals are in prison.108,109 Perhaps even more concerning, numerous studies have demonstrated an increase in mortality rates for individuals recently released from prison relative to the general population, particularly during the period immediately following release.108-110 This relationship may even persist long term.111 Further, research indicates that individuals recently released from prison have increased emergency care and hospital utilization.112,113
Incarceration can have significant impacts on the health of the broader community as well. For example, research has found an association between parental incarceration to rates of infant mortality,114 increased behavioral and developmental problems of children of incarcerated parents,115,116 lower rates of child support payments,117 and poorer cardiovascular health of female partners of incarcerated individuals.118 Formerly incarcerated individuals experience slower wage growth as well.119 However, evidence also indicates that engagement in mental health120 and substance abuse121 treatment can reduce the likelihood of subsequent recidivism. As part of its state-mandated reporting, BHD is required to provide information on the criminal justice system involvement of its clients in the previous 6 months, including whether they have been jailed or imprisoned,83 and this will function as its measure of legal involvement in its CD data set.
Socioeconomic Status. Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation. It can also be defined subjectively, such as one’s evaluation of status relative to similar others or based on an individual’s interpretation of her or his financial needs.
Brief review and suggested item(s). A large body of evidence supports the existence of a robust relationship between lower SES and poor health, including mortality and chronic medical diseases,122-124 as well as mental illness.125-127 Although previous research has examined this relationship using objective indicators of SES (eg, income, education level, occupation), there has recently been an increased interest in exploring the relationship of subjective SES with health indices. Subjective SES is generally assessed by asking individuals to rate themselves relative to others in the society in which they live, in terms of wealth, occupation, educational level, or other indicators of social status. Evidence suggests that subjective SES is associated with objective measures of SES,128-130 and relates to measures of physical and mental health as well, even after controlling for objective SES.130-135 BHD will be using a modified version of the Subject SES Scale,131,135 which is deployed in the “100 Million Healthier Lives Common Questionnaire for Adults.”104
Acute Service Use. This is defined as an admission to a medical or psychiatric emergency room or to a medical or psychiatric hospital or to a detoxification facility.
Brief review and suggested item(s). The CMS Adult Core Set includes “plan all cause readmissions” as a key quality metric.55 Hospital readmissions are also endorsed by the National Committee on Quality Assurance as one of its Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures and by the National Quality Forum. Readmissions, despite their widespread endorsement, are a somewhat controversial measure. Although readmissions are costly to the health care system,136 the relationship between readmissions and quality is inconsistent. For example, Krumholz and colleagues137 found differential rates of readmission for the same patient discharged from 2 different hospitals, which were categorized based on previous readmission rates, suggesting that hospitals do have different levels of performance even when treating the same patient. However, other data indicate that 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized readmission rates are not associated with hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rates.138
Chin and colleague found that readmissions to the hospital that occurred more than 7 days post-discharge were likely due to community- and household-related factors, rather than hospital-related quality factors.139 Transitional care interventions that have successfully reduced 30-day readmission rates are most often multicomponent and focus not just on hospital-based interventions (eg, discharge planning, education) but on follow-up care in the community by formal supports (eg, in-home visits, telephone calls, outpatient clinic appointments, case management) and informal supports (eg, family and friends).140-143 Further, qualitative evidence suggests that some individuals perceive psychiatric hospitalizations to be the result of insufficient resources or unsuccessful attempts to maintain their stability in the community.144 Thus, unplanned or avoidable hospital readmissions may represent a failure of the continuum of care not only from the perspective of the health care system, but from the patient perspective as well.
Frequent or nonurgent use of EDs is conceptually similar to excessive or avoidable inpatient utilization in several ways. For example, overuse of EDs is costly, with some estimates suggesting that it is responsible for up to $38 billion in wasteful spending each year.145 Individuals with frequent ED visits have a greater disease burden146 and an increased risk of mortality compared to nonfrequent users.147 Research suggests that individuals who visit the ED for non-urgent issues do so because of perceived difficulties associated with accessing primary care, and the convenience of EDs relative to primary care.148-150 Moreover, similar to the hospital readmission literature discussed earlier, successful strategies to reduce high rates of ED utilization generally focus on continuum of care interventions, such as provision of case management services.151-155
This evidence implies that frequent ED utilization and hospital readmissions may not be a fundamental issue of quality (or lack thereof) in hospitals or EDs but rather a lack of, or ineffectual, transitional and continuum of care strategies and services. To underscore this point, some authors have argued that a system that is excessively crisis-oriented hinders recovery because it is reactive rather than proactive, predicated on the notion that one’s condition must deteriorate to receive care.156
Although some organizations may have access to claims data or may function as self-contained health systems (eg, the Veterans Health Administration [VHA] ), others may not have access to such data. In the absence of claims data, patient self-report of service utilization has been used as a proxy for actual agency records.157 Although concordance between medical and/or agency records and patient self-report has been variable,157 evidence generally suggests that rates of agreement are higher the shorter the recall time interval.158,159 BHD does not have access to comprehensive claims data and has therefore chosen to use 5 dichotomously scored (yes/no) questions—related to medical inpatient, medical ED, psychiatric inpatient, psychiatric ED, and detoxification use in the last 30 days—to represent the CD of acute service utilization.
The Second Aim: Quality of Care
Safety
Safety is defined as avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them.
Brief review and suggested item(s). As noted in “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” the IOM’s seminal document, “the health care environment should be safe for all patients, in all of its processes, all the time.”160 The landmark Harvard Medical Practice Study in 1991 found that adverse events occurred in nearly 4% of all hospital admissions and, among these, over a quarter were due to negligence.161 Other estimates of adverse events range as high as 17%.162 Indeed, a recent article by Makary and Daniel estimated that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.163 Unfortunately, research on safety in the mental health field has lagged behind that of physical health,164 with evidence indicating that research in nonhospital settings in mental health care may be particularly scarce.165 In a study of adverse events that occurred in psychiatric inpatient units in the VHA system between 2015 and 2016, Mills and colleagues found that of the 87 root cause analysis reports, suicide attempts were the most frequent, and, among safety events, falls were the most frequently reported, followed by medication events.166 Another report on data collected from psychiatric inpatient units in the VHA revealed that nearly one-fifth of patients experienced a safety event, over half of which were deemed preventable.167 These numbers likely represent an underestimation of the true volume of safety events, as another study by the same research group found that less than 40% of safety events described in patient medical records were documented in the incident reporting system.168 BHD will utilize the total number of complaints and incident reports submitted within a given time frame as its “safety” metric in the CD data set.
Wait Time for Service
The CD is defined as the length of time between the date a patient first contacted BHD for services and the date of their first clinical service.
Brief review and suggested item(s). “Timeliness” was listed among the 6 aims for improvement in “Crossing the Quality Chasm” in 2001, and it remains no less relevant today.160 For example, evidence indicates that access to primary care is inversely related to avoidable hospitalizations.169 One study found that, of patients hospitalized for cardiovascular problems, those who had difficulty accessing routine care post discharge had higher 30-day readmission rates.170 Among VHA patients, longer wait times are associated with more avoidable hospitalizations and higher rates of mortality.171 Longer wait times appear to decrease the likelihood of attending a first appointment for individuals with substance use172,173 and mental health disorders.174 Importantly, longer wait times are associated with lower ratings of the patient experience of care, including perceptions of the quality of and satisfaction with care,175 and may be associated with worse outcomes for individuals in early intervention for psychosis treatment.176 For the purposes of the CD data set, BHD will monitor the length of time between the date a patient first contacted BHD for services and the date of their first clinical service.
Patient Satisfaction
Patient satisfaction is defined as the degree of patients’ satisfaction with the care they have received.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Research has consistently demonstrated the relationship of the patient’s experience of care to a variety of safety and clinical effectiveness measures in medical health care,177 and the therapeutic alliance is one of the most consistent predictors of outcomes in behavioral health, regardless of therapeutic modality.178 Patient satisfaction is a commonly assessed aspect of the patient experience of care. Patient satisfaction scores have been correlated with patient adherence to recommended treatment regimens, care quality, and health outcomes.179 For example, Aiken et al found that patient satisfaction with hospital care was associated with higher ratings of the quality and safety of nursing care in these hospitals.180 Increased satisfaction with inpatient care has been associated with lower 30-day readmission rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia,181 and patients with schizophrenia who reported higher treatment satisfaction also reported better quality of life.182,183 Many satisfaction survey options exist to evaluate this CD, including the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire; BHD will utilize an outpatient behavioral health survey from a third-party vendor.
The Third Aim: Cost of Care
Cost of Care
This can be defined as the average cost to provide care per patient per month.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Per capita cost, or rather, the total cost of providing care to a circumscribed population divided by the total population, has been espoused as an important metric for the Triple Aim and the County Health Rankings.6,13 Indeed, between 1960 and 2016, per capita expenditures for health care have grown 70-fold, and the percent of the national gross domestic product accounted for by health expenditures has more than tripled (5.0% to 17.9%).184 One of the more common metrics deployed for assessing health care cost is the per capita per month cost, or rather, the per member per month cost of the predefined population for a given health care system.6,185,186 In fact, some authors have proposed that cost of care can be used not only to track efficient resource allocation, but can also be a proxy for a healthier population as well (ie, as health improves, individuals use fewer and less-expensive services, thus costing the system less).187 To assess this metric, BHD will calculate the total amount billed for patient care provided within BHD’s health network each month (irrespective of funding source) and then divide this sum by the number of members served each month. Although this measure does not account for care received at other health care facilities outside BHD’s provider network, nor does it include all the overhead costs associated with the care provided by BHD itself, it is consistent with the claims-based approach used or recommended by other authors.6,188
The Fourth Aim: Staff Well-being
Staff Quality of Work Life
This can be defined as the quality of the work life of health care clinicians and staff.
Brief review and suggested item(s). Some authors have suggested that the Triple Aim framework is incomplete and have proffered compelling arguments that provider well-being and the quality of work life constitutes a fourth aim.2 Provider burnout is prevalent in both medical2,189 and behavioral health care.190,191 Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with higher rates of perceived medical errors,192 lower patient satisfaction scores,189,193 lower rates of provider empathy,194 more negative attitudes towards patients,195 and poorer staff mental and physical health.191
Burnout is also associated with higher rates of absenteeism, turnover intentions, and turnover.190,191,196,197 However, burnout is not the only predictor of staff turnover; for example, turnover rates are a useful proxy for staff quality of work life for several reasons.198 First, turnover is associated with substantial direct and indirect costs, including lost productivity, increased errors, and lost revenue and recruitment costs, with some turnover cost estimates as high as $17 billion for physicians and $14 billion for nurses annually.199-201 Second, research indicates that staff turnover can have a deleterious impact on implementation of evidence-based interventions.202-205 Finally, consistent with the philosophy of utilizing existing data sources for the CD measures, turnover can be relatively easily extracted from administrative data for operated or contracted programs, and its collection does not place any additional burden on staff. As a large behavioral health system that is both a provider and payer of care, BHD will therefore examine the turnover rates of its internal administrative and clinical staff as well as the turnover of staff in its contracted provider network as its measures for the Staff Quality of Work Life CD.
Clinical Implications
These metrics can be deployed at any level of the organization. Clinicians may use 1 or more of the measures to track the recovery of individual clients, or in aggregate for their entire caseload. Similarly, managers can use these measures to assess the overall effectiveness of the programs for which they are responsible. Executive leaders can evaluate the impact of several programs or the system of care on the health of a subpopulation of clients with a specific condition, or for all their enrolled members. Further, not all measures need be utilized for every dashboard or evaluative effort. The benefit of a comprehensive set of measures lies in their flexibility—1 or more of the measures may be selected depending on the project being implemented or the interests of the stakeholder.
It is important to note that many of the CDs (and their accompanying measures) are aligned to/consistent with social determinants of health.206,207 Evidence suggests that social determinants make substantial contributions to the overall health of individuals and populations and may even account for a greater proportion of variance in health outcomes than health care itself.208 The measures articulated here, therefore, can be used to assess whether and how effectively care provision has addressed these social determinants, as well as the relative impact their resolution may have on other health outcomes (eg, mortality, self-rated health).
These measures can also be used to stratify clients by clinical severity or degree of socioeconomic deprivation. The ability to adjust for risk has many applications in health care, particularly when organizations are attempting to implement value-based purchasing models, such as pay-for-performance contracts or other alternative payment models (population health-based payment models).209 Indeed, once fully implemented, the CDs and measures will enable BHD to more effectively build and execute different conceptual models of “value” (see references 210 and 211 for examples). We will be able to assess the progress our clients have made in care, the cost associated with that degree of improvement, the experience of those clients receiving that care, and the clinical and social variables that may influence the relative degree of improvement (or lack thereof). Thus, the CDs provide a conceptual and data-driven foundation for the Quadruple Aim and any quality initiatives that either catalyze or augment its implementation.
Conclusion
This article provides an overview of the CDs selected by BHD to help organize, focus, advance, and track its quality efforts within the framework of the Quadruple Aim. Although items aligned to each of these CDs are offered, the CDs themselves have been broadly conceptualized such that they can flexibly admit a variety of possible items and/or assessments to operationalize each CD and thus have potential applicability to other behavioral health systems, particularly public systems that have state-mandated and other data reporting requirements.
Bearing in mind the burden that growing data collection requirements can have on the provision of quality care and staff work satisfaction and burnout,10,212 the CDs (and the items selected to represent each) are designed with “strategic parsimony” in mind. Although the CDs are inclusive in that they cover care quality, cost of care, staff quality of life, and general population health, only CDs and items undergirded by a solid evidence base and high value with regards to BHD’s mission and values, as determined by key stakeholders, were selected. Moreover, BHD attempted to make use of existing data collection and reporting mandates when selecting the final pool of items to reduce the measurement burden on staff and clients. Thus, the final set of CDs and items are designed to be comprehensive yet economical.
The CDs are deeply interrelated. Although each CD may be individually viewed as a valuable metric, improvements in any 1 CD will impact the others (eg, increasing care quality should impact population health, increasing staff quality of life should impact the quality of care). Moreover, this idea of interrelatedness acknowledges the need to view health systems and the populations they serve holistically, in that improvement is not simply the degree of change in any given metric (whether individually or collectively), but rather something more entirely. The concepts of value, quality, and health are complex, multidimensional, and dynamic, and the CDs that comprise these concepts should not be considered independently from one another. The CDs (and items) offered in this article are scalable in that they can be used at different levels of an organization depending on the question or stakeholder, and can be used individually or in combination with one another. Moreover, they are adaptable to a variety of risk-adjusted program, population health, and value-based evaluation models. It is hoped that the process articulated here, and the accompanying literature review, may benefit other public or government-run health systems in their own quality journey to operationalize the Quadruple Aim by developing a set of CDs.
Corresponding author: Walter Matthew Drymalski, PhD; walter.drymalski@milwaukeecountywi.gov.
Financial disclosures: None.
1. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The Triple Aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759-769.
2. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573-576.
3. Whittington JW, Nolan K, Lewis N, Torres T. Pursuing the Triple Aim: The first 7 years. Milbank Q. 2015;93(2):263-300.
4. Hendrikx RJP, Drewes HW, Spreeuwenberg M, et al. Which Triple Aim related measures are being used to evaluate population management initiatives? An international comparative analysis. Health Policy. 2016;120(5):471-485.
5. Kassler WJ, Howerton M, Thompson A, et al. Population Health Measurement at Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Bridging the gap between public health and clinical quality. Popul Health Manag. 2017;20(3):173-180.
6. Stiefel MC, Nolan K. A Guide to Measuring the Triple Aim: Population health, experience of care, and per capita cost. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012.
7. Panzer RJ, Gitomer RS, Greene WH, et al. Increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA. 2013;310(18):1971-1980.
8. Schuster MA, Onorato SE, Meltzer DO. Measuring the cost of quality measurement: a missing link in quality strategy. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1219-1220.
9. Casalino LP, Gans D, Weber R, et al. US physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(3):401-406.
10. Rao SK, Kimball AB, Lehrhoff SR, et al. The impact of administrative burden on academic physicians: results of a hospital-wide physician survey. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):237-243.
11. Institute of Medicine. Vital signs: Core metrics for health and health care progress. National Academies Press; 2015.
12. Meyer GS, Nelson EC, Pryor DB, et al. More quality measures versus measuring what matters: a call for balance and parsimony: Table 1. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(11):964-968.
13. County Health Rankings. Measures & data sources. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/measures-data-sources
14. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Health Assessment for population health improvement: Resource of most frequently recommended health outcomes and determinants. Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services; 2013.
15. Chang C-K, Hayes RD, Perera G, et al. Life expectancy at birth for people with serious mental illness and other major disorders from a secondary mental health care case register in London. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19590.
16. De Hert M, Correll CU, Bobes J, et al. Physical illness in patients with severe mental disorders. I. Prevalence, impact of medications and disparities in health care. World Psychiatry. 2011;10(1):52-77.
17. Druss BG, Zhao L, Von Esenwein S, Morrato EH, Marcus SC. Understanding excess mortality in persons with mental illness: 17-year follow up of a nationally representative US survey. Med Care. 2011;49(6):599-604.
18. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council. Morbidity and mortality in people with serious mental illness. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council; 2006.
19. Nordentoft M, Wahlbeck K, Hällgren J, et al. Excess mortality, causes of death and life expectancy in 270,770 patients with recent onset of mental disorders in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e55176.
20. Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, et al. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1015-1035.
21. Walker ER, Druss BG. A public health perspective on mental and medical comorbidity. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1104-1105.
22. DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, et al. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;21(3):267-275.
23. Mavaddat N, Parker RA, Sanderson S, et al. Relationship of self-rated health with fatal and non-fatal outcomes in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103509.
24. Lima-Costa MF, Cesar CC, Chor D, Proietti FA. Self-rated health compared with objectively measured health status as a tool for mortality risk screening in older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Bambui Cohort Study of Aging. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(3):228-235.
25. Stenholm S, Pentti J, Kawachi I, et al. Self-rated health in the last 12 years of life compared to matched surviving controls: the Health and Retirement Study. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107879.
26. Lee Y. The predictive value of self-assessed general, physical, and mental health on functional decline and mortality in older adults. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(2):123-129.
27. Tomioka K, Kurumatani N, Hosoi H. Self-rated health predicts decline in instrumental activities of daily living among high-functioning community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing. 2017;46(2):265-270.
28. DeSalvo KB, Jones TM, Peabody J, et al. Health care expenditure prediction with a single item, self-rated health measure. Med Care. 2009;47(4):440-447.
29. Farkas J, Kosnik M, Flezar M, Suskovic S, Lainscak M. Self-rated health predicts acute exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with COPD. Chest. 2010;138(2):323-330.
30. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;382(9904):1575-1586.
31. Park M, Katon WJ, Wolf FM. Depression and risk of mortality in individuals with diabetes: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(3):217-225.
32. Hare DL, Toukhsati SR, Johansson P, Jaarsma T. Depression and cardiovascular disease: a clinical review. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(21):1365-1372.
33. Cuijpers P, Schoevers RA. Increased mortality in depressive disorders: a review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2004;6(6):430-437.
34. Jansen L, van Schijndel M, van Waarde J, van Busschbach J. Health-economic outcomes in hospital patients with medical-psychiatric comorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194029.
35. Ahmad F, Jhajj AK, Stewart DE, et al. Single item measures of self-rated mental health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:398.
36. McAlpine DD, McCreedy E, Alang S. The meaning and predictive value of self-rated mental health among persons with a mental health problem. J Health Soc Behav. 2018;59(2):200-214.
37. Levinson D, Kaplan G. What does self-rated mental health represent? J Public Health Res. 2014;3(3):287.
38. Leamy M, Bird V, Boutillier CL, et al. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):445-452.
39. Smith KW, Avis NE, Assmann SF. Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(5):447-459.
40. Hamming JF, De Vries J. Measuring quality of life. Br J Surg. 2007;94(8):923-924.
41. Singh JA, Satele D, Pattabasavaiah S, et al. Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):187.
42. Siebens HC, Tsukerman D, Adkins RH, et al. Correlates of a single-item quality-of-life measure in people aging with disabilities. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(12):1065-1074.
43. Yohannes AM, Dodd M, Morris J, Webb K. Reliability and validity of a single item measure of quality of life scale for adult patients with cystic fibrosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):105.
44. Conway L, Widjaja E, Smith ML. Single-item measure for assessing quality of life in children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Epilepsia Open. 2018;3(1):46-54.
45. Skevington SM, Lofty M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299-310.
46. Atroszko PA, Baginska P, Mokosinska M, et al. Validity and reliability of single-item self-report measures of general quality of life, general health and sleep quality. In: CER Comparative European Research Conference: Research Track. Vol 2. Sciemcee Publishing; 2015:207-211.
47. Beaulieu S, Saury S, Sareen J, et al.
48. Marconi A, Di Forti M, Lewis CM, et al. Meta-analysis of the association between the level of cannabis use and risk of psychosis. Schizophr Bull. 2016;42(5):1262-1269.
49. Baker AL, Hiles SA, Thornton LK, et al. A systematic review of psychological interventions for excessive alcohol consumption among people with psychotic disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;126(4):243-255.
50. Baker AL, Hides L, Lubman DI. Treatment of cannabis use among people with psychotic or depressive disorders: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71(3):247-254.
51. Berenz EC, Coffey SF. Treatment of co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(5):469-477.
52. Pickard H, Fazel S. Substance abuse as a risk factor for violence in mental illness: some implications for forensic psychiatric practice and clinical ethics. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2013;26(4):349-354.
53. Fazel S, Gulati G, Linsell L, Geddes JR, Grann M. Schizophrenia and violence: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000120.
54. Van Dorn R, Volavka J, Johnson N. Mental disorder and violence: Is there a relationship beyond substance use? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(3):487-503.
55. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2019 Core set of adult health care quality measures for Medicaid (adult core set). Adult health care quality measures. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of-care/performance-measurement/adult-core-set/index.html.
56. Jha P, Peto R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(1):60-68.
57. Lê Cook B, Wayne GF, Kafali EN, et al. Trends in smoking among adults with mental illness and association between mental health treatment and smoking cessation. JAMA. 2014;311(2):172-182.
58. Smith PH, Mazure CM, McKee SA. Smoking and mental illness in the US population. Tob Control. 2014;23(0):e147-e153.
59. Taylor G, McNeill A, Girling A, et al. Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g1151.
60. McNeely J, Cleland CM, Strauss SM, et al. Validation of self-administered single-item screening questions (SISQs) for unhealthy alcohol and drug use in primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(12):1757-1764.
61. Saitz R, Cheng DM, Allensworth-Davies D, et al. The ability of single screening questions for unhealthy alcohol and other drug use to identify substance dependence in primary care. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014;75(1):153-157.
62. Smith PC, Schmidt SM, Allensworth-Davies D, Saitz R. Primary care validation of a single-question alcohol screening test. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(7):783-788.
63. Dawson DA, Compton WM, Grant BF. Frequency of 5+/4+ drinks as a screener for drug use and drug-use disorders. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71(5):751-760.
64. Smith PC, Schmidt SM, Allensworth-Davies D, Saitz R. A single-question screening test for drug use in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(13):1155-1160.
65. McNeely J, Strauss SM, Saitz R, et al. A brief patient self-administered substance use screening tool for primary care: two-site validation study of the Substance Use Brief Screen (SUBS). Am J Med. 2015;128(7):784.e9-784.e19.
66. McNeely J, Wu L-T, Subramaniam G, et al. Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool for substance use screening in primary care patients. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(10):690-699.
67. Gryczynski J, McNeely J, Wu L-T, et al. Validation of the TAPS-1: a four-item screening tool to identify unhealthy substance use in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(9):990-996.
68. Roelfs DJ, Shor E, Davidson KW, Schwartz JE. Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):840-854.
69. McKee-Ryan F, Song Z, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(1):53-76.
70. Zhang S, Bhavsar V. Unemployment as a risk factor for mental illness: combining social and psychiatric literature. Adv Appl Sociol. 2013;03(02):131-136.
71. Goodman N. The impact of employment on the health status and health care costs of working-age people with disabilities. The Lead Center. November 2015. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.leadcenter.org/system/files/resource/downloadable_version/impact_of_employment_health_status_health_care_costs_0.pdf
72. Hergenrather KC, Zeglin RJ, McGuire-Kuletz M, Rhodes SD. Employment as a social determinant of health: a systematic review of longitudinal studies exploring the relationship between employment status and physical health. Rehabil Res Policy Educ. 2015;29(1):2-26.
73. Walton MT, Hall MT. The effects of employment interventions on addiction treatment outcomes: a review of the literature. J Soc Work Pract Addict. 2016;16(4):358-384.
74. Schuring M, Robroek SJ, Burdorf A. The benefits of paid employment among persons with common mental health problems: evidence for the selection and causation mechanism. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(6):540-549.
75. Burns T, Catty J, White S, et al. The impact of supported employment and working on clinical and social functioning: results of an international study of individual placement and support. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(5):949-958.
76. Kilian R, Lauber C, Kalkan R, et al. The relationships between employment, clinical status, and psychiatric hospitalisation in patients with schizophrenia receiving either IPS or a conventional vocational rehabilitation programme. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(9):1381-1389.
77. Marwaha S, Johnson S. Schizophrenia and employment. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004;39(5):337-349.
78. Mueser KT, Drake RE, Bond GR. Recent advances in supported employment for people with serious mental illness. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2016;29(3):196-201.
79. Bush PW, Drake RE, Xie H, et al. The long-term impact of employment on mental health service use and costs for persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(8):1024-1031.
80. Drake RE, Skinner JS, Bond GR, Goldman HH. Social security and mental illness: reducing disability with supported employment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(3):761-770.
81. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA’s working definition of recovery. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Published 2012. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://store.samhsa.gov/system/files/pep12-recdef.pdf
82. Drake RE, Whitley R. Recovery and severe mental illness: description and analysis. Can J Psychiatry. 2014;59(5):236-242.
83. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. PPS Mental Health Module Handbook. Published 2018. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p02182.pdf
84. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Housing and Health. How does housing affect health? May 1, 2011. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/05/housing-and-health.html
85. Cunningham MK, MacDonald G. Housing as a platform for improving education outcomes among low-income children. Urban Institute. May 2012. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25331/412554-Housing-as-a-Platform-for-Improving-Education-Outcomes-among-Low-Income-Children.PDF
86. Friedman D. Social impact of poor housing. ECOTEC. March 2010. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://southdevonrural.co.uk/userfiles/file/JC-JC13-Social-impact-of-poor-housing.pdf
87. Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;384(9953):1529-1540.
88. Nusselder WJ, Slockers MT, Krol L, et al. Mortality and life expectancy in homeless men and women in Rotterdam: 2001–2010. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e73979.
89. O’Connell JJ. Premature mortality in homeless populations: a review of the literature. National Health Care for the Homeless Council. Published 2005. Accessed April 23, 2019. http://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf
90. Hwang SW, Wilkins R, Tjepkema M, et al. Mortality among residents of shelters, rooming houses, and hotels in Canada: 11 year follow-up study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4036.
91. Roncarati JS, Baggett TP, O’Connell JJ, et al. Mortality among unsheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts, 2000-2009. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1242-1248.
92. Thomson H, Thomas S, Sellstrom E, Petticrew M. Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD008657.
93. Fenelon A, Mayne P, Simon AE, et al. Housing assistance programs and adult health in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(4):571-578.
94. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ganann R, Krishnaratne S, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):638.
95. Rog DJ, Marshall T, Dougherty RH, et al. Permanent supportive housing: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(3):287-294.
96. Kirst M, Zerger S, Wise Harris D, et al. The promise of recovery: narratives of hope among homeless individuals with mental illness participating in a Housing First randomised controlled trial in Toronto, Canada: Table 1. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e004379.
97. Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D. Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(4):375-378.
98. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988;241(4865):540-545.
99. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social ties and mental health. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):458-467.
100. Schön U-K, Denhov A, Topor A. Social relationships as a decisive factor in recovering from severe mental illness. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2009;55(4):336-347.
101. Soundy A, Stubbs B, Roskell C, et al. Identifying the facilitators and processes which influence recovery in individuals with schizophrenia: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. J Ment Health. 2015;24(2):103-110.
102. Tew J, Ramon S, Slade M, et al. Social factors and recovery from mental health difficulties: a review of the evidence. Br J Soc Work. 2012;42(3):443-460.
103. Moos RH. Theory-based processes that promote the remission of substance use disorders. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27(5):537-551.
104. Stiefel MC, Riley CL, Roy B, et al. 100 Million Healthier Lives Measurement System: Progress to date. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2016:41. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.100mlives.org
105. Swanson JW, Frisman LK, Robertson AG, et al. Costs of criminal justice involvement among persons with serious mental illness in Connecticut. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(7):630-637.
106. Fazel S, Bains P, Doll H. Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review. Addiction. 2006;101(2):181-191.
107. Fazel S, Seewald K. Severe mental illness in 33 588 prisoners worldwide: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(05):364-373.
108. Fazel S, Baillargeon J. The health of prisoners. Lancet. 2011;377(9769):956-965.
109. Wildeman C, Wang EA. Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1464-1474.
110. Zlodre J, Fazel S. All-cause and external mortality in released prisoners: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):e67-e75.
111. Massoglia M, Pridemore WA. Incarceration and health. Annu Rev Sociol. 2015;41:291-310.
112. Kouyoumdjian FG, Cheng SY, Fung K, et al. The health care utilization of people in prison and after prison release: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0201592.
113. Winkelman TNA, Genao I, Wildeman C, Wang EA. Emergency department and hospital use among adolescents with justice system involvement. Pediatrics. 2017;140(5):e20171144.
114. Wildeman C. Imprisonment and infant mortality. Soc Prob. 2012;59:228-257.
115. Geller A, Cooper CE, Garfinkel I, et al. Beyond absenteeism: father incarceration and child development. Demography. 2012;49(1):49-76.
116. Turney K. Stress proliferation across generations? Examining the relationship between parental incarceration and childhood health. J Health Soc Behav. 2014;55(3):302-319.
117. Geller A, Garfinkel I, Western B. Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography. 2011;48(1):25-47.
118. Lee H, Wildeman C, Wang EA, et al. A heavy burden: the cardiovascular health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):421-427.
119. Western B. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. Am Sociol Rev. 2002;67(4):526-546.
120. Constantine R, Andel R, Petrila J, et al. Characteristics and experiences of adults with a serious mental illness who were involved in the criminal justice system. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61(5):451-457.
121. Garnick DW, Horgan CM, Acevedo A, et al. Criminal justice outcomes after engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(3):295-305.
122. Adler NE, Ostrove JM. Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what we don’t. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896(1):3-15.
123. Luo Y, Waite LJ. The impact of childhood and adult SES on physical, mental, and cognitive well-being in later life. J Gerontol Ser B. 2005;60(2):S93-S101.
124. Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam A-JR, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(23):2468-2481.
125. Hudson CG. Socioeconomic status and mental illness: tests of the social causation and selection hypotheses. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2005;75(1):3-18.
126. McLaughlin KA, Breslau J, Green JG, et al. Childhood socio-economic status and the onset, persistence, and severity of DSM-IV mental disorders in a US national sample. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(7):1088-1096.
127. Muntaner C. Socioeconomic position and major mental disorders. Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26(1):53-62.
128. Präg P, Mills MC, Wittek R. Subjective socioeconomic status and health in cross-national comparison. Soc Sci Med. 2016;149:84-92.
129. Shaked D, Williams M, Evans MK, Zonderman AB. Indicators of subjective social status: differential associations across race and sex. SSM Popul Health. 2016;2:700-707.
130. Singh-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG. Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(6):1321-1333.
131. Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19(6):586-592.
132. Cundiff JM, Matthews KA. Is subjective social status a unique correlate of physical health? A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2017;36(12):1109-1125.
133. Demakakos P, Biddulph JP, de Oliveira C, et al. Subjective social status and mortality: The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(8):729-739.
134. Quon EC, McGrath JJ. Subjective socioeconomic status and adolescent health: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2014;33(5):433-447.
135. Scott KM, Al-Hamzawi AO, Andrade LH, et al. Associations between subjective social status and DSM-IV mental disorders: Results from the World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(12):1400-1408.
136. Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428.
137. Krumholz HM, Wang K, Lin Z, et al. Hospital-readmission risk—Isolating hospital effects from patient effects. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1055-1064.
138. Krumholz HM, Lin Z, Keenan PS, et al. Relationship of hospital performance with readmission and mortality rates for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309(6):587-593.
139. Chin DL, Bang H, Manickam RN, Romano PS. Rethinking thirty-day hospital readmissions: Shorter intervals might be better indicators of quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(10):1867-1875.
140. Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(11):774-784.
141. Hudon C, Chouinard M-C, Lambert M, et al. Effectiveness of case management interventions for frequent users of healthcare services: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e012353.
142. Kripalani S, Theobald CN, Anctil B, Vasilevskis EE. Reducing hospital readmission: current strategies and future directions. Annu Rev Med. 2014;65:471-485.
143. Verhaegh KJ, MacNeil-Vroomen JL, Eslami S, et al. Transitional care interventions prevent hospital readmissions for adults with chronic illnesses. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(9):1531-1539.
144. Duhig M, Gunasekara I, Patterson S. Understanding readmission to psychiatric hospital in Australia from the service users’ perspective: a qualitative study. Health Soc Care Community. 2017;25(1):75-82.
145. New England Healthcare Institute. A matter of urgency: Reducing emergency department overuse. Published 2010. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.nehi.net/writable/publication_files/file/nehi_ed_overuse_issue_brief_032610finaledits.pdf
146. Billings J, Raven MC. Dispelling an urban legend: Frequent emergency department users have substantial burden of disease. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(12):2099-2108.
147. Moe J, Kirkland S, Ospina MB, et al. Mortality, admission rates and outpatient use among frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(3):230-236.
148. Carret MLV, Fassa ACG, Domingues MR. Inappropriate use of emergency services: a systematic review of prevalence and associated factors. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009;25(1):7-28.
149. Durand A-C, Palazzolo S, Tanti-Hardouin N, et al. Nonurgent patients in emergency departments: rational or irresponsible consumers? Perceptions of professionals and patients. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5(1):525.
150. Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, et al. Deciding to visit the emergency department for non-urgent conditions: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(1):47-59.
151. Kumar GS, Klein R. Effectiveness of case management strategies in reducing emergency department visits in frequent user patient populations: a systematic review. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(3):717-729.
152. Moe J, Kirkland SW, Rawe E, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to decrease emergency department visits by adult frequent users: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(1):40-52.
153. Raven MC, Kushel M, Ko MJ, et al. The effectiveness of emergency department visit reduction programs: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(4):467-483.e15.
154. Soril LJJ, Leggett LE, Lorenzetti DL, et al. Reducing frequent visits to the emergency department: a systematic review of interventions. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123660.
155. Van den Heede K, Van de Voorde C. Interventions to reduce emergency department utilisation: a review of reviews. Health Policy. 2016;120(12):1337-1349.
156. Onken SJ, Dumont JM, Ridgway P, et al. Mental health recovery: What helps and what hinders? October 2002. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files//MHSIPReport%281%29.pdf
157. Leggett LE, Khadaroo RG, Holroyd-Leduc J, et al. Measuring resource utilization. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(10):e2759.
158. Bhandari A, Wagner T. Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):217-235.
159. Short ME, Goetzel RZ, Pei X, et al. How accurate are self-reports? An analysis of self-reported healthcare utilization and absence when compared to administrative data. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(7):786-796.
160. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press; 2001.
161. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(6):370-376.
162. Rafter N, Hickey A, Condell S, et al. Adverse events in healthcare: learning from mistakes. QJM. 2015;108(4):273-277.
163. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;3(353):i2139.
164. D’Lima D, Crawford MJ, Darzi A, Archer S. Patient safety and quality of care in mental health: A world of its own? BJPsych Bull. 2017;41(5):241-243.
165. Maidment ID, Lelliott P, Paton C. Medication errors in mental healthcare: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(6):409-413.
166. Mills PD, Watts BV, Shiner B, Hemphill RR. Adverse events occurring on mental health units. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018;50:63-68.
167. Marcus SC, Hermann RC, Frankel MR, Cullen SW. Safety of psychiatric inpatients at the Veterans Health Administration. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;69(2):204-210.
168. Reilly CA, Cullen SW, Watts BV, et al. How well do incident reporting systems work on inpatient psychiatric units? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45:63-69.
169. Rosano A, Loha CA, Falvo R, et al. The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(3):356-360.
170. Dupre ME, Xu H, Granger BB, et al. Access to routine care and risks for 30-day readmission in patients with cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J. 2018;196:9-17.
171. Pizer SD, Prentice JC. What are the consequences of waiting for health care in the veteran population? J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(S2):676-682.
172. Festinger DS, Lamb RJ, Kirby KC, Marlowe DB. The accelerated intake: a method for increasing initial attendance to outpatient cocaine treatment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996;29(3):387-389.
173. Festinger DS, Lamb RJ, Marlowe DB, Kirby KC. From telephone to office: intake attendance as a function of appointment delay. Addict Behav. 2002;27(1):131-137.
174. Gallucci G, Swartz W, Hackerman F. Brief reports: Impact of the wait for an initial appointment on the rate of kept appointments at a mental health center. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(3):344-346.
175. Bleustein C, Rothschild DB, Valen A, et al. Wait times, patient satisfaction scores, and the perception of care. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(5):393-400.
176. Reichert A, Jacobs R. The impact of waiting time on patient outcomes: Evidence from early intervention in psychosis services in England. Health Econ. 2018;27(11):1772-1787.
177. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001570.
178. Horvath AO, Del Re AC, Flückiger C, Symonds D. Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy. 2011;48(1):9-16.
179. Farley H, Enguidanos ER, Coletti CM, et al. Patient satisfaction surveys and quality of care: an information paper. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64(4):351-357.
180. Aiken LH, Sermeus W, Van den Heede K, et al. Patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital care: cross sectional surveys of nurses and patients in 12 countries in Europe and the United States. BMJ. 2012;344:e1717.
181. Boulding W, Glickman SW, Manary MP, Schulman KA, Staelin R. Relationship between patient satisfaction with inpatient care and hospital readmission within 30 days. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(1):41-48.
182. Rohland BM, Langbehn DR, Rohrer JE. Relationship between service effectiveness and satisfaction among persons receiving Medicaid mental health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2000;51(2):248-250.
183. Zendjidjian X-Y, Baumstarck K, Auquier P, et al. Satisfaction of hospitalized psychiatry patients: Why should clinicians care? Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:575-583.
184. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditures; aggregate and per capita amounts, annual percent change and percent distribution: Calendar years 1960-2016. National Health Expenditure Data. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nationalhealthaccountshistorical.html. Published 2018. Accessed August 21, 2018.
185. DuBard CA. Running the numbers. N C Med J. 2016;77(4):297-300.
186. Peikes D, Chen A, Schore J, Brown R. Effects of care coordination on hospitalization, quality of care, and health care expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries: 15 randomized trials. JAMA. 2009;301(6):603-618.
187. Seow H-Y, Sibley LM. Developing a dashboard to help measure and achieve the triple aim: A population-based cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):363.
188. Lee VS, Kawamoto K, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1061.
189. Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD, Sinsky CA, et al. Burnout among health care professionals: A call to explore and address this underrecognized threat to safe, high-quality care discussion paper. National Academy of Medicine. July 5, 2017. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://nam.edu/burnout-among-health-care-professionals-a-call-to-explore-and-address-this-underrecognized-threat-to-safe-high-quality-care/
190. Johnson J, Hall LH, Berzins K, et al. Mental healthcare staff well-being and burnout: a narrative review of trends, causes, implications, and recommendations for future interventions. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018;27(1):20-32.
191. Morse G, Salyers MP, Rollins AL, et al. Burnout in mental health services: a review of the problem and its remediation. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2012;39(5):341-352.
192. Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, et al. Healthcare staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159015.
193. Garman AN, Corrigan PW, Morris S. Staff burnout and patient satisfaction: evidence of relationships at the care unit level. J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7(3):235-241.
194. Wilkinson H, Whittington R, Perry L, Eames C. Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Burn Res. 2017;6:18-29.
195. Holmqvist R, Jeanneau M. Burnout and psychiatric staff’s feelings towards patients. Psychiatry Res. 2006;145(2-3):207-213.
196. Leiter MP, Maslach C. Nurse turnover: the mediating role of burnout. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17(3):331-339.
197. Zhang Y, Feng X. The relationship between job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intention among physicians from urban state-owned medical institutions in Hubei, China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):235.
198. Halter M, Boiko O, Pelone F, et al. The determinants and consequences of adult nursing staff turnover: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):824.
199. Hamidi MS, Bohman B, Sandborg C, et al. Estimating institutional physician turnover attributable to self-reported burnout and associated financial burden: a case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):851.
200. National Taskforce for Humanity in Healthcare. The business case for humanity in healthcare position paper. April 2018. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.vocera.com/public/pdf/NTHBusinessCase_final003.pdf
201. Waldman JD, Kelly F, Arora S, Smith HL. The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Care Manage Rev. 2004;29(1):2-7.
202. Brunette MF, Asher D, Whitley R, et al. Implementation of integrated dual disorders treatment: a qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(9):989-995.
203. Mancini AD, Moser LL, Whitley R, et al. Assertive community treatment: facilitators and barriers to implementation in routine mental health settings. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(2):189-195.
204. Rollins AL, Salyers MP, Tsai J, Lydick JM. Staff turnover in statewide implementation of ACT: Relationship with ACT fidelity and other team characteristics. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010;37(5):417-426.
205. Woltmann EM, Whitley R, McHugo GJ, et al. The role of staff turnover in the implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health care. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(7):732-737.
206. Alegría M, NeMoyer A, Falgàs Bagué I, et al. Social determinants of mental health: Where we are and where we need to go. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20(11):95.
207. Daniel H, Bornstein SS, Kane GC. Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: an American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):577-578.
208. Park H, Roubal AM, Jovaag A, Gennuso KP, Catlin BB. Relative contributions of a set of health factors to selected health outcomes. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(6):961-969.
209. Ash AS, Mick EO, Ellis RP, et al. Social determinants of health in managed care payment formulas. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(10):1424.
210. de Beurs E, Warmerdam EH, Oudejans SCC, et al. Treatment outcome, duration, and costs: a comparison of performance indicators using data from eight mental health care providers in the Netherlands. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018;45(2):212-223.
211. Dunbar-Rees R. Paying for what matters most: the future of outcomes-based payments in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2018;5(2):98-102.
212. Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. physicians’ working hours and lowers their career satisfaction. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):635-642.
1. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The Triple Aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759-769.
2. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573-576.
3. Whittington JW, Nolan K, Lewis N, Torres T. Pursuing the Triple Aim: The first 7 years. Milbank Q. 2015;93(2):263-300.
4. Hendrikx RJP, Drewes HW, Spreeuwenberg M, et al. Which Triple Aim related measures are being used to evaluate population management initiatives? An international comparative analysis. Health Policy. 2016;120(5):471-485.
5. Kassler WJ, Howerton M, Thompson A, et al. Population Health Measurement at Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Bridging the gap between public health and clinical quality. Popul Health Manag. 2017;20(3):173-180.
6. Stiefel MC, Nolan K. A Guide to Measuring the Triple Aim: Population health, experience of care, and per capita cost. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012.
7. Panzer RJ, Gitomer RS, Greene WH, et al. Increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA. 2013;310(18):1971-1980.
8. Schuster MA, Onorato SE, Meltzer DO. Measuring the cost of quality measurement: a missing link in quality strategy. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1219-1220.
9. Casalino LP, Gans D, Weber R, et al. US physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(3):401-406.
10. Rao SK, Kimball AB, Lehrhoff SR, et al. The impact of administrative burden on academic physicians: results of a hospital-wide physician survey. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):237-243.
11. Institute of Medicine. Vital signs: Core metrics for health and health care progress. National Academies Press; 2015.
12. Meyer GS, Nelson EC, Pryor DB, et al. More quality measures versus measuring what matters: a call for balance and parsimony: Table 1. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(11):964-968.
13. County Health Rankings. Measures & data sources. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/measures-data-sources
14. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Health Assessment for population health improvement: Resource of most frequently recommended health outcomes and determinants. Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services; 2013.
15. Chang C-K, Hayes RD, Perera G, et al. Life expectancy at birth for people with serious mental illness and other major disorders from a secondary mental health care case register in London. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19590.
16. De Hert M, Correll CU, Bobes J, et al. Physical illness in patients with severe mental disorders. I. Prevalence, impact of medications and disparities in health care. World Psychiatry. 2011;10(1):52-77.
17. Druss BG, Zhao L, Von Esenwein S, Morrato EH, Marcus SC. Understanding excess mortality in persons with mental illness: 17-year follow up of a nationally representative US survey. Med Care. 2011;49(6):599-604.
18. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council. Morbidity and mortality in people with serious mental illness. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council; 2006.
19. Nordentoft M, Wahlbeck K, Hällgren J, et al. Excess mortality, causes of death and life expectancy in 270,770 patients with recent onset of mental disorders in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e55176.
20. Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, et al. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1015-1035.
21. Walker ER, Druss BG. A public health perspective on mental and medical comorbidity. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1104-1105.
22. DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, et al. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;21(3):267-275.
23. Mavaddat N, Parker RA, Sanderson S, et al. Relationship of self-rated health with fatal and non-fatal outcomes in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103509.
24. Lima-Costa MF, Cesar CC, Chor D, Proietti FA. Self-rated health compared with objectively measured health status as a tool for mortality risk screening in older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Bambui Cohort Study of Aging. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(3):228-235.
25. Stenholm S, Pentti J, Kawachi I, et al. Self-rated health in the last 12 years of life compared to matched surviving controls: the Health and Retirement Study. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107879.
26. Lee Y. The predictive value of self-assessed general, physical, and mental health on functional decline and mortality in older adults. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(2):123-129.
27. Tomioka K, Kurumatani N, Hosoi H. Self-rated health predicts decline in instrumental activities of daily living among high-functioning community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing. 2017;46(2):265-270.
28. DeSalvo KB, Jones TM, Peabody J, et al. Health care expenditure prediction with a single item, self-rated health measure. Med Care. 2009;47(4):440-447.
29. Farkas J, Kosnik M, Flezar M, Suskovic S, Lainscak M. Self-rated health predicts acute exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with COPD. Chest. 2010;138(2):323-330.
30. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;382(9904):1575-1586.
31. Park M, Katon WJ, Wolf FM. Depression and risk of mortality in individuals with diabetes: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(3):217-225.
32. Hare DL, Toukhsati SR, Johansson P, Jaarsma T. Depression and cardiovascular disease: a clinical review. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(21):1365-1372.
33. Cuijpers P, Schoevers RA. Increased mortality in depressive disorders: a review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2004;6(6):430-437.
34. Jansen L, van Schijndel M, van Waarde J, van Busschbach J. Health-economic outcomes in hospital patients with medical-psychiatric comorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194029.
35. Ahmad F, Jhajj AK, Stewart DE, et al. Single item measures of self-rated mental health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:398.
36. McAlpine DD, McCreedy E, Alang S. The meaning and predictive value of self-rated mental health among persons with a mental health problem. J Health Soc Behav. 2018;59(2):200-214.
37. Levinson D, Kaplan G. What does self-rated mental health represent? J Public Health Res. 2014;3(3):287.
38. Leamy M, Bird V, Boutillier CL, et al. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):445-452.
39. Smith KW, Avis NE, Assmann SF. Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(5):447-459.
40. Hamming JF, De Vries J. Measuring quality of life. Br J Surg. 2007;94(8):923-924.
41. Singh JA, Satele D, Pattabasavaiah S, et al. Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):187.
42. Siebens HC, Tsukerman D, Adkins RH, et al. Correlates of a single-item quality-of-life measure in people aging with disabilities. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(12):1065-1074.
43. Yohannes AM, Dodd M, Morris J, Webb K. Reliability and validity of a single item measure of quality of life scale for adult patients with cystic fibrosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):105.
44. Conway L, Widjaja E, Smith ML. Single-item measure for assessing quality of life in children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Epilepsia Open. 2018;3(1):46-54.
45. Skevington SM, Lofty M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299-310.
46. Atroszko PA, Baginska P, Mokosinska M, et al. Validity and reliability of single-item self-report measures of general quality of life, general health and sleep quality. In: CER Comparative European Research Conference: Research Track. Vol 2. Sciemcee Publishing; 2015:207-211.
47. Beaulieu S, Saury S, Sareen J, et al.
48. Marconi A, Di Forti M, Lewis CM, et al. Meta-analysis of the association between the level of cannabis use and risk of psychosis. Schizophr Bull. 2016;42(5):1262-1269.
49. Baker AL, Hiles SA, Thornton LK, et al. A systematic review of psychological interventions for excessive alcohol consumption among people with psychotic disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;126(4):243-255.
50. Baker AL, Hides L, Lubman DI. Treatment of cannabis use among people with psychotic or depressive disorders: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71(3):247-254.
51. Berenz EC, Coffey SF. Treatment of co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(5):469-477.
52. Pickard H, Fazel S. Substance abuse as a risk factor for violence in mental illness: some implications for forensic psychiatric practice and clinical ethics. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2013;26(4):349-354.
53. Fazel S, Gulati G, Linsell L, Geddes JR, Grann M. Schizophrenia and violence: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000120.
54. Van Dorn R, Volavka J, Johnson N. Mental disorder and violence: Is there a relationship beyond substance use? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(3):487-503.
55. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2019 Core set of adult health care quality measures for Medicaid (adult core set). Adult health care quality measures. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of-care/performance-measurement/adult-core-set/index.html.
56. Jha P, Peto R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(1):60-68.
57. Lê Cook B, Wayne GF, Kafali EN, et al. Trends in smoking among adults with mental illness and association between mental health treatment and smoking cessation. JAMA. 2014;311(2):172-182.
58. Smith PH, Mazure CM, McKee SA. Smoking and mental illness in the US population. Tob Control. 2014;23(0):e147-e153.
59. Taylor G, McNeill A, Girling A, et al. Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g1151.
60. McNeely J, Cleland CM, Strauss SM, et al. Validation of self-administered single-item screening questions (SISQs) for unhealthy alcohol and drug use in primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(12):1757-1764.
61. Saitz R, Cheng DM, Allensworth-Davies D, et al. The ability of single screening questions for unhealthy alcohol and other drug use to identify substance dependence in primary care. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014;75(1):153-157.
62. Smith PC, Schmidt SM, Allensworth-Davies D, Saitz R. Primary care validation of a single-question alcohol screening test. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(7):783-788.
63. Dawson DA, Compton WM, Grant BF. Frequency of 5+/4+ drinks as a screener for drug use and drug-use disorders. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71(5):751-760.
64. Smith PC, Schmidt SM, Allensworth-Davies D, Saitz R. A single-question screening test for drug use in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(13):1155-1160.
65. McNeely J, Strauss SM, Saitz R, et al. A brief patient self-administered substance use screening tool for primary care: two-site validation study of the Substance Use Brief Screen (SUBS). Am J Med. 2015;128(7):784.e9-784.e19.
66. McNeely J, Wu L-T, Subramaniam G, et al. Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool for substance use screening in primary care patients. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(10):690-699.
67. Gryczynski J, McNeely J, Wu L-T, et al. Validation of the TAPS-1: a four-item screening tool to identify unhealthy substance use in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(9):990-996.
68. Roelfs DJ, Shor E, Davidson KW, Schwartz JE. Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):840-854.
69. McKee-Ryan F, Song Z, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(1):53-76.
70. Zhang S, Bhavsar V. Unemployment as a risk factor for mental illness: combining social and psychiatric literature. Adv Appl Sociol. 2013;03(02):131-136.
71. Goodman N. The impact of employment on the health status and health care costs of working-age people with disabilities. The Lead Center. November 2015. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.leadcenter.org/system/files/resource/downloadable_version/impact_of_employment_health_status_health_care_costs_0.pdf
72. Hergenrather KC, Zeglin RJ, McGuire-Kuletz M, Rhodes SD. Employment as a social determinant of health: a systematic review of longitudinal studies exploring the relationship between employment status and physical health. Rehabil Res Policy Educ. 2015;29(1):2-26.
73. Walton MT, Hall MT. The effects of employment interventions on addiction treatment outcomes: a review of the literature. J Soc Work Pract Addict. 2016;16(4):358-384.
74. Schuring M, Robroek SJ, Burdorf A. The benefits of paid employment among persons with common mental health problems: evidence for the selection and causation mechanism. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(6):540-549.
75. Burns T, Catty J, White S, et al. The impact of supported employment and working on clinical and social functioning: results of an international study of individual placement and support. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(5):949-958.
76. Kilian R, Lauber C, Kalkan R, et al. The relationships between employment, clinical status, and psychiatric hospitalisation in patients with schizophrenia receiving either IPS or a conventional vocational rehabilitation programme. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(9):1381-1389.
77. Marwaha S, Johnson S. Schizophrenia and employment. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004;39(5):337-349.
78. Mueser KT, Drake RE, Bond GR. Recent advances in supported employment for people with serious mental illness. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2016;29(3):196-201.
79. Bush PW, Drake RE, Xie H, et al. The long-term impact of employment on mental health service use and costs for persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(8):1024-1031.
80. Drake RE, Skinner JS, Bond GR, Goldman HH. Social security and mental illness: reducing disability with supported employment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(3):761-770.
81. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA’s working definition of recovery. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Published 2012. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://store.samhsa.gov/system/files/pep12-recdef.pdf
82. Drake RE, Whitley R. Recovery and severe mental illness: description and analysis. Can J Psychiatry. 2014;59(5):236-242.
83. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. PPS Mental Health Module Handbook. Published 2018. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p02182.pdf
84. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Housing and Health. How does housing affect health? May 1, 2011. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/05/housing-and-health.html
85. Cunningham MK, MacDonald G. Housing as a platform for improving education outcomes among low-income children. Urban Institute. May 2012. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25331/412554-Housing-as-a-Platform-for-Improving-Education-Outcomes-among-Low-Income-Children.PDF
86. Friedman D. Social impact of poor housing. ECOTEC. March 2010. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://southdevonrural.co.uk/userfiles/file/JC-JC13-Social-impact-of-poor-housing.pdf
87. Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;384(9953):1529-1540.
88. Nusselder WJ, Slockers MT, Krol L, et al. Mortality and life expectancy in homeless men and women in Rotterdam: 2001–2010. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e73979.
89. O’Connell JJ. Premature mortality in homeless populations: a review of the literature. National Health Care for the Homeless Council. Published 2005. Accessed April 23, 2019. http://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf
90. Hwang SW, Wilkins R, Tjepkema M, et al. Mortality among residents of shelters, rooming houses, and hotels in Canada: 11 year follow-up study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4036.
91. Roncarati JS, Baggett TP, O’Connell JJ, et al. Mortality among unsheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts, 2000-2009. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1242-1248.
92. Thomson H, Thomas S, Sellstrom E, Petticrew M. Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD008657.
93. Fenelon A, Mayne P, Simon AE, et al. Housing assistance programs and adult health in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(4):571-578.
94. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ganann R, Krishnaratne S, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):638.
95. Rog DJ, Marshall T, Dougherty RH, et al. Permanent supportive housing: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(3):287-294.
96. Kirst M, Zerger S, Wise Harris D, et al. The promise of recovery: narratives of hope among homeless individuals with mental illness participating in a Housing First randomised controlled trial in Toronto, Canada: Table 1. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e004379.
97. Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D. Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(4):375-378.
98. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988;241(4865):540-545.
99. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social ties and mental health. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):458-467.
100. Schön U-K, Denhov A, Topor A. Social relationships as a decisive factor in recovering from severe mental illness. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2009;55(4):336-347.
101. Soundy A, Stubbs B, Roskell C, et al. Identifying the facilitators and processes which influence recovery in individuals with schizophrenia: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. J Ment Health. 2015;24(2):103-110.
102. Tew J, Ramon S, Slade M, et al. Social factors and recovery from mental health difficulties: a review of the evidence. Br J Soc Work. 2012;42(3):443-460.
103. Moos RH. Theory-based processes that promote the remission of substance use disorders. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27(5):537-551.
104. Stiefel MC, Riley CL, Roy B, et al. 100 Million Healthier Lives Measurement System: Progress to date. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2016:41. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.100mlives.org
105. Swanson JW, Frisman LK, Robertson AG, et al. Costs of criminal justice involvement among persons with serious mental illness in Connecticut. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(7):630-637.
106. Fazel S, Bains P, Doll H. Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review. Addiction. 2006;101(2):181-191.
107. Fazel S, Seewald K. Severe mental illness in 33 588 prisoners worldwide: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(05):364-373.
108. Fazel S, Baillargeon J. The health of prisoners. Lancet. 2011;377(9769):956-965.
109. Wildeman C, Wang EA. Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1464-1474.
110. Zlodre J, Fazel S. All-cause and external mortality in released prisoners: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):e67-e75.
111. Massoglia M, Pridemore WA. Incarceration and health. Annu Rev Sociol. 2015;41:291-310.
112. Kouyoumdjian FG, Cheng SY, Fung K, et al. The health care utilization of people in prison and after prison release: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0201592.
113. Winkelman TNA, Genao I, Wildeman C, Wang EA. Emergency department and hospital use among adolescents with justice system involvement. Pediatrics. 2017;140(5):e20171144.
114. Wildeman C. Imprisonment and infant mortality. Soc Prob. 2012;59:228-257.
115. Geller A, Cooper CE, Garfinkel I, et al. Beyond absenteeism: father incarceration and child development. Demography. 2012;49(1):49-76.
116. Turney K. Stress proliferation across generations? Examining the relationship between parental incarceration and childhood health. J Health Soc Behav. 2014;55(3):302-319.
117. Geller A, Garfinkel I, Western B. Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography. 2011;48(1):25-47.
118. Lee H, Wildeman C, Wang EA, et al. A heavy burden: the cardiovascular health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):421-427.
119. Western B. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. Am Sociol Rev. 2002;67(4):526-546.
120. Constantine R, Andel R, Petrila J, et al. Characteristics and experiences of adults with a serious mental illness who were involved in the criminal justice system. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61(5):451-457.
121. Garnick DW, Horgan CM, Acevedo A, et al. Criminal justice outcomes after engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(3):295-305.
122. Adler NE, Ostrove JM. Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what we don’t. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896(1):3-15.
123. Luo Y, Waite LJ. The impact of childhood and adult SES on physical, mental, and cognitive well-being in later life. J Gerontol Ser B. 2005;60(2):S93-S101.
124. Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam A-JR, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(23):2468-2481.
125. Hudson CG. Socioeconomic status and mental illness: tests of the social causation and selection hypotheses. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2005;75(1):3-18.
126. McLaughlin KA, Breslau J, Green JG, et al. Childhood socio-economic status and the onset, persistence, and severity of DSM-IV mental disorders in a US national sample. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(7):1088-1096.
127. Muntaner C. Socioeconomic position and major mental disorders. Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26(1):53-62.
128. Präg P, Mills MC, Wittek R. Subjective socioeconomic status and health in cross-national comparison. Soc Sci Med. 2016;149:84-92.
129. Shaked D, Williams M, Evans MK, Zonderman AB. Indicators of subjective social status: differential associations across race and sex. SSM Popul Health. 2016;2:700-707.
130. Singh-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG. Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(6):1321-1333.
131. Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19(6):586-592.
132. Cundiff JM, Matthews KA. Is subjective social status a unique correlate of physical health? A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2017;36(12):1109-1125.
133. Demakakos P, Biddulph JP, de Oliveira C, et al. Subjective social status and mortality: The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(8):729-739.
134. Quon EC, McGrath JJ. Subjective socioeconomic status and adolescent health: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2014;33(5):433-447.
135. Scott KM, Al-Hamzawi AO, Andrade LH, et al. Associations between subjective social status and DSM-IV mental disorders: Results from the World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(12):1400-1408.
136. Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428.
137. Krumholz HM, Wang K, Lin Z, et al. Hospital-readmission risk—Isolating hospital effects from patient effects. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1055-1064.
138. Krumholz HM, Lin Z, Keenan PS, et al. Relationship of hospital performance with readmission and mortality rates for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309(6):587-593.
139. Chin DL, Bang H, Manickam RN, Romano PS. Rethinking thirty-day hospital readmissions: Shorter intervals might be better indicators of quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(10):1867-1875.
140. Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(11):774-784.
141. Hudon C, Chouinard M-C, Lambert M, et al. Effectiveness of case management interventions for frequent users of healthcare services: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e012353.
142. Kripalani S, Theobald CN, Anctil B, Vasilevskis EE. Reducing hospital readmission: current strategies and future directions. Annu Rev Med. 2014;65:471-485.
143. Verhaegh KJ, MacNeil-Vroomen JL, Eslami S, et al. Transitional care interventions prevent hospital readmissions for adults with chronic illnesses. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(9):1531-1539.
144. Duhig M, Gunasekara I, Patterson S. Understanding readmission to psychiatric hospital in Australia from the service users’ perspective: a qualitative study. Health Soc Care Community. 2017;25(1):75-82.
145. New England Healthcare Institute. A matter of urgency: Reducing emergency department overuse. Published 2010. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.nehi.net/writable/publication_files/file/nehi_ed_overuse_issue_brief_032610finaledits.pdf
146. Billings J, Raven MC. Dispelling an urban legend: Frequent emergency department users have substantial burden of disease. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(12):2099-2108.
147. Moe J, Kirkland S, Ospina MB, et al. Mortality, admission rates and outpatient use among frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(3):230-236.
148. Carret MLV, Fassa ACG, Domingues MR. Inappropriate use of emergency services: a systematic review of prevalence and associated factors. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009;25(1):7-28.
149. Durand A-C, Palazzolo S, Tanti-Hardouin N, et al. Nonurgent patients in emergency departments: rational or irresponsible consumers? Perceptions of professionals and patients. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5(1):525.
150. Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, et al. Deciding to visit the emergency department for non-urgent conditions: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(1):47-59.
151. Kumar GS, Klein R. Effectiveness of case management strategies in reducing emergency department visits in frequent user patient populations: a systematic review. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(3):717-729.
152. Moe J, Kirkland SW, Rawe E, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to decrease emergency department visits by adult frequent users: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(1):40-52.
153. Raven MC, Kushel M, Ko MJ, et al. The effectiveness of emergency department visit reduction programs: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(4):467-483.e15.
154. Soril LJJ, Leggett LE, Lorenzetti DL, et al. Reducing frequent visits to the emergency department: a systematic review of interventions. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123660.
155. Van den Heede K, Van de Voorde C. Interventions to reduce emergency department utilisation: a review of reviews. Health Policy. 2016;120(12):1337-1349.
156. Onken SJ, Dumont JM, Ridgway P, et al. Mental health recovery: What helps and what hinders? October 2002. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files//MHSIPReport%281%29.pdf
157. Leggett LE, Khadaroo RG, Holroyd-Leduc J, et al. Measuring resource utilization. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(10):e2759.
158. Bhandari A, Wagner T. Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):217-235.
159. Short ME, Goetzel RZ, Pei X, et al. How accurate are self-reports? An analysis of self-reported healthcare utilization and absence when compared to administrative data. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(7):786-796.
160. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press; 2001.
161. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(6):370-376.
162. Rafter N, Hickey A, Condell S, et al. Adverse events in healthcare: learning from mistakes. QJM. 2015;108(4):273-277.
163. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;3(353):i2139.
164. D’Lima D, Crawford MJ, Darzi A, Archer S. Patient safety and quality of care in mental health: A world of its own? BJPsych Bull. 2017;41(5):241-243.
165. Maidment ID, Lelliott P, Paton C. Medication errors in mental healthcare: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(6):409-413.
166. Mills PD, Watts BV, Shiner B, Hemphill RR. Adverse events occurring on mental health units. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018;50:63-68.
167. Marcus SC, Hermann RC, Frankel MR, Cullen SW. Safety of psychiatric inpatients at the Veterans Health Administration. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;69(2):204-210.
168. Reilly CA, Cullen SW, Watts BV, et al. How well do incident reporting systems work on inpatient psychiatric units? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45:63-69.
169. Rosano A, Loha CA, Falvo R, et al. The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(3):356-360.
170. Dupre ME, Xu H, Granger BB, et al. Access to routine care and risks for 30-day readmission in patients with cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J. 2018;196:9-17.
171. Pizer SD, Prentice JC. What are the consequences of waiting for health care in the veteran population? J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(S2):676-682.
172. Festinger DS, Lamb RJ, Kirby KC, Marlowe DB. The accelerated intake: a method for increasing initial attendance to outpatient cocaine treatment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996;29(3):387-389.
173. Festinger DS, Lamb RJ, Marlowe DB, Kirby KC. From telephone to office: intake attendance as a function of appointment delay. Addict Behav. 2002;27(1):131-137.
174. Gallucci G, Swartz W, Hackerman F. Brief reports: Impact of the wait for an initial appointment on the rate of kept appointments at a mental health center. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(3):344-346.
175. Bleustein C, Rothschild DB, Valen A, et al. Wait times, patient satisfaction scores, and the perception of care. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(5):393-400.
176. Reichert A, Jacobs R. The impact of waiting time on patient outcomes: Evidence from early intervention in psychosis services in England. Health Econ. 2018;27(11):1772-1787.
177. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001570.
178. Horvath AO, Del Re AC, Flückiger C, Symonds D. Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy. 2011;48(1):9-16.
179. Farley H, Enguidanos ER, Coletti CM, et al. Patient satisfaction surveys and quality of care: an information paper. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64(4):351-357.
180. Aiken LH, Sermeus W, Van den Heede K, et al. Patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital care: cross sectional surveys of nurses and patients in 12 countries in Europe and the United States. BMJ. 2012;344:e1717.
181. Boulding W, Glickman SW, Manary MP, Schulman KA, Staelin R. Relationship between patient satisfaction with inpatient care and hospital readmission within 30 days. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(1):41-48.
182. Rohland BM, Langbehn DR, Rohrer JE. Relationship between service effectiveness and satisfaction among persons receiving Medicaid mental health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2000;51(2):248-250.
183. Zendjidjian X-Y, Baumstarck K, Auquier P, et al. Satisfaction of hospitalized psychiatry patients: Why should clinicians care? Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:575-583.
184. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditures; aggregate and per capita amounts, annual percent change and percent distribution: Calendar years 1960-2016. National Health Expenditure Data. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nationalhealthaccountshistorical.html. Published 2018. Accessed August 21, 2018.
185. DuBard CA. Running the numbers. N C Med J. 2016;77(4):297-300.
186. Peikes D, Chen A, Schore J, Brown R. Effects of care coordination on hospitalization, quality of care, and health care expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries: 15 randomized trials. JAMA. 2009;301(6):603-618.
187. Seow H-Y, Sibley LM. Developing a dashboard to help measure and achieve the triple aim: A population-based cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):363.
188. Lee VS, Kawamoto K, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1061.
189. Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD, Sinsky CA, et al. Burnout among health care professionals: A call to explore and address this underrecognized threat to safe, high-quality care discussion paper. National Academy of Medicine. July 5, 2017. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://nam.edu/burnout-among-health-care-professionals-a-call-to-explore-and-address-this-underrecognized-threat-to-safe-high-quality-care/
190. Johnson J, Hall LH, Berzins K, et al. Mental healthcare staff well-being and burnout: a narrative review of trends, causes, implications, and recommendations for future interventions. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018;27(1):20-32.
191. Morse G, Salyers MP, Rollins AL, et al. Burnout in mental health services: a review of the problem and its remediation. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2012;39(5):341-352.
192. Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, et al. Healthcare staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159015.
193. Garman AN, Corrigan PW, Morris S. Staff burnout and patient satisfaction: evidence of relationships at the care unit level. J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7(3):235-241.
194. Wilkinson H, Whittington R, Perry L, Eames C. Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Burn Res. 2017;6:18-29.
195. Holmqvist R, Jeanneau M. Burnout and psychiatric staff’s feelings towards patients. Psychiatry Res. 2006;145(2-3):207-213.
196. Leiter MP, Maslach C. Nurse turnover: the mediating role of burnout. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17(3):331-339.
197. Zhang Y, Feng X. The relationship between job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intention among physicians from urban state-owned medical institutions in Hubei, China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):235.
198. Halter M, Boiko O, Pelone F, et al. The determinants and consequences of adult nursing staff turnover: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):824.
199. Hamidi MS, Bohman B, Sandborg C, et al. Estimating institutional physician turnover attributable to self-reported burnout and associated financial burden: a case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):851.
200. National Taskforce for Humanity in Healthcare. The business case for humanity in healthcare position paper. April 2018. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.vocera.com/public/pdf/NTHBusinessCase_final003.pdf
201. Waldman JD, Kelly F, Arora S, Smith HL. The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Care Manage Rev. 2004;29(1):2-7.
202. Brunette MF, Asher D, Whitley R, et al. Implementation of integrated dual disorders treatment: a qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(9):989-995.
203. Mancini AD, Moser LL, Whitley R, et al. Assertive community treatment: facilitators and barriers to implementation in routine mental health settings. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(2):189-195.
204. Rollins AL, Salyers MP, Tsai J, Lydick JM. Staff turnover in statewide implementation of ACT: Relationship with ACT fidelity and other team characteristics. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010;37(5):417-426.
205. Woltmann EM, Whitley R, McHugo GJ, et al. The role of staff turnover in the implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health care. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(7):732-737.
206. Alegría M, NeMoyer A, Falgàs Bagué I, et al. Social determinants of mental health: Where we are and where we need to go. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20(11):95.
207. Daniel H, Bornstein SS, Kane GC. Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: an American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):577-578.
208. Park H, Roubal AM, Jovaag A, Gennuso KP, Catlin BB. Relative contributions of a set of health factors to selected health outcomes. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(6):961-969.
209. Ash AS, Mick EO, Ellis RP, et al. Social determinants of health in managed care payment formulas. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(10):1424.
210. de Beurs E, Warmerdam EH, Oudejans SCC, et al. Treatment outcome, duration, and costs: a comparison of performance indicators using data from eight mental health care providers in the Netherlands. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018;45(2):212-223.
211. Dunbar-Rees R. Paying for what matters most: the future of outcomes-based payments in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2018;5(2):98-102.
212. Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. physicians’ working hours and lowers their career satisfaction. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):635-642.
Which providers miss metabolic monitoring of children taking antipsychotics?
The number and types of providers involved in a child’s care are associated with the likelihood that the child will receive metabolic monitoring, according to the study, which was published in Pediatrics.
The results suggest that primary care providers and mental health providers should collaborate to monitor children taking antipsychotics, the researchers said.
“Shared care arrangements between primary care physicians and mental health specialists significantly increased the chances that metabolic monitoring would be done, compared with care delivered by one provider,” reported Elizabeth A. Shenkman, PhD, chair of the department of health outcomes and biomedical informatics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. “The results of our study point to the importance of state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans in identifying all providers caring for the children taking antipsychotic medication and using this information to engage the providers in quality improvement efforts to improve metabolic monitoring rates.”
Comparing specialties
Children who take antipsychotic medication are at risk for obesity, impaired glucose metabolism, and hyperlipidemia, but less than 40% receive recommended metabolic monitoring with glucose and cholesterol tests.
To examine how health care provider specialty influences the receipt of metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues analyzed Medicaid enrollment and health care and pharmacy claims data from Florida and Texas.
They focused on 41,078 children who had an antipsychotic medication dispensed at least twice in 2017 and were eligible for inclusion in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metabolic monitoring measure. The Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics measure is a “priority nationally and is currently on the CMS Child Core Set, which is used to annually assess state-specific performance on pediatric quality measures,” the authors wrote.
About 65% were boys, and the children had an average age of 12 years. The researchers compared metabolic monitoring rates when children received outpatient care from a primary care provider, a mental health provider with prescribing privileges, or both.
Less than 40% of the children received metabolic monitoring, that is, at least one diabetes test and at least one cholesterol test, during the year.
Most of the children (61%) saw both primary care providers and mental health providers. Approximately one-third had a primary care provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time, and 60% had a mental health provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time.
Patients who saw both types of providers were significantly more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, relative to those who saw primary care providers only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42). Those seeing a mental health provider alone had adjusted odds of metabolic monitoring that were 23% lower than those seeing a primary care provider alone.
Children who had a mental health provider prescribe the medication the majority of the time were 25% more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, compared with those who had a primary care provider prescribing the medication the majority of the time.
Slipping through the cracks
Child psychiatrist Fred Volkmar, MD, commented that the results are “sadly” unsurprising and reflect issues that pertain to other psychotropic drugs as well as antipsychotics and to adults as well as children.
The researchers “are quite right to point to it,” and “we really do need to develop better plans for improving” monitoring, said Dr. Volkmar, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the Child Study Center and professor of psychology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“Increasingly we are asking primary care providers ... to take care of folks who have important either developmental or mental health problems,” Dr. Volkmar said. While they can do a good job, they increasingly are underpaid. Monitoring patients takes work, and they may be less familiar with the medications. “Either they prescribe these medications or they are asked to monitor them in place of the specialist provider who may have started them or suggested them,” he said. Metabolic monitoring may not be prioritized and can easily “slip through the cracks.” At the same time, doctors need to be aware of the risk of serious side effects of antipsychotic medications, such as malignant hyperthermia.
These medications can be overused and inappropriately used, which is a further complication. And when patients are taking multiple medications, there may be a need for additional monitoring and awareness of drug interactions.
“These medications are very complicated to use,” and there needs to be a way to connect primary care providers with child psychiatrists who are best trained in their use, said Dr. Volkmar.
A system with reminders can facilitate effective metabolic monitoring, he suggested. Dr. Volkmar has established a routine while providing care for a group home of adults with autism. Every 3 months, he reviews lab results. “You just have to force yourself to do it.”
Shared care arrangements may be another way to promote metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues said.
“Attributing care back to the multiple providers is important for care coordination and development of strategies to ensure that the evidence-based care is delivered and there is appropriate follow-up with the family and child to be sure care is received,” the study authors wrote. “Formalized shared care arrangements and adaptation of existing care delivery models to support integrated care, which can vary in degree from external coordination to on-site intervention and collaboration, are effective methods to promote partnership between primary and mental health providers.”
It is possible that clinicians in the study ordered metabolic monitoring but families did not take the children for testing, the investigators noted. In addition, it is not clear how much information providers have about other providers their patients are seeing.
The study authors and Dr. Volkmar had no disclosures.
The number and types of providers involved in a child’s care are associated with the likelihood that the child will receive metabolic monitoring, according to the study, which was published in Pediatrics.
The results suggest that primary care providers and mental health providers should collaborate to monitor children taking antipsychotics, the researchers said.
“Shared care arrangements between primary care physicians and mental health specialists significantly increased the chances that metabolic monitoring would be done, compared with care delivered by one provider,” reported Elizabeth A. Shenkman, PhD, chair of the department of health outcomes and biomedical informatics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. “The results of our study point to the importance of state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans in identifying all providers caring for the children taking antipsychotic medication and using this information to engage the providers in quality improvement efforts to improve metabolic monitoring rates.”
Comparing specialties
Children who take antipsychotic medication are at risk for obesity, impaired glucose metabolism, and hyperlipidemia, but less than 40% receive recommended metabolic monitoring with glucose and cholesterol tests.
To examine how health care provider specialty influences the receipt of metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues analyzed Medicaid enrollment and health care and pharmacy claims data from Florida and Texas.
They focused on 41,078 children who had an antipsychotic medication dispensed at least twice in 2017 and were eligible for inclusion in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metabolic monitoring measure. The Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics measure is a “priority nationally and is currently on the CMS Child Core Set, which is used to annually assess state-specific performance on pediatric quality measures,” the authors wrote.
About 65% were boys, and the children had an average age of 12 years. The researchers compared metabolic monitoring rates when children received outpatient care from a primary care provider, a mental health provider with prescribing privileges, or both.
Less than 40% of the children received metabolic monitoring, that is, at least one diabetes test and at least one cholesterol test, during the year.
Most of the children (61%) saw both primary care providers and mental health providers. Approximately one-third had a primary care provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time, and 60% had a mental health provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time.
Patients who saw both types of providers were significantly more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, relative to those who saw primary care providers only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42). Those seeing a mental health provider alone had adjusted odds of metabolic monitoring that were 23% lower than those seeing a primary care provider alone.
Children who had a mental health provider prescribe the medication the majority of the time were 25% more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, compared with those who had a primary care provider prescribing the medication the majority of the time.
Slipping through the cracks
Child psychiatrist Fred Volkmar, MD, commented that the results are “sadly” unsurprising and reflect issues that pertain to other psychotropic drugs as well as antipsychotics and to adults as well as children.
The researchers “are quite right to point to it,” and “we really do need to develop better plans for improving” monitoring, said Dr. Volkmar, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the Child Study Center and professor of psychology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“Increasingly we are asking primary care providers ... to take care of folks who have important either developmental or mental health problems,” Dr. Volkmar said. While they can do a good job, they increasingly are underpaid. Monitoring patients takes work, and they may be less familiar with the medications. “Either they prescribe these medications or they are asked to monitor them in place of the specialist provider who may have started them or suggested them,” he said. Metabolic monitoring may not be prioritized and can easily “slip through the cracks.” At the same time, doctors need to be aware of the risk of serious side effects of antipsychotic medications, such as malignant hyperthermia.
These medications can be overused and inappropriately used, which is a further complication. And when patients are taking multiple medications, there may be a need for additional monitoring and awareness of drug interactions.
“These medications are very complicated to use,” and there needs to be a way to connect primary care providers with child psychiatrists who are best trained in their use, said Dr. Volkmar.
A system with reminders can facilitate effective metabolic monitoring, he suggested. Dr. Volkmar has established a routine while providing care for a group home of adults with autism. Every 3 months, he reviews lab results. “You just have to force yourself to do it.”
Shared care arrangements may be another way to promote metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues said.
“Attributing care back to the multiple providers is important for care coordination and development of strategies to ensure that the evidence-based care is delivered and there is appropriate follow-up with the family and child to be sure care is received,” the study authors wrote. “Formalized shared care arrangements and adaptation of existing care delivery models to support integrated care, which can vary in degree from external coordination to on-site intervention and collaboration, are effective methods to promote partnership between primary and mental health providers.”
It is possible that clinicians in the study ordered metabolic monitoring but families did not take the children for testing, the investigators noted. In addition, it is not clear how much information providers have about other providers their patients are seeing.
The study authors and Dr. Volkmar had no disclosures.
The number and types of providers involved in a child’s care are associated with the likelihood that the child will receive metabolic monitoring, according to the study, which was published in Pediatrics.
The results suggest that primary care providers and mental health providers should collaborate to monitor children taking antipsychotics, the researchers said.
“Shared care arrangements between primary care physicians and mental health specialists significantly increased the chances that metabolic monitoring would be done, compared with care delivered by one provider,” reported Elizabeth A. Shenkman, PhD, chair of the department of health outcomes and biomedical informatics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. “The results of our study point to the importance of state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans in identifying all providers caring for the children taking antipsychotic medication and using this information to engage the providers in quality improvement efforts to improve metabolic monitoring rates.”
Comparing specialties
Children who take antipsychotic medication are at risk for obesity, impaired glucose metabolism, and hyperlipidemia, but less than 40% receive recommended metabolic monitoring with glucose and cholesterol tests.
To examine how health care provider specialty influences the receipt of metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues analyzed Medicaid enrollment and health care and pharmacy claims data from Florida and Texas.
They focused on 41,078 children who had an antipsychotic medication dispensed at least twice in 2017 and were eligible for inclusion in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metabolic monitoring measure. The Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics measure is a “priority nationally and is currently on the CMS Child Core Set, which is used to annually assess state-specific performance on pediatric quality measures,” the authors wrote.
About 65% were boys, and the children had an average age of 12 years. The researchers compared metabolic monitoring rates when children received outpatient care from a primary care provider, a mental health provider with prescribing privileges, or both.
Less than 40% of the children received metabolic monitoring, that is, at least one diabetes test and at least one cholesterol test, during the year.
Most of the children (61%) saw both primary care providers and mental health providers. Approximately one-third had a primary care provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time, and 60% had a mental health provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time.
Patients who saw both types of providers were significantly more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, relative to those who saw primary care providers only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42). Those seeing a mental health provider alone had adjusted odds of metabolic monitoring that were 23% lower than those seeing a primary care provider alone.
Children who had a mental health provider prescribe the medication the majority of the time were 25% more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, compared with those who had a primary care provider prescribing the medication the majority of the time.
Slipping through the cracks
Child psychiatrist Fred Volkmar, MD, commented that the results are “sadly” unsurprising and reflect issues that pertain to other psychotropic drugs as well as antipsychotics and to adults as well as children.
The researchers “are quite right to point to it,” and “we really do need to develop better plans for improving” monitoring, said Dr. Volkmar, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the Child Study Center and professor of psychology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“Increasingly we are asking primary care providers ... to take care of folks who have important either developmental or mental health problems,” Dr. Volkmar said. While they can do a good job, they increasingly are underpaid. Monitoring patients takes work, and they may be less familiar with the medications. “Either they prescribe these medications or they are asked to monitor them in place of the specialist provider who may have started them or suggested them,” he said. Metabolic monitoring may not be prioritized and can easily “slip through the cracks.” At the same time, doctors need to be aware of the risk of serious side effects of antipsychotic medications, such as malignant hyperthermia.
These medications can be overused and inappropriately used, which is a further complication. And when patients are taking multiple medications, there may be a need for additional monitoring and awareness of drug interactions.
“These medications are very complicated to use,” and there needs to be a way to connect primary care providers with child psychiatrists who are best trained in their use, said Dr. Volkmar.
A system with reminders can facilitate effective metabolic monitoring, he suggested. Dr. Volkmar has established a routine while providing care for a group home of adults with autism. Every 3 months, he reviews lab results. “You just have to force yourself to do it.”
Shared care arrangements may be another way to promote metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues said.
“Attributing care back to the multiple providers is important for care coordination and development of strategies to ensure that the evidence-based care is delivered and there is appropriate follow-up with the family and child to be sure care is received,” the study authors wrote. “Formalized shared care arrangements and adaptation of existing care delivery models to support integrated care, which can vary in degree from external coordination to on-site intervention and collaboration, are effective methods to promote partnership between primary and mental health providers.”
It is possible that clinicians in the study ordered metabolic monitoring but families did not take the children for testing, the investigators noted. In addition, it is not clear how much information providers have about other providers their patients are seeing.
The study authors and Dr. Volkmar had no disclosures.
FROM PEDIATRICS
National spike in methamphetamine overdose deaths
The national rate of methamphetamine overdose deaths shot up significantly between 2011 and 2018, particularly among non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native communities, new research shows.
Rates rose for both men and women but more so among men, the study found. The spike in these deaths underscores the need for culturally tailored prevention and treatment strategies, the study authors said.
“While much attention is focused on the opioid crisis, a methamphetamine crisis has been quietly, but actively, gaining steam – particularly among American Indians and Alaska Natives, who are disproportionately affected by a number of health conditions,” senior investigator Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Highly toxic
Methamphetamine is highly toxic. Its use is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular pathology and frequently co-occurs with other substance use and mental disorders.
In addition, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to reverse methamphetamine overdose or treat methamphetamine use disorder.
However, In addition, a recent clinical trial reported significant therapeutic benefits with the combination of naltrexone with bupropion in patients with methamphetamine use disorder.
For the study, the investigators used deidentified public health surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System files for multiple causes of death.
The researchers used the psychostimulant category to estimate death rates from methamphetamine. The authors noted that up to 90% of psychostimulant-involved death certificates mentioned methamphetamine.
Researchers stratified age-adjusted overdose death rates during 2011-2018 by sex and race/ethnicity and limited the analysis to those aged 25-54 years. Approximately 80% of methamphetamine users are between the ages of 25 and 54 years.
During the study period, rates for methamphetamine-involved deaths increased from 1.8 to 10.1 per 100,000 among men (average annual percentage change, 29.1; 95% confidence interval, 25.5-32.8; P < .001) and from 0.8 to 4.5 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 28.1; 95% CI, 25.1-31.2; P < .001).
Need for tailored interventions
For both men and women, those in non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native communities had the highest rates. These increased from 5.6 to 26.4 per 100,000 among men and from 3.6 to 15.6 per 100,000 among women.
While American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experience sociostructural disadvantages, their cultural strengths “can be leveraged to improve addiction outcomes,” the investigators wrote.
Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest rates. These rose from 2.2 to 12.6 per 100,000 among men (AAPC, 29.8; 95% CI, 24.3-35.4; P < .001) and from 1.1 to 6.2 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 29.1; 95% CI, 25.2-33.2; P < .001).
Rates among Hispanic individuals increased from 1.4 to 6.6 per 100,000 for men and from 0.5 to 2.0 per 100,000 for women. Among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, rates increased to 3.4 per 100,000 for men and to 1.1 per 100,000 for women. Non-Hispanic Black individuals had low rates. Within each racial/ethnic group, rates were higher among men versus women.
Methamphetamine death rates may be underestimated because some overdose death certificates do not report specific drugs involved, the authors noted.
Identifying populations that have a higher rate of methamphetamine overdose is a crucial step toward curbing the underlying methamphetamine crisis,” study author Beth Han, MD, PhD, of NIDA, said in a press release.
“By focusing on the unique needs of individuals and developing culturally tailored interventions, we can begin to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches and toward more effective, tailored interventions,” she said.
The study was sponsored by NIDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The national rate of methamphetamine overdose deaths shot up significantly between 2011 and 2018, particularly among non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native communities, new research shows.
Rates rose for both men and women but more so among men, the study found. The spike in these deaths underscores the need for culturally tailored prevention and treatment strategies, the study authors said.
“While much attention is focused on the opioid crisis, a methamphetamine crisis has been quietly, but actively, gaining steam – particularly among American Indians and Alaska Natives, who are disproportionately affected by a number of health conditions,” senior investigator Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Highly toxic
Methamphetamine is highly toxic. Its use is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular pathology and frequently co-occurs with other substance use and mental disorders.
In addition, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to reverse methamphetamine overdose or treat methamphetamine use disorder.
However, In addition, a recent clinical trial reported significant therapeutic benefits with the combination of naltrexone with bupropion in patients with methamphetamine use disorder.
For the study, the investigators used deidentified public health surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System files for multiple causes of death.
The researchers used the psychostimulant category to estimate death rates from methamphetamine. The authors noted that up to 90% of psychostimulant-involved death certificates mentioned methamphetamine.
Researchers stratified age-adjusted overdose death rates during 2011-2018 by sex and race/ethnicity and limited the analysis to those aged 25-54 years. Approximately 80% of methamphetamine users are between the ages of 25 and 54 years.
During the study period, rates for methamphetamine-involved deaths increased from 1.8 to 10.1 per 100,000 among men (average annual percentage change, 29.1; 95% confidence interval, 25.5-32.8; P < .001) and from 0.8 to 4.5 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 28.1; 95% CI, 25.1-31.2; P < .001).
Need for tailored interventions
For both men and women, those in non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native communities had the highest rates. These increased from 5.6 to 26.4 per 100,000 among men and from 3.6 to 15.6 per 100,000 among women.
While American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experience sociostructural disadvantages, their cultural strengths “can be leveraged to improve addiction outcomes,” the investigators wrote.
Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest rates. These rose from 2.2 to 12.6 per 100,000 among men (AAPC, 29.8; 95% CI, 24.3-35.4; P < .001) and from 1.1 to 6.2 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 29.1; 95% CI, 25.2-33.2; P < .001).
Rates among Hispanic individuals increased from 1.4 to 6.6 per 100,000 for men and from 0.5 to 2.0 per 100,000 for women. Among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, rates increased to 3.4 per 100,000 for men and to 1.1 per 100,000 for women. Non-Hispanic Black individuals had low rates. Within each racial/ethnic group, rates were higher among men versus women.
Methamphetamine death rates may be underestimated because some overdose death certificates do not report specific drugs involved, the authors noted.
Identifying populations that have a higher rate of methamphetamine overdose is a crucial step toward curbing the underlying methamphetamine crisis,” study author Beth Han, MD, PhD, of NIDA, said in a press release.
“By focusing on the unique needs of individuals and developing culturally tailored interventions, we can begin to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches and toward more effective, tailored interventions,” she said.
The study was sponsored by NIDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The national rate of methamphetamine overdose deaths shot up significantly between 2011 and 2018, particularly among non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native communities, new research shows.
Rates rose for both men and women but more so among men, the study found. The spike in these deaths underscores the need for culturally tailored prevention and treatment strategies, the study authors said.
“While much attention is focused on the opioid crisis, a methamphetamine crisis has been quietly, but actively, gaining steam – particularly among American Indians and Alaska Natives, who are disproportionately affected by a number of health conditions,” senior investigator Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Highly toxic
Methamphetamine is highly toxic. Its use is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular pathology and frequently co-occurs with other substance use and mental disorders.
In addition, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to reverse methamphetamine overdose or treat methamphetamine use disorder.
However, In addition, a recent clinical trial reported significant therapeutic benefits with the combination of naltrexone with bupropion in patients with methamphetamine use disorder.
For the study, the investigators used deidentified public health surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System files for multiple causes of death.
The researchers used the psychostimulant category to estimate death rates from methamphetamine. The authors noted that up to 90% of psychostimulant-involved death certificates mentioned methamphetamine.
Researchers stratified age-adjusted overdose death rates during 2011-2018 by sex and race/ethnicity and limited the analysis to those aged 25-54 years. Approximately 80% of methamphetamine users are between the ages of 25 and 54 years.
During the study period, rates for methamphetamine-involved deaths increased from 1.8 to 10.1 per 100,000 among men (average annual percentage change, 29.1; 95% confidence interval, 25.5-32.8; P < .001) and from 0.8 to 4.5 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 28.1; 95% CI, 25.1-31.2; P < .001).
Need for tailored interventions
For both men and women, those in non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native communities had the highest rates. These increased from 5.6 to 26.4 per 100,000 among men and from 3.6 to 15.6 per 100,000 among women.
While American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experience sociostructural disadvantages, their cultural strengths “can be leveraged to improve addiction outcomes,” the investigators wrote.
Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest rates. These rose from 2.2 to 12.6 per 100,000 among men (AAPC, 29.8; 95% CI, 24.3-35.4; P < .001) and from 1.1 to 6.2 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 29.1; 95% CI, 25.2-33.2; P < .001).
Rates among Hispanic individuals increased from 1.4 to 6.6 per 100,000 for men and from 0.5 to 2.0 per 100,000 for women. Among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, rates increased to 3.4 per 100,000 for men and to 1.1 per 100,000 for women. Non-Hispanic Black individuals had low rates. Within each racial/ethnic group, rates were higher among men versus women.
Methamphetamine death rates may be underestimated because some overdose death certificates do not report specific drugs involved, the authors noted.
Identifying populations that have a higher rate of methamphetamine overdose is a crucial step toward curbing the underlying methamphetamine crisis,” study author Beth Han, MD, PhD, of NIDA, said in a press release.
“By focusing on the unique needs of individuals and developing culturally tailored interventions, we can begin to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches and toward more effective, tailored interventions,” she said.
The study was sponsored by NIDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Generalized pruritic blisters and bullous lesions
A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.
The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.
Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.
The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.
WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?
Dx: Bullous pemphigoid secondary to linagliptin use
DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.1
BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.1
Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.1 The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.2 The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.2
What you’ll see, who’s at risk
Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.1 Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.
FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.2 At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.3,4
Continue to: Risk factors for BP
Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).4 Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.3 This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.
The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP
FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.5 In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).3
The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.3 It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.3 Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.3,6
Other conditions that also exhibit blisters
There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.
Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.1 Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.1 This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.
Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris
Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.1 Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-epidermal bullae.
Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.1 DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.1
Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.1 It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.1 DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.1
How to make the Dx in 3 steps
To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:
- Establish the presence of 3 of 4 clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
- Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
- Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.
There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.7 However, for this patient, we did not order this study.
Continue to: Management focuses on steroids
Management focuses on steroids
The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.1,7
For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.
1. Habif TP. Vesicular and bullous diseases. In: Habif TP, ed. Clinical Dermatology: a Color Guide to Diagnosis and Therapy. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2016:635-666.
2. Kridin K, Ludwig RJ. The growing incidence of bullous pemphigoid: overview and potential explanations. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:220.
3. Benzaquen M, Borradori L, Berbis P, et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, a risk factor for bullous pemphigoid: retrospective multicenter case-control study from France and Switzerland. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;78:1090-1096.
4. Bastuji-Garin S, Joly P, Lemordant P, et al. Risk factors for bullous pemphigoid in the elderly: a prospective case-control study. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:637-643.
5. Kridin K, Bergman R. Association of bullous pemphigoid with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors in patients with diabetes: estimating the risk of the new agents and characterizing the patients. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:1152-1158.
6. Haber R, Fayad AM, Stephan F, et al. Bullous pemphigoid associated with linagliptin treatment. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:224-226.Management of bullous pemphigoid: the European Dermatology Forum consensus in collaboration with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172:867-877.
A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.
The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.
Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.
The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.
WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?
Dx: Bullous pemphigoid secondary to linagliptin use
DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.1
BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.1
Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.1 The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.2 The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.2
What you’ll see, who’s at risk
Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.1 Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.
FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.2 At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.3,4
Continue to: Risk factors for BP
Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).4 Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.3 This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.
The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP
FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.5 In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).3
The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.3 It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.3 Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.3,6
Other conditions that also exhibit blisters
There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.
Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.1 Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.1 This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.
Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris
Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.1 Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-epidermal bullae.
Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.1 DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.1
Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.1 It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.1 DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.1
How to make the Dx in 3 steps
To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:
- Establish the presence of 3 of 4 clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
- Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
- Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.
There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.7 However, for this patient, we did not order this study.
Continue to: Management focuses on steroids
Management focuses on steroids
The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.1,7
For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.
A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.
The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.
Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.
The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.
WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?
Dx: Bullous pemphigoid secondary to linagliptin use
DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.1
BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.1
Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.1 The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.2 The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.2
What you’ll see, who’s at risk
Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.1 Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.
FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.2 At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.3,4
Continue to: Risk factors for BP
Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).4 Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.3 This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.
The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP
FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.5 In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).3
The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.3 It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.3 Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.3,6
Other conditions that also exhibit blisters
There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.
Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.1 Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.1 This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.
Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris
Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.1 Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-epidermal bullae.
Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.1 DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.1
Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.1 It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.1 DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.1
How to make the Dx in 3 steps
To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:
- Establish the presence of 3 of 4 clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
- Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
- Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.
There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.7 However, for this patient, we did not order this study.
Continue to: Management focuses on steroids
Management focuses on steroids
The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.1,7
For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.
1. Habif TP. Vesicular and bullous diseases. In: Habif TP, ed. Clinical Dermatology: a Color Guide to Diagnosis and Therapy. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2016:635-666.
2. Kridin K, Ludwig RJ. The growing incidence of bullous pemphigoid: overview and potential explanations. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:220.
3. Benzaquen M, Borradori L, Berbis P, et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, a risk factor for bullous pemphigoid: retrospective multicenter case-control study from France and Switzerland. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;78:1090-1096.
4. Bastuji-Garin S, Joly P, Lemordant P, et al. Risk factors for bullous pemphigoid in the elderly: a prospective case-control study. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:637-643.
5. Kridin K, Bergman R. Association of bullous pemphigoid with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors in patients with diabetes: estimating the risk of the new agents and characterizing the patients. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:1152-1158.
6. Haber R, Fayad AM, Stephan F, et al. Bullous pemphigoid associated with linagliptin treatment. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:224-226.Management of bullous pemphigoid: the European Dermatology Forum consensus in collaboration with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172:867-877.
1. Habif TP. Vesicular and bullous diseases. In: Habif TP, ed. Clinical Dermatology: a Color Guide to Diagnosis and Therapy. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2016:635-666.
2. Kridin K, Ludwig RJ. The growing incidence of bullous pemphigoid: overview and potential explanations. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:220.
3. Benzaquen M, Borradori L, Berbis P, et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, a risk factor for bullous pemphigoid: retrospective multicenter case-control study from France and Switzerland. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;78:1090-1096.
4. Bastuji-Garin S, Joly P, Lemordant P, et al. Risk factors for bullous pemphigoid in the elderly: a prospective case-control study. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:637-643.
5. Kridin K, Bergman R. Association of bullous pemphigoid with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors in patients with diabetes: estimating the risk of the new agents and characterizing the patients. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:1152-1158.
6. Haber R, Fayad AM, Stephan F, et al. Bullous pemphigoid associated with linagliptin treatment. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:224-226.Management of bullous pemphigoid: the European Dermatology Forum consensus in collaboration with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172:867-877.
Recognizing and intervening in child sex trafficking
THE CASE
Emily T.* is a 15-year-old, cisgender, homeless runaway. While on the streets, she was lured to a hotel where a “pimp” informed her she was going to work for him. She repeatedly tried to leave, but he would strike her, so she eventually succumbed. She was forced to have sex with several men and rarely allowed to use condoms.
On 1 occasion, when she went to a hospital with her pimp to visit a patient, her aunt (a nurse on duty at that facility) saw Ms. T and called the police. The pimp was arrested. Ms. T was interviewed by the police and gave a statement but refused a forensic exam.
Because of her involvement with the pimp, she was incarcerated. In prison, she was seen by a physician. On evaluation, she reported difficulty sleeping, flashbacks, and feelings of shame and guilt.1
●
* The patient’s name has been changed to protect her identity.
Child and adolescent sex trafficking is defined as the sexual exploitation of minors through force, fraud, or coercion. Specifically, it includes the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or advertising of a minor, and includes the exchange of anything of value in return for sexual activity. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking against minors include crimes such as prostitution; survival sex (exchanging sex/sexual acts for money or something of value, such as shelter, food, or drugs); pornography; sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade, and early marriage; or sexual performances (peep shows or strip clubs).2
Providing optimal care for children and adolescents exploited by sex trafficking depends on knowing risk factors, having an awareness of recommended screening and assessment tools, and employing a trauma-informed approach to interviews, examination, and support.2
Continue to: Recognize clues to trafficking
Recognize clues to trafficking
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers a framework for trafficking prevention. Health care providers are encouraged to use the CDC Social-Ecological Model which describes targeted prevention strategies at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels.3
Risk factors for entering trafficking. Younger age increases a child’s vulnerability to exploitation, due to a lack of maturity, limited cognitive development, and ease of deception. The mean age of trafficking survivors is 15 years.4 History of child abuse and other traumatic experiences can lead children to run away from home. It is estimated that, once on the streets, most teens will be recruited by a trafficker within 48 hours.5 Poor self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, history of truancy, and early sexual maturation also increase the risk of becoming involved in trafficking (TABLE 1).2,6-8
Clinical findings suggestive of trafficking. Many physicians grasp the critical role they play in confronting trafficking, but they lack specific training, experience, and assessment tools.3 Notably, in 1 retrospective study, 46% of victims had been seen by a provider within the previous 2 months.6 One of the major challenges to identifying survivors of trafficking is to recognize critical signs, of which there are many (TABLE 12,6-8). Often these include a history of sexual assault, multiple pregnancies, requests for contraception at an early age, or evidence of physical injury.
Screen to identify trafficking
Universal, validated screening tools to accurately identify trafficked youth is an area of growing research. Some tools have been validated, but only for specific populations such as homeless or incarcerated youth or in emergency department (ED) patients. Tools for sex trafficking identification that may be useful in primary care include the Child Sex Trafficking (CST) screen validated in ED settings (TABLE 2),9 the Commercial Sexual Exploitation-Identification Tool (CSE-IT) in multiple settings (TABLE 3),10,11 and the Quick Youth Indicators for Trafficking (QYIT) in homeless youth (TABLE 4).11 The QYIT is the first validated labor and sex trafficking screening tool in homeless young adults. Children who screen positive for sex trafficking should be further assessed using a comprehensive tool.
Barriers to effective recognition of trafficked individuals. Financial factors limit access to health care. Also, survivors have cited multiple barriers for health professionals that prevent identification of survivors’ trafficked status.12,13 Once in the medical setting, disclosure is impacted by time constraints, fear of judgment by clinicians, and the risk of re-traumatization. Survivors have also cited lack of privacy, control strategies by their traffickers, lack of provider empathy, and fear of police as barriers to disclosure.14
Continue to: The medical impact of trafficking
The medical impact of trafficking
Sexual exploitation is a traumatic experience that is known to cause harm across multiple domains including serious physical injuries related to violence, as well as reproductive and mental health consequences.15,16
Acute and chronic illnesses. In an initial evaluation, assess the survivor’s acute medical conditions (TABLE 5).15,16 Common acute issues include physical injuries due to assault, infections, and reproductive complications.17 Health concerns can also result from stressors such as deprivation of food and sleep, hazardous living conditions, and limited access to care.17
As part of caring for sex-trafficking survivors, assess for, and treat, chronic health issues such as pain, gastrointestinal complaints, poor dental care, malnutrition, and fatigue.16,18 Substance use, as well as chronic mental health concerns (eg, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) may also influence the clinical presentation.
Physical injuries. A cross-sectional study of female survivors of sex trafficking in the United States found that 89% sustained physical injury resulting from violence, including fractures, open wounds, head injury, dental problems, burns, and anogenital trauma.16,17 In many cases, acute injury may not be present in the clinical setting since care is often delayed, but a full examination can reveal signs of prior trauma.16
Reproductive health concerns. Significant, long-term impact on reproductive health can result due to forced penetration by multiple perpetrators, sodomy, and sex without protection or lubricants. Survivors are therefore at high risk for unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pelvic pain, and infertility.16
Continue to: Psychological effects and trauma exposure
Psychological effects and trauma exposure. Survivors often have experienced abuse and neglect prior to commercial exploitation, and they may exhibit long-term sequelae. Survivors may present with major depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidality, addiction, PTSD, or aggression.16 Long-term sequelae for patients can include dysfunctional relationships due to an inability to trust, self-destructive behaviors, and significant shame.2,18
Care and treatment of trafficked youth
Initial presentation may occur in a variety of health care settings. Use a trauma-informed approach emphasizing physical and emotional safety and positive relationships, to reduce risk to the survivor, staff, and providers.19 Establishing trust and rapport may provide better short-term safety, as well as help build stronger long-term relationships that can lead to better health outcomes.
Clinical examination. Provide traumatized patients with a sense of safety, control, and autonomy in the health care setting. During the physical exam, be aware of the impact of re-traumatization as patients are asked to undress, endure sensitive examinations, and undergo invasive procedures. Explain the examination, ask for permission at each step, and use slow movements. Allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.15 Adopt an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma, avoids revictimization, and acknowledges the resilience of survivors.20
Treatment plan. After the initial exam, treat acute physical injuries and determine if any further testing is needed. Offer emergency contraception, STI prophylaxis, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccines.15 After assessing patient readiness, offer local resources, identify safe methods for communication, identify individuals who could intervene in a crisis, and consider a safety plan (TABLE 6).
Coordination of care. Consider referrals to behavioral health services, substance recovery centers, food programs, housing resources, and a primary care clinic.15 ED clinicians may be asked to complete a sexual or physical assault forensic examination. After obtaining informed consent, one needs to19
- document skin signs such as scars, bites, strangulation marks, and tattoos. Note the size, shape, color, location, and other characteristics of each lesion.
- perform an oral, genital, and rectal examination and use a sexual assault evidence kit as indicated.
- use body diagrams and take photographs of all injuries/physical findings.
- order diagnostic testing as appropriate (eg, imaging to assess fractures).
Continue to: THE CASE
THE CASE
During Ms. T’s incarceration, she was tested for STIs and treated for gonorrhea, trichomonas, and bacterial vaginosis. She was educated about sexual health, was counseled on contraception, and accepted condoms. She was referred to a therapist and given information on additional community resources she could contact upon her release.
A year after her release, she was incarcerated again. She also had an unplanned pregnancy. With the support she received from community programs, social workers, and her primary care provider, she moved in with her family, where she is currently living. She denies any ongoing trafficking activity.
CORRESPONDENCE
Piali Basu, DO, MPH, UCSF Primary Care, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 1, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94107; piali.basu@ucsf.edu
1. Samko Tracey (Department of Pediatrics, LA County + University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA). Conversation with: Vidhi Doshi (Department of Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA). July 8, 2019.
2. Institute of Medicine; National Research Council. Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
3. Greenbaum VJ, Titchen K, Walker-Descartes I, et al. Multi-level prevention of human trafficking: the role of health care professionals. Prev Med. 2018;114:164-167.
4. Smith LA, Vardman SH, Snow MA. The national report on domestic minor sex trafficking: America’s prostituted children. 2009. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://sharedhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SHI_National_Report_on_DMST_2009.pdf
5. Know the facts: commercial sexual exploitation of children. In: Connections. Summer 2011. Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. Accessed January 11, 2021. www.wcsap.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resources_publications/connections/Commercial_Sexual_Exploitation_of_Youth_2011.pdf
6. Varma S, Gillespie S, McCracken C, et al. Characteristics of child commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking victims presenting for medical care in the United States. Child Abuse Negl. 2015;44:98-105.
7. Walker K, California Child Welfare Council. Ending the commercial sexual exploitation of children: a call for multi-system collaboration in California. 2013. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://youthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Ending-CSEC-A-Call-for-Multi-System_Collaboration-in-CA.pdf
8. Landers M, McGrath K, Johnson MH, et al. Baseline characteristics of dependent youth who have been commercially sexually exploited: findings from a specialized treatment program. J Child Sex Abus. 2017;26:692-709.
9. Greenbaum VJ, Dodd M, McCracken C. A short screening tool to identify victims of child sex trafficking in the health care setting. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2018;34:33-37.
10. Sy E, Quach T, Lee J, et al. Responding to commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC): a community health center‘s journey towards creating a primary care clinical CSEC screening tool in the United States. Inter J Soc Sci Stud. 2016;4:45-51.
11. Chisolm-Straker M, Sze J, Einbond J, et al. Screening for human trafficking among homeless young adults. Childr Youth Serv Rev. 2019;98:72-79.
12. Richie-Zavaleta AC, Villanueva A, Martinez-Donate A, et al. Sex trafficking victims at their junction with the healthcare setting—a mixed-methods inquiry. J Hum Traffick. 2020;6:1-29.
13. Chisolm-Straker M, Miller CL, Duke G, et al. A framework for the development of healthcare provider education programs on human trafficking part two: survivors. J Hum Traffick. 2019;5:410-424.
14. Heilemann T, Santhiveeran J. How do female adolescents cope and survive the hardships of prostitution? A content analysis of existing literature. J Ethn Cult Divers Soc Work. 2011;20:57-76.
15. Greenbaum J, Crawford-Jakubiak JE, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Child sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation: health care needs of victims. Pediatrics. 2015;135:566-574.
16. Barnert E, Iqbal Z, Bruce J, et al. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of children and adolescents: a narrative review. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17:825-829.
17. Dovydaitis T. Human trafficking: the role of the health care provider. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55:462-467.
18. English A, Kivlahan C. Human rights and human trafficking of adolescents: legal and clinical perspectives. In: Titchen K, Miller E, Eds. Medical Perspectives on Human Trafficking in Adolescents. Springer Nature; 2020:21-41.
19. Price K, Nelson BD, Macias-Konstantopoulos WL. Understanding health care access disparities among human trafficking survivors: profiles of health care experiences, access, and engagement. J Interpers Violence. 2019; doi: 10.1177/0886260519889934.
20. Chambers R, Ravi A, Paulus S. Human trafficking: how family physicians can recognize and assist victims. Am Fam Physician. 2019;100:202-204.
THE CASE
Emily T.* is a 15-year-old, cisgender, homeless runaway. While on the streets, she was lured to a hotel where a “pimp” informed her she was going to work for him. She repeatedly tried to leave, but he would strike her, so she eventually succumbed. She was forced to have sex with several men and rarely allowed to use condoms.
On 1 occasion, when she went to a hospital with her pimp to visit a patient, her aunt (a nurse on duty at that facility) saw Ms. T and called the police. The pimp was arrested. Ms. T was interviewed by the police and gave a statement but refused a forensic exam.
Because of her involvement with the pimp, she was incarcerated. In prison, she was seen by a physician. On evaluation, she reported difficulty sleeping, flashbacks, and feelings of shame and guilt.1
●
* The patient’s name has been changed to protect her identity.
Child and adolescent sex trafficking is defined as the sexual exploitation of minors through force, fraud, or coercion. Specifically, it includes the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or advertising of a minor, and includes the exchange of anything of value in return for sexual activity. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking against minors include crimes such as prostitution; survival sex (exchanging sex/sexual acts for money or something of value, such as shelter, food, or drugs); pornography; sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade, and early marriage; or sexual performances (peep shows or strip clubs).2
Providing optimal care for children and adolescents exploited by sex trafficking depends on knowing risk factors, having an awareness of recommended screening and assessment tools, and employing a trauma-informed approach to interviews, examination, and support.2
Continue to: Recognize clues to trafficking
Recognize clues to trafficking
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers a framework for trafficking prevention. Health care providers are encouraged to use the CDC Social-Ecological Model which describes targeted prevention strategies at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels.3
Risk factors for entering trafficking. Younger age increases a child’s vulnerability to exploitation, due to a lack of maturity, limited cognitive development, and ease of deception. The mean age of trafficking survivors is 15 years.4 History of child abuse and other traumatic experiences can lead children to run away from home. It is estimated that, once on the streets, most teens will be recruited by a trafficker within 48 hours.5 Poor self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, history of truancy, and early sexual maturation also increase the risk of becoming involved in trafficking (TABLE 1).2,6-8
Clinical findings suggestive of trafficking. Many physicians grasp the critical role they play in confronting trafficking, but they lack specific training, experience, and assessment tools.3 Notably, in 1 retrospective study, 46% of victims had been seen by a provider within the previous 2 months.6 One of the major challenges to identifying survivors of trafficking is to recognize critical signs, of which there are many (TABLE 12,6-8). Often these include a history of sexual assault, multiple pregnancies, requests for contraception at an early age, or evidence of physical injury.
Screen to identify trafficking
Universal, validated screening tools to accurately identify trafficked youth is an area of growing research. Some tools have been validated, but only for specific populations such as homeless or incarcerated youth or in emergency department (ED) patients. Tools for sex trafficking identification that may be useful in primary care include the Child Sex Trafficking (CST) screen validated in ED settings (TABLE 2),9 the Commercial Sexual Exploitation-Identification Tool (CSE-IT) in multiple settings (TABLE 3),10,11 and the Quick Youth Indicators for Trafficking (QYIT) in homeless youth (TABLE 4).11 The QYIT is the first validated labor and sex trafficking screening tool in homeless young adults. Children who screen positive for sex trafficking should be further assessed using a comprehensive tool.
Barriers to effective recognition of trafficked individuals. Financial factors limit access to health care. Also, survivors have cited multiple barriers for health professionals that prevent identification of survivors’ trafficked status.12,13 Once in the medical setting, disclosure is impacted by time constraints, fear of judgment by clinicians, and the risk of re-traumatization. Survivors have also cited lack of privacy, control strategies by their traffickers, lack of provider empathy, and fear of police as barriers to disclosure.14
Continue to: The medical impact of trafficking
The medical impact of trafficking
Sexual exploitation is a traumatic experience that is known to cause harm across multiple domains including serious physical injuries related to violence, as well as reproductive and mental health consequences.15,16
Acute and chronic illnesses. In an initial evaluation, assess the survivor’s acute medical conditions (TABLE 5).15,16 Common acute issues include physical injuries due to assault, infections, and reproductive complications.17 Health concerns can also result from stressors such as deprivation of food and sleep, hazardous living conditions, and limited access to care.17
As part of caring for sex-trafficking survivors, assess for, and treat, chronic health issues such as pain, gastrointestinal complaints, poor dental care, malnutrition, and fatigue.16,18 Substance use, as well as chronic mental health concerns (eg, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) may also influence the clinical presentation.
Physical injuries. A cross-sectional study of female survivors of sex trafficking in the United States found that 89% sustained physical injury resulting from violence, including fractures, open wounds, head injury, dental problems, burns, and anogenital trauma.16,17 In many cases, acute injury may not be present in the clinical setting since care is often delayed, but a full examination can reveal signs of prior trauma.16
Reproductive health concerns. Significant, long-term impact on reproductive health can result due to forced penetration by multiple perpetrators, sodomy, and sex without protection or lubricants. Survivors are therefore at high risk for unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pelvic pain, and infertility.16
Continue to: Psychological effects and trauma exposure
Psychological effects and trauma exposure. Survivors often have experienced abuse and neglect prior to commercial exploitation, and they may exhibit long-term sequelae. Survivors may present with major depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidality, addiction, PTSD, or aggression.16 Long-term sequelae for patients can include dysfunctional relationships due to an inability to trust, self-destructive behaviors, and significant shame.2,18
Care and treatment of trafficked youth
Initial presentation may occur in a variety of health care settings. Use a trauma-informed approach emphasizing physical and emotional safety and positive relationships, to reduce risk to the survivor, staff, and providers.19 Establishing trust and rapport may provide better short-term safety, as well as help build stronger long-term relationships that can lead to better health outcomes.
Clinical examination. Provide traumatized patients with a sense of safety, control, and autonomy in the health care setting. During the physical exam, be aware of the impact of re-traumatization as patients are asked to undress, endure sensitive examinations, and undergo invasive procedures. Explain the examination, ask for permission at each step, and use slow movements. Allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.15 Adopt an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma, avoids revictimization, and acknowledges the resilience of survivors.20
Treatment plan. After the initial exam, treat acute physical injuries and determine if any further testing is needed. Offer emergency contraception, STI prophylaxis, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccines.15 After assessing patient readiness, offer local resources, identify safe methods for communication, identify individuals who could intervene in a crisis, and consider a safety plan (TABLE 6).
Coordination of care. Consider referrals to behavioral health services, substance recovery centers, food programs, housing resources, and a primary care clinic.15 ED clinicians may be asked to complete a sexual or physical assault forensic examination. After obtaining informed consent, one needs to19
- document skin signs such as scars, bites, strangulation marks, and tattoos. Note the size, shape, color, location, and other characteristics of each lesion.
- perform an oral, genital, and rectal examination and use a sexual assault evidence kit as indicated.
- use body diagrams and take photographs of all injuries/physical findings.
- order diagnostic testing as appropriate (eg, imaging to assess fractures).
Continue to: THE CASE
THE CASE
During Ms. T’s incarceration, she was tested for STIs and treated for gonorrhea, trichomonas, and bacterial vaginosis. She was educated about sexual health, was counseled on contraception, and accepted condoms. She was referred to a therapist and given information on additional community resources she could contact upon her release.
A year after her release, she was incarcerated again. She also had an unplanned pregnancy. With the support she received from community programs, social workers, and her primary care provider, she moved in with her family, where she is currently living. She denies any ongoing trafficking activity.
CORRESPONDENCE
Piali Basu, DO, MPH, UCSF Primary Care, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 1, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94107; piali.basu@ucsf.edu
THE CASE
Emily T.* is a 15-year-old, cisgender, homeless runaway. While on the streets, she was lured to a hotel where a “pimp” informed her she was going to work for him. She repeatedly tried to leave, but he would strike her, so she eventually succumbed. She was forced to have sex with several men and rarely allowed to use condoms.
On 1 occasion, when she went to a hospital with her pimp to visit a patient, her aunt (a nurse on duty at that facility) saw Ms. T and called the police. The pimp was arrested. Ms. T was interviewed by the police and gave a statement but refused a forensic exam.
Because of her involvement with the pimp, she was incarcerated. In prison, she was seen by a physician. On evaluation, she reported difficulty sleeping, flashbacks, and feelings of shame and guilt.1
●
* The patient’s name has been changed to protect her identity.
Child and adolescent sex trafficking is defined as the sexual exploitation of minors through force, fraud, or coercion. Specifically, it includes the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or advertising of a minor, and includes the exchange of anything of value in return for sexual activity. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking against minors include crimes such as prostitution; survival sex (exchanging sex/sexual acts for money or something of value, such as shelter, food, or drugs); pornography; sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade, and early marriage; or sexual performances (peep shows or strip clubs).2
Providing optimal care for children and adolescents exploited by sex trafficking depends on knowing risk factors, having an awareness of recommended screening and assessment tools, and employing a trauma-informed approach to interviews, examination, and support.2
Continue to: Recognize clues to trafficking
Recognize clues to trafficking
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers a framework for trafficking prevention. Health care providers are encouraged to use the CDC Social-Ecological Model which describes targeted prevention strategies at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels.3
Risk factors for entering trafficking. Younger age increases a child’s vulnerability to exploitation, due to a lack of maturity, limited cognitive development, and ease of deception. The mean age of trafficking survivors is 15 years.4 History of child abuse and other traumatic experiences can lead children to run away from home. It is estimated that, once on the streets, most teens will be recruited by a trafficker within 48 hours.5 Poor self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, history of truancy, and early sexual maturation also increase the risk of becoming involved in trafficking (TABLE 1).2,6-8
Clinical findings suggestive of trafficking. Many physicians grasp the critical role they play in confronting trafficking, but they lack specific training, experience, and assessment tools.3 Notably, in 1 retrospective study, 46% of victims had been seen by a provider within the previous 2 months.6 One of the major challenges to identifying survivors of trafficking is to recognize critical signs, of which there are many (TABLE 12,6-8). Often these include a history of sexual assault, multiple pregnancies, requests for contraception at an early age, or evidence of physical injury.
Screen to identify trafficking
Universal, validated screening tools to accurately identify trafficked youth is an area of growing research. Some tools have been validated, but only for specific populations such as homeless or incarcerated youth or in emergency department (ED) patients. Tools for sex trafficking identification that may be useful in primary care include the Child Sex Trafficking (CST) screen validated in ED settings (TABLE 2),9 the Commercial Sexual Exploitation-Identification Tool (CSE-IT) in multiple settings (TABLE 3),10,11 and the Quick Youth Indicators for Trafficking (QYIT) in homeless youth (TABLE 4).11 The QYIT is the first validated labor and sex trafficking screening tool in homeless young adults. Children who screen positive for sex trafficking should be further assessed using a comprehensive tool.
Barriers to effective recognition of trafficked individuals. Financial factors limit access to health care. Also, survivors have cited multiple barriers for health professionals that prevent identification of survivors’ trafficked status.12,13 Once in the medical setting, disclosure is impacted by time constraints, fear of judgment by clinicians, and the risk of re-traumatization. Survivors have also cited lack of privacy, control strategies by their traffickers, lack of provider empathy, and fear of police as barriers to disclosure.14
Continue to: The medical impact of trafficking
The medical impact of trafficking
Sexual exploitation is a traumatic experience that is known to cause harm across multiple domains including serious physical injuries related to violence, as well as reproductive and mental health consequences.15,16
Acute and chronic illnesses. In an initial evaluation, assess the survivor’s acute medical conditions (TABLE 5).15,16 Common acute issues include physical injuries due to assault, infections, and reproductive complications.17 Health concerns can also result from stressors such as deprivation of food and sleep, hazardous living conditions, and limited access to care.17
As part of caring for sex-trafficking survivors, assess for, and treat, chronic health issues such as pain, gastrointestinal complaints, poor dental care, malnutrition, and fatigue.16,18 Substance use, as well as chronic mental health concerns (eg, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) may also influence the clinical presentation.
Physical injuries. A cross-sectional study of female survivors of sex trafficking in the United States found that 89% sustained physical injury resulting from violence, including fractures, open wounds, head injury, dental problems, burns, and anogenital trauma.16,17 In many cases, acute injury may not be present in the clinical setting since care is often delayed, but a full examination can reveal signs of prior trauma.16
Reproductive health concerns. Significant, long-term impact on reproductive health can result due to forced penetration by multiple perpetrators, sodomy, and sex without protection or lubricants. Survivors are therefore at high risk for unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pelvic pain, and infertility.16
Continue to: Psychological effects and trauma exposure
Psychological effects and trauma exposure. Survivors often have experienced abuse and neglect prior to commercial exploitation, and they may exhibit long-term sequelae. Survivors may present with major depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidality, addiction, PTSD, or aggression.16 Long-term sequelae for patients can include dysfunctional relationships due to an inability to trust, self-destructive behaviors, and significant shame.2,18
Care and treatment of trafficked youth
Initial presentation may occur in a variety of health care settings. Use a trauma-informed approach emphasizing physical and emotional safety and positive relationships, to reduce risk to the survivor, staff, and providers.19 Establishing trust and rapport may provide better short-term safety, as well as help build stronger long-term relationships that can lead to better health outcomes.
Clinical examination. Provide traumatized patients with a sense of safety, control, and autonomy in the health care setting. During the physical exam, be aware of the impact of re-traumatization as patients are asked to undress, endure sensitive examinations, and undergo invasive procedures. Explain the examination, ask for permission at each step, and use slow movements. Allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.15 Adopt an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma, avoids revictimization, and acknowledges the resilience of survivors.20
Treatment plan. After the initial exam, treat acute physical injuries and determine if any further testing is needed. Offer emergency contraception, STI prophylaxis, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccines.15 After assessing patient readiness, offer local resources, identify safe methods for communication, identify individuals who could intervene in a crisis, and consider a safety plan (TABLE 6).
Coordination of care. Consider referrals to behavioral health services, substance recovery centers, food programs, housing resources, and a primary care clinic.15 ED clinicians may be asked to complete a sexual or physical assault forensic examination. After obtaining informed consent, one needs to19
- document skin signs such as scars, bites, strangulation marks, and tattoos. Note the size, shape, color, location, and other characteristics of each lesion.
- perform an oral, genital, and rectal examination and use a sexual assault evidence kit as indicated.
- use body diagrams and take photographs of all injuries/physical findings.
- order diagnostic testing as appropriate (eg, imaging to assess fractures).
Continue to: THE CASE
THE CASE
During Ms. T’s incarceration, she was tested for STIs and treated for gonorrhea, trichomonas, and bacterial vaginosis. She was educated about sexual health, was counseled on contraception, and accepted condoms. She was referred to a therapist and given information on additional community resources she could contact upon her release.
A year after her release, she was incarcerated again. She also had an unplanned pregnancy. With the support she received from community programs, social workers, and her primary care provider, she moved in with her family, where she is currently living. She denies any ongoing trafficking activity.
CORRESPONDENCE
Piali Basu, DO, MPH, UCSF Primary Care, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 1, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94107; piali.basu@ucsf.edu
1. Samko Tracey (Department of Pediatrics, LA County + University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA). Conversation with: Vidhi Doshi (Department of Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA). July 8, 2019.
2. Institute of Medicine; National Research Council. Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
3. Greenbaum VJ, Titchen K, Walker-Descartes I, et al. Multi-level prevention of human trafficking: the role of health care professionals. Prev Med. 2018;114:164-167.
4. Smith LA, Vardman SH, Snow MA. The national report on domestic minor sex trafficking: America’s prostituted children. 2009. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://sharedhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SHI_National_Report_on_DMST_2009.pdf
5. Know the facts: commercial sexual exploitation of children. In: Connections. Summer 2011. Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. Accessed January 11, 2021. www.wcsap.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resources_publications/connections/Commercial_Sexual_Exploitation_of_Youth_2011.pdf
6. Varma S, Gillespie S, McCracken C, et al. Characteristics of child commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking victims presenting for medical care in the United States. Child Abuse Negl. 2015;44:98-105.
7. Walker K, California Child Welfare Council. Ending the commercial sexual exploitation of children: a call for multi-system collaboration in California. 2013. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://youthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Ending-CSEC-A-Call-for-Multi-System_Collaboration-in-CA.pdf
8. Landers M, McGrath K, Johnson MH, et al. Baseline characteristics of dependent youth who have been commercially sexually exploited: findings from a specialized treatment program. J Child Sex Abus. 2017;26:692-709.
9. Greenbaum VJ, Dodd M, McCracken C. A short screening tool to identify victims of child sex trafficking in the health care setting. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2018;34:33-37.
10. Sy E, Quach T, Lee J, et al. Responding to commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC): a community health center‘s journey towards creating a primary care clinical CSEC screening tool in the United States. Inter J Soc Sci Stud. 2016;4:45-51.
11. Chisolm-Straker M, Sze J, Einbond J, et al. Screening for human trafficking among homeless young adults. Childr Youth Serv Rev. 2019;98:72-79.
12. Richie-Zavaleta AC, Villanueva A, Martinez-Donate A, et al. Sex trafficking victims at their junction with the healthcare setting—a mixed-methods inquiry. J Hum Traffick. 2020;6:1-29.
13. Chisolm-Straker M, Miller CL, Duke G, et al. A framework for the development of healthcare provider education programs on human trafficking part two: survivors. J Hum Traffick. 2019;5:410-424.
14. Heilemann T, Santhiveeran J. How do female adolescents cope and survive the hardships of prostitution? A content analysis of existing literature. J Ethn Cult Divers Soc Work. 2011;20:57-76.
15. Greenbaum J, Crawford-Jakubiak JE, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Child sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation: health care needs of victims. Pediatrics. 2015;135:566-574.
16. Barnert E, Iqbal Z, Bruce J, et al. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of children and adolescents: a narrative review. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17:825-829.
17. Dovydaitis T. Human trafficking: the role of the health care provider. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55:462-467.
18. English A, Kivlahan C. Human rights and human trafficking of adolescents: legal and clinical perspectives. In: Titchen K, Miller E, Eds. Medical Perspectives on Human Trafficking in Adolescents. Springer Nature; 2020:21-41.
19. Price K, Nelson BD, Macias-Konstantopoulos WL. Understanding health care access disparities among human trafficking survivors: profiles of health care experiences, access, and engagement. J Interpers Violence. 2019; doi: 10.1177/0886260519889934.
20. Chambers R, Ravi A, Paulus S. Human trafficking: how family physicians can recognize and assist victims. Am Fam Physician. 2019;100:202-204.
1. Samko Tracey (Department of Pediatrics, LA County + University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA). Conversation with: Vidhi Doshi (Department of Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA). July 8, 2019.
2. Institute of Medicine; National Research Council. Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
3. Greenbaum VJ, Titchen K, Walker-Descartes I, et al. Multi-level prevention of human trafficking: the role of health care professionals. Prev Med. 2018;114:164-167.
4. Smith LA, Vardman SH, Snow MA. The national report on domestic minor sex trafficking: America’s prostituted children. 2009. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://sharedhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SHI_National_Report_on_DMST_2009.pdf
5. Know the facts: commercial sexual exploitation of children. In: Connections. Summer 2011. Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. Accessed January 11, 2021. www.wcsap.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resources_publications/connections/Commercial_Sexual_Exploitation_of_Youth_2011.pdf
6. Varma S, Gillespie S, McCracken C, et al. Characteristics of child commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking victims presenting for medical care in the United States. Child Abuse Negl. 2015;44:98-105.
7. Walker K, California Child Welfare Council. Ending the commercial sexual exploitation of children: a call for multi-system collaboration in California. 2013. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://youthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Ending-CSEC-A-Call-for-Multi-System_Collaboration-in-CA.pdf
8. Landers M, McGrath K, Johnson MH, et al. Baseline characteristics of dependent youth who have been commercially sexually exploited: findings from a specialized treatment program. J Child Sex Abus. 2017;26:692-709.
9. Greenbaum VJ, Dodd M, McCracken C. A short screening tool to identify victims of child sex trafficking in the health care setting. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2018;34:33-37.
10. Sy E, Quach T, Lee J, et al. Responding to commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC): a community health center‘s journey towards creating a primary care clinical CSEC screening tool in the United States. Inter J Soc Sci Stud. 2016;4:45-51.
11. Chisolm-Straker M, Sze J, Einbond J, et al. Screening for human trafficking among homeless young adults. Childr Youth Serv Rev. 2019;98:72-79.
12. Richie-Zavaleta AC, Villanueva A, Martinez-Donate A, et al. Sex trafficking victims at their junction with the healthcare setting—a mixed-methods inquiry. J Hum Traffick. 2020;6:1-29.
13. Chisolm-Straker M, Miller CL, Duke G, et al. A framework for the development of healthcare provider education programs on human trafficking part two: survivors. J Hum Traffick. 2019;5:410-424.
14. Heilemann T, Santhiveeran J. How do female adolescents cope and survive the hardships of prostitution? A content analysis of existing literature. J Ethn Cult Divers Soc Work. 2011;20:57-76.
15. Greenbaum J, Crawford-Jakubiak JE, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Child sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation: health care needs of victims. Pediatrics. 2015;135:566-574.
16. Barnert E, Iqbal Z, Bruce J, et al. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of children and adolescents: a narrative review. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17:825-829.
17. Dovydaitis T. Human trafficking: the role of the health care provider. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55:462-467.
18. English A, Kivlahan C. Human rights and human trafficking of adolescents: legal and clinical perspectives. In: Titchen K, Miller E, Eds. Medical Perspectives on Human Trafficking in Adolescents. Springer Nature; 2020:21-41.
19. Price K, Nelson BD, Macias-Konstantopoulos WL. Understanding health care access disparities among human trafficking survivors: profiles of health care experiences, access, and engagement. J Interpers Violence. 2019; doi: 10.1177/0886260519889934.
20. Chambers R, Ravi A, Paulus S. Human trafficking: how family physicians can recognize and assist victims. Am Fam Physician. 2019;100:202-204.
Atopic dermatitis: More than just a rash
Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is well known for its relapsing, pruritic rash in children and adults. Less recognized are its associated conditions—allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and anxiety—and its burden on patients and their families. In fact, families that have children with AD report lower overall quality of life than those with otherwise healthy children.1 Given AD’s prevalence across age groups and its effect on the family, family physicians are uniquely positioned to diagnose, care for, and counsel patients with AD and its associated maladies.
The prevalence and pathogenesis of AD
AD affects up to 20% of children and 5% of adults in the United States.2 AD typically manifests before a child reaches age 5 (often in the first 6 months of life), and it is slightly more common in females (1.3:1). A family history of atopy (eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis) is common. In fact, children with one atopic parent have a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of atopic dermatitis; those with 2 atopic parents have a 3- to 5-fold increased risk.3
The pathophysiology of AD is complex, culminating in impaired barrier function of the skin and transepidermal water loss resulting in dry and inflamed skin. Additionally, alterations in a cell-mediated immune response leading to an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated hypersensitivity is also theorized to play a role in the development of AD.
Signs and symptoms
Signs at birth. Physical signs of atopic dermatitis typically appear between birth and 6 months. In infancy, lesions generally occur on the scalp, face (FIGURES 1A and 1B), neck, and extensor surfaces of the extremities. Lesions are typically papules and vesicles, sometimes accompanied by serous exudate and crusting. Eczematous lesions typically spare the groin and diaper area, and their presence in this area should raise suspicion for an alternative diagnosis.
Beginning at age 2 years, eczematous lesions are more commonly limited to the folds of the flexor surfaces. Instead of the weeping and crusting lesions seen in infancy, eczema in older children manifests as dry, lichenified papules and plaques in areas that are typically affected in adults: the wrist, hands, ankles, and popliteal and antecubital fossa.2
Although lesions in adults are similar to those of childhood, they may manifest in a more localized area (hand or eyelid, for example). As is the case in childhood, the lesions are dry, sometimes lichenified, and found on the flexural surfaces (FIGURES 2A and 2B).2
Symptom triggers are unproven
While anecdotal reports cite various triggers for AD flares, a systematic review found little scientific evidence to substantiate identifiable triggers.4 Triggers often cited and studied are foods, dust mite exposure, airborne allergens, detergents, sunlight, fabrics, bacterial infections, and stress. While as many as one-third of people with AD who also have confirmed dust mite allergy report worsening of symptoms when exposed to dust, a Cochrane review of 7 randomized controlled trials totaling 324 adults and children with eczema found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms.5
Continue to: How quality of life diminishes with AD
How quality of life diminishes with AD
AD substantially lessens quality of life. For children, the most distressing physical symptoms include itching that inhibits sleep and provokes scratching, pain, and bleeding. Emotional distress can cause irritability, crying, and uncooperativeness with treatments. Parents also report that they frequently restrict their children from activities, such as playing in the heat or swimming, that may lead to worsening of their eczema.6
The loss of sleep associated with AD is not completely understood but is likely multifactorial. Pruritus and scratching leading to sleeplessness is the most obvious culprit, but an altered circadian rhythm, immune system response, and changes in skin physiology are also likely factors.7 Whatever the cause, sleep disturbance is reported in as many as 60% of patients with AD, and the degree of sleep disturbance is proportional to increases in disease severity and worsening of quality-of-life scores.8 Lost sleep is not limited to patients; parents of children with AD also report significant loss of sleep and subsequent decreased work productivity and quality of life.9
Children with AD are often the target of bullying.10 A 2015 survey by the National Eczema Association indicates that 1 in 5 children reported being bullied due to their AD.11
Associated conditions and comorbidities
AD increases patients’ risks for other illnesses, due either to their underlying atopy or to the effects of
Atopic march
Atopic march—the clinical succession of AD, allergic rhinitis, and asthma—is a well-established clinical progression. The presence of all 3 conditions appears to be more common in children diagnosed with AD before 2 years of age.12 Typically, allergic rhinitis manifests at around age 4, and asthma develops between ages 6 and 8. The severity of AD predicts progression. Compared with an 8% chance of asthma developing among the general population, children with mild AD have a 20% to 30% chance of developing asthma, and those with severe AD have about a 70% chance.12
Continue to: Food allergies
Food allergies
Patients with AD are at higher risk for food-induced anaphylaxis, with up to one-third of AD patients having an IgE-mediated food allergy.13 While it is theorized that the impaired skin barrier of an atopic child may allow for early sensitization and allergy development, a landmark 2015 study demonstrated that early allergen introduction (specifically, peanuts) may serve as a preventive strategy in those at high risk of food allergies.14 Current guidelines recommend that physicians be aware of the increased possibility of food allergies in those with AD, and consider evaluating a child for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy allergy if the child is younger than 5 years and has eczema that does not resolve with treatment, or has eczema and a history of an allergic reaction to a specific food.15
Interestingly, despite the strong association between AD and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares; as such, elimination diets are not universally recommended in those without a proven food allergy.
Psychiatric diagnoses
Children with AD have an increased prevalence of several psychiatric conditions, including ADHD, depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and autism when compared with peers who do not have AD, and the probability correlates with the severity of AD
What we do know is that one of the strongest associations between AD and a psychiatric condition is with ADHD, with a recent pooled meta-analysis showing a 46% increase in risk.17 The incidence of depression among children with AD appears to correlate with the severity of AD symptoms: estimated at 5% with mild AD, 7% with moderate disease, and 14% with severe disease (compared with 3% without AD). Similar incremental increases are seen when correlating AD and anxiety.16
Nonpharmacologic care
Bathing
Bathing habits are critical to controlling AD. While bathing serves to both hydrate the skin and remove allergens, the water’s evaporation off the skin surface can lead to increased transepidermal water loss. Combining bathing and immediate application of a moisturizer improves skin hydration in patients with AD vs bathing alone.18 Thus, consensus guidelines recommend once-daily bathing (bath or shower) to remove scale and crust, followed by immediate application of a moisturizing emollient.19
Continue to: Emollients
Emollients
Application of moisturizing emollients is the mainstay of nonpharmacologic care of AD, and there is strong evidence that their regimented use reduces disease burden and the need for prescription treatment.19 Emollient creams and ointments help retain moisture and improve the skin’s barrier. While ointments may provide a better barrier, patients tend to prefer creams as they are less greasy than ointments.
Emollient therapy may also help prevent development of AD, especially in those infants thought to be at high risk with a family history of atopy. In a multinational randomized controlled trial, infants who received daily full-body application of emollient beginning at 3 weeks of life were significantly less likely than controls to develop AD by 6 months.20 While the mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it is believed that early emollient use prevents skin dehydration and maintains the skin’s barrier integrity, thus decreasing allergen epidermal penetration and subsequent inflammation.
Bleach bath
A bleach bath, prepared by adding 1/2 cup of unconcentrated bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) to a standard 40-gallon bathtub, produces a chlorine mixture equivalent to an average swimming pool. Soaking in a bleach bath for 10 minutes once or twice weekly is thought to reduce inflammation and bacteria on the skin, but studies of its efficacy in improving atopic symptoms are mixed.
In a pooled analysis of 5 studies evaluating bleach baths vs standard baths, there was no significant difference in disease severity at 4 weeks.21 Thus, while bleach baths were effective in decreasing disease severity, they appeared to be no more effective than a standard water bath.21 Bleach baths may be helpful, however, in cases of moderate-to-severe disease with frequent bacterial infections.19
Pharmacologic therapy
Steroids
For symptoms refractory to nonpharmacologic skin care, topical steroids are the initial pharmacologic treatment for AD.19 Choose steroid potency based on symptom severity and disease location. Low- to medium-potency is appropriate for mild disease, and medium- to high-potency is useful for moderate-to-severe symptoms. High-potency steroids are generally avoided on the face and skin folds; however, they can be used for short periods in these areas to induce remission. They must then be quickly tapered and discontinued.
Continue to: Frequency
Frequency. Topical corticosteroids are typically applied twice daily, although recent studies indicate that once-daily application is just as efficacious.22 In addition to treatment of an acute flare, topical steroids are useful as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent outbreaks in the same anatomical site. Guidelines suggest once- or twice-weekly application of a medium-potency steroid to prolong time between flares.19
For children, a practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.23 Topical steroids are generally well tolerated and have a good safety profile. Adverse effects are proportional to the amount and duration of use and include purpura, telangiectasias, striae, and skin atrophy. The risk of skin atrophy increases with higher potency steroids, occlusion (covering affected area after steroid application), use on thin-skinned areas, and older patient age.24
Reassure patients/parents about the safety of topical steroids, as fears regarding the potential adverse effects can limit compliance. In one study of 200 patients with AD, 72.5% of respondents expressed fear of using steroids on their own skin or that of their child, and 24% admitted being noncompliant with therapy based on these concerns.25
Treating flares. Oral steroids are sometimes needed to abort or control an AD flare in older children and adults. A tapering course of prednisone over 5 to 7 days, transitioning to medium- to high-dose topical steroids, may be needed to achieve symptom control.
Topical calcineurin inhibitors
Topical calcineurin inhibitors, including tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are generally second-line therapy to topical corticosteroids. However, as nonsteroidal agents, topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause skin atrophy and can be a first-line option in areas where atrophy is more common (face, eyelids, neck, and skin folds).26
Continue to: A Cochrane review found...
A Cochrane review found tacrolimus 0.1% to be better than low‐potency topical corticosteroids on the face and neck areas, while results were equivocal when compared with moderate‐potency topical corticosteroids on the trunk and extremities (no difference based on physician assessment, but marginal benefit favoring tacrolimus based on participant scoring).27 When compared head-to-head, tacrolimus was more effective than pimecrolimus, although tacrolimus has a higher rate of local irritation. The most common adverse effects are stinging and burning at the application site, although these adverse effects generally improve with repeated application.
There have been long-term safety concerns with topical calcineurin inhibitors—chiefly a 2006 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning regarding a possible link between topical calcineurin inhibitors and cancer. However, while there may be a slight increased risk of lymphoma in AD patients, a recent meta-analysis did not find an association between topical calcineurin inhibitors use and lymphoma.28 Given the initial concern—and pending additional data—the FDA currently recommends reserving topical calcineurin inhibitors for second-line therapy and only for the minimum amount of time to induce improvement. It also recommends avoiding their use in patients younger than 2 years and in those with compromised immune systems.
Cisaborole
Cisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, received FDA approval in 2016 for mild-to-moderate AD. By inhibiting PDE4, the drug limits inflammation. In a multicenter randomized trial, patients applying cisaborole 2% twice a day noted reductions in pruritus, inflammation, excoriation, and lichenification.29 Adverse effects are minimal and limited to application site irritation.
Systemic treatments
While beyond the care of a family physician, symptoms refractory to conservative, nonpharmacologic measures and combinations of topical pharmaceuticals can be treated with systemic immunomodulators such as cyclosporine, azathioprine, and methotrexate. Phototherapy is also effective in patients with more widespread skin involvement. Dupilumab, an injectable monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits inflammation, is approved to treat moderate-to-severe AD in adults.30
Ineffective therapies: Oral montelukast and probiotics
While oral antihistamines are frequently prescribed and used, there are no studies evaluating the use of antihistamines (H1) as monotherapy for AD.31 Nonetheless, while not altering the disease process, the sedative effect of antihistamines may palliate the nocturnal pruritus frequently associated with AD. Although nonsedating antihistamines may still have a role for atopic patients with concurrent seasonal and environmental allergies, there is no evidence to support their use in the treatment of AD.
Continue to: Data are limited...
Data are limited on the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists for AD, and all studies meeting inclusion for a Cochrane review assessed oral montelukast. The review found no benefit with the use of montelukast 10 mg in terms of severity of disease, pruritus, or need for topical steroids.32
A systematic review investigating the benefit of probiotics for the treatment of AD found no improvement in patient-rated eczema scores for quality of life.33 Additionally, a review of 11 randomized controlled trials including 596 participants found no evidence to suggest efficacy of fish oil, zinc, selenium, vitamin D, vitamin E, pyridoxine, sea buckthorn oil, hempseed oil, or sunflower oil in the treatment of AD.34
Education can reduce AD severity
Family physicians can be a source of education and support for patients and families of patients with AD. Support programs for adults with AD—including education, relaxation techniques, and cognitive behavioral therapy—have been shown to decrease disease severity.35 Comparable improvement in disease severity has been demonstrated in children with AD when similar education is provided to them and their families.
CORRESPONDENCE
Franklin Berkey, DO, Penn State Health, 1850 East Park Avenue, Suite 207, State College, PA 16803; fberkey@ pennstatehealth.psu.edu.
1. Carroll CL, Balkrishnan R, Feldman SR, et al. The burden of atopic dermatitis: impact on the patient, family, and society. Pediatr Dermatol. 2005;22:192-199.
2. Ahn C, Huang W. Clinical presentation of atopic dermatitis. In: Fortson E, Feldman SR, Stroud LC, eds. Management of Atopic Dermatitis: Methods and Challenges. Springer International Publishing; 2017:38-46.
3. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamblin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis. Part 1: diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:338-351.
4. Langan SM, Williams HC. What causes worsening of eczema? A systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155:504-514.
5. Nankervis H, Pynn EV, Boyle RJ, et al. House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD008426.
6. Chamlin SL, Frieden IJ, Williams ML, et al. Effects of atopic dermatitis on young American children and their families. Pediatrics. 2004;114:607-611.
7. Chang Y-S, Chiang B-L. Mechanism of sleep disturbance in children with atopic dermatitis and the role of the circadian rhythm and melatonin. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:462.
8. Camfferman D, Kennedy JD, Gold M, et al. Eczema and sleep and its relationship to daytime functioning in children. Sleep Med Rev. 2010;14:359-369.
9. Chamlin SL, Mattson CL, Frieden IJ, et al. The price of pruritus: sleep disturbance and cosleeping in atopic dermatitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:745-750.
10. Drucker AM, Wang AR, Li W-Q, et al. The burden of atopic dermatitis: summary of a report for the National Eczema Association. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137:P26-P30.
11. National Eczema Association. Tools for school: addressing school bullying for kids with eczema. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://nationaleczema.org/children-with-eczema-experience-bullying/
12. Bantz SK, Zhu Z, Zhen T. The atopic march: progression from atopic dermatitis to allergic rhinitis and asthma. J Clin Cell Immunol. 2014;5:202
13. Laird M, Sicco KL. Defining and measuring the scope of atopic dermatitis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1027:93-104.
14. Du Toit G, Roberts G, Sayre PH, et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:803-813.
15. Boyce JA, Assa’ad A, Burks AW, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126:S1–S58.
16. Yaghmaie P, Koudelka CW, Simpson EL. Mental health comorbidity in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131:428-433.
17. Strom MA, Fishbein AB, Paller AS, et al. Association between atopic dermatitis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children and adults. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:920-929.
18. Chiang C, Eichenfield LF. Quantitative assessment of combination bathing and moisturizing regimens on skin hydration in atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26:273-278.
19. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:116-132.
20. Simpson EL, Chalmers JR, Hanifin JM, et al. Emollient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134:818-823.
21. Chopra R, Vakharia PP, Sacotte R, et al. Efficacy of bleach baths in reducing severity of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017;119:435-440.
22. Williams HC. Established corticosteroid creams should be applied only once daily in patients with atopic eczema. BMJ. 2007;334:1272.
23. Long CC, Mills CM, Finlay AY. A practical guide to topical therapy in children. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138:293-296.
24. Callen J, Chamlin S, Eichenfield LF, et al. A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:203-221.
25. Charman CR, Morris AD, Williams HC. Topical corticosteroid phobia in patients with atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2000;142:931-936.
26. Ashcroft DM, Dimmock P, Garside R, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330:516.
27. Cury Martins J, Martins C, Aoki V, et al. Topical tacrolimus for atopic dermatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD009864.
28. Legendre L, Barnetche T, Mazereeuw-Hautier J, et al. Risk of lymphoma in patients with atopic dermatitis and the role of topical treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72:992-1002.
29. Paller AS, Tom WL, Lebwohl MG, et al. Efficacy and safety of crisaborole ointment, a novel, nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor for the topical treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children and adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:494-503.
30. Dupilumab [package insert]. Tarrytown, NY: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2017.
31. van Zuuren EJ, Apfelbacher CJ, Fedorowicz Z, et al. No high level evidence to support the use of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema: a summary of a Cochrane systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014;3:25.
32. Ferguson L, Futamura M, Vakirlis E, et al. Leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018:CD011224.
33. Makrgeorgou A, Leonardi-Bee J, Bath-Hextall FJ, et al. Probiotics for treating eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018:CD006135.
34. Bath-Hextall FJ, Jenkinson C, Humphreys R, et al. Dietary supplements for established atopic eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:CD005205.
35. Sy W, Lamb AJ. Atopic dermatitis disease education. In: Fortson E, Feldman SR, Stroud LC, eds. Management of Atopic Dermatitis: Methods and Challenges. Springer International Publishing; 2017:179-184.
Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is well known for its relapsing, pruritic rash in children and adults. Less recognized are its associated conditions—allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and anxiety—and its burden on patients and their families. In fact, families that have children with AD report lower overall quality of life than those with otherwise healthy children.1 Given AD’s prevalence across age groups and its effect on the family, family physicians are uniquely positioned to diagnose, care for, and counsel patients with AD and its associated maladies.
The prevalence and pathogenesis of AD
AD affects up to 20% of children and 5% of adults in the United States.2 AD typically manifests before a child reaches age 5 (often in the first 6 months of life), and it is slightly more common in females (1.3:1). A family history of atopy (eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis) is common. In fact, children with one atopic parent have a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of atopic dermatitis; those with 2 atopic parents have a 3- to 5-fold increased risk.3
The pathophysiology of AD is complex, culminating in impaired barrier function of the skin and transepidermal water loss resulting in dry and inflamed skin. Additionally, alterations in a cell-mediated immune response leading to an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated hypersensitivity is also theorized to play a role in the development of AD.
Signs and symptoms
Signs at birth. Physical signs of atopic dermatitis typically appear between birth and 6 months. In infancy, lesions generally occur on the scalp, face (FIGURES 1A and 1B), neck, and extensor surfaces of the extremities. Lesions are typically papules and vesicles, sometimes accompanied by serous exudate and crusting. Eczematous lesions typically spare the groin and diaper area, and their presence in this area should raise suspicion for an alternative diagnosis.
Beginning at age 2 years, eczematous lesions are more commonly limited to the folds of the flexor surfaces. Instead of the weeping and crusting lesions seen in infancy, eczema in older children manifests as dry, lichenified papules and plaques in areas that are typically affected in adults: the wrist, hands, ankles, and popliteal and antecubital fossa.2
Although lesions in adults are similar to those of childhood, they may manifest in a more localized area (hand or eyelid, for example). As is the case in childhood, the lesions are dry, sometimes lichenified, and found on the flexural surfaces (FIGURES 2A and 2B).2
Symptom triggers are unproven
While anecdotal reports cite various triggers for AD flares, a systematic review found little scientific evidence to substantiate identifiable triggers.4 Triggers often cited and studied are foods, dust mite exposure, airborne allergens, detergents, sunlight, fabrics, bacterial infections, and stress. While as many as one-third of people with AD who also have confirmed dust mite allergy report worsening of symptoms when exposed to dust, a Cochrane review of 7 randomized controlled trials totaling 324 adults and children with eczema found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms.5
Continue to: How quality of life diminishes with AD
How quality of life diminishes with AD
AD substantially lessens quality of life. For children, the most distressing physical symptoms include itching that inhibits sleep and provokes scratching, pain, and bleeding. Emotional distress can cause irritability, crying, and uncooperativeness with treatments. Parents also report that they frequently restrict their children from activities, such as playing in the heat or swimming, that may lead to worsening of their eczema.6
The loss of sleep associated with AD is not completely understood but is likely multifactorial. Pruritus and scratching leading to sleeplessness is the most obvious culprit, but an altered circadian rhythm, immune system response, and changes in skin physiology are also likely factors.7 Whatever the cause, sleep disturbance is reported in as many as 60% of patients with AD, and the degree of sleep disturbance is proportional to increases in disease severity and worsening of quality-of-life scores.8 Lost sleep is not limited to patients; parents of children with AD also report significant loss of sleep and subsequent decreased work productivity and quality of life.9
Children with AD are often the target of bullying.10 A 2015 survey by the National Eczema Association indicates that 1 in 5 children reported being bullied due to their AD.11
Associated conditions and comorbidities
AD increases patients’ risks for other illnesses, due either to their underlying atopy or to the effects of
Atopic march
Atopic march—the clinical succession of AD, allergic rhinitis, and asthma—is a well-established clinical progression. The presence of all 3 conditions appears to be more common in children diagnosed with AD before 2 years of age.12 Typically, allergic rhinitis manifests at around age 4, and asthma develops between ages 6 and 8. The severity of AD predicts progression. Compared with an 8% chance of asthma developing among the general population, children with mild AD have a 20% to 30% chance of developing asthma, and those with severe AD have about a 70% chance.12
Continue to: Food allergies
Food allergies
Patients with AD are at higher risk for food-induced anaphylaxis, with up to one-third of AD patients having an IgE-mediated food allergy.13 While it is theorized that the impaired skin barrier of an atopic child may allow for early sensitization and allergy development, a landmark 2015 study demonstrated that early allergen introduction (specifically, peanuts) may serve as a preventive strategy in those at high risk of food allergies.14 Current guidelines recommend that physicians be aware of the increased possibility of food allergies in those with AD, and consider evaluating a child for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy allergy if the child is younger than 5 years and has eczema that does not resolve with treatment, or has eczema and a history of an allergic reaction to a specific food.15
Interestingly, despite the strong association between AD and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares; as such, elimination diets are not universally recommended in those without a proven food allergy.
Psychiatric diagnoses
Children with AD have an increased prevalence of several psychiatric conditions, including ADHD, depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and autism when compared with peers who do not have AD, and the probability correlates with the severity of AD
What we do know is that one of the strongest associations between AD and a psychiatric condition is with ADHD, with a recent pooled meta-analysis showing a 46% increase in risk.17 The incidence of depression among children with AD appears to correlate with the severity of AD symptoms: estimated at 5% with mild AD, 7% with moderate disease, and 14% with severe disease (compared with 3% without AD). Similar incremental increases are seen when correlating AD and anxiety.16
Nonpharmacologic care
Bathing
Bathing habits are critical to controlling AD. While bathing serves to both hydrate the skin and remove allergens, the water’s evaporation off the skin surface can lead to increased transepidermal water loss. Combining bathing and immediate application of a moisturizer improves skin hydration in patients with AD vs bathing alone.18 Thus, consensus guidelines recommend once-daily bathing (bath or shower) to remove scale and crust, followed by immediate application of a moisturizing emollient.19
Continue to: Emollients
Emollients
Application of moisturizing emollients is the mainstay of nonpharmacologic care of AD, and there is strong evidence that their regimented use reduces disease burden and the need for prescription treatment.19 Emollient creams and ointments help retain moisture and improve the skin’s barrier. While ointments may provide a better barrier, patients tend to prefer creams as they are less greasy than ointments.
Emollient therapy may also help prevent development of AD, especially in those infants thought to be at high risk with a family history of atopy. In a multinational randomized controlled trial, infants who received daily full-body application of emollient beginning at 3 weeks of life were significantly less likely than controls to develop AD by 6 months.20 While the mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it is believed that early emollient use prevents skin dehydration and maintains the skin’s barrier integrity, thus decreasing allergen epidermal penetration and subsequent inflammation.
Bleach bath
A bleach bath, prepared by adding 1/2 cup of unconcentrated bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) to a standard 40-gallon bathtub, produces a chlorine mixture equivalent to an average swimming pool. Soaking in a bleach bath for 10 minutes once or twice weekly is thought to reduce inflammation and bacteria on the skin, but studies of its efficacy in improving atopic symptoms are mixed.
In a pooled analysis of 5 studies evaluating bleach baths vs standard baths, there was no significant difference in disease severity at 4 weeks.21 Thus, while bleach baths were effective in decreasing disease severity, they appeared to be no more effective than a standard water bath.21 Bleach baths may be helpful, however, in cases of moderate-to-severe disease with frequent bacterial infections.19
Pharmacologic therapy
Steroids
For symptoms refractory to nonpharmacologic skin care, topical steroids are the initial pharmacologic treatment for AD.19 Choose steroid potency based on symptom severity and disease location. Low- to medium-potency is appropriate for mild disease, and medium- to high-potency is useful for moderate-to-severe symptoms. High-potency steroids are generally avoided on the face and skin folds; however, they can be used for short periods in these areas to induce remission. They must then be quickly tapered and discontinued.
Continue to: Frequency
Frequency. Topical corticosteroids are typically applied twice daily, although recent studies indicate that once-daily application is just as efficacious.22 In addition to treatment of an acute flare, topical steroids are useful as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent outbreaks in the same anatomical site. Guidelines suggest once- or twice-weekly application of a medium-potency steroid to prolong time between flares.19
For children, a practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.23 Topical steroids are generally well tolerated and have a good safety profile. Adverse effects are proportional to the amount and duration of use and include purpura, telangiectasias, striae, and skin atrophy. The risk of skin atrophy increases with higher potency steroids, occlusion (covering affected area after steroid application), use on thin-skinned areas, and older patient age.24
Reassure patients/parents about the safety of topical steroids, as fears regarding the potential adverse effects can limit compliance. In one study of 200 patients with AD, 72.5% of respondents expressed fear of using steroids on their own skin or that of their child, and 24% admitted being noncompliant with therapy based on these concerns.25
Treating flares. Oral steroids are sometimes needed to abort or control an AD flare in older children and adults. A tapering course of prednisone over 5 to 7 days, transitioning to medium- to high-dose topical steroids, may be needed to achieve symptom control.
Topical calcineurin inhibitors
Topical calcineurin inhibitors, including tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are generally second-line therapy to topical corticosteroids. However, as nonsteroidal agents, topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause skin atrophy and can be a first-line option in areas where atrophy is more common (face, eyelids, neck, and skin folds).26
Continue to: A Cochrane review found...
A Cochrane review found tacrolimus 0.1% to be better than low‐potency topical corticosteroids on the face and neck areas, while results were equivocal when compared with moderate‐potency topical corticosteroids on the trunk and extremities (no difference based on physician assessment, but marginal benefit favoring tacrolimus based on participant scoring).27 When compared head-to-head, tacrolimus was more effective than pimecrolimus, although tacrolimus has a higher rate of local irritation. The most common adverse effects are stinging and burning at the application site, although these adverse effects generally improve with repeated application.
There have been long-term safety concerns with topical calcineurin inhibitors—chiefly a 2006 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning regarding a possible link between topical calcineurin inhibitors and cancer. However, while there may be a slight increased risk of lymphoma in AD patients, a recent meta-analysis did not find an association between topical calcineurin inhibitors use and lymphoma.28 Given the initial concern—and pending additional data—the FDA currently recommends reserving topical calcineurin inhibitors for second-line therapy and only for the minimum amount of time to induce improvement. It also recommends avoiding their use in patients younger than 2 years and in those with compromised immune systems.
Cisaborole
Cisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, received FDA approval in 2016 for mild-to-moderate AD. By inhibiting PDE4, the drug limits inflammation. In a multicenter randomized trial, patients applying cisaborole 2% twice a day noted reductions in pruritus, inflammation, excoriation, and lichenification.29 Adverse effects are minimal and limited to application site irritation.
Systemic treatments
While beyond the care of a family physician, symptoms refractory to conservative, nonpharmacologic measures and combinations of topical pharmaceuticals can be treated with systemic immunomodulators such as cyclosporine, azathioprine, and methotrexate. Phototherapy is also effective in patients with more widespread skin involvement. Dupilumab, an injectable monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits inflammation, is approved to treat moderate-to-severe AD in adults.30
Ineffective therapies: Oral montelukast and probiotics
While oral antihistamines are frequently prescribed and used, there are no studies evaluating the use of antihistamines (H1) as monotherapy for AD.31 Nonetheless, while not altering the disease process, the sedative effect of antihistamines may palliate the nocturnal pruritus frequently associated with AD. Although nonsedating antihistamines may still have a role for atopic patients with concurrent seasonal and environmental allergies, there is no evidence to support their use in the treatment of AD.
Continue to: Data are limited...
Data are limited on the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists for AD, and all studies meeting inclusion for a Cochrane review assessed oral montelukast. The review found no benefit with the use of montelukast 10 mg in terms of severity of disease, pruritus, or need for topical steroids.32
A systematic review investigating the benefit of probiotics for the treatment of AD found no improvement in patient-rated eczema scores for quality of life.33 Additionally, a review of 11 randomized controlled trials including 596 participants found no evidence to suggest efficacy of fish oil, zinc, selenium, vitamin D, vitamin E, pyridoxine, sea buckthorn oil, hempseed oil, or sunflower oil in the treatment of AD.34
Education can reduce AD severity
Family physicians can be a source of education and support for patients and families of patients with AD. Support programs for adults with AD—including education, relaxation techniques, and cognitive behavioral therapy—have been shown to decrease disease severity.35 Comparable improvement in disease severity has been demonstrated in children with AD when similar education is provided to them and their families.
CORRESPONDENCE
Franklin Berkey, DO, Penn State Health, 1850 East Park Avenue, Suite 207, State College, PA 16803; fberkey@ pennstatehealth.psu.edu.
Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is well known for its relapsing, pruritic rash in children and adults. Less recognized are its associated conditions—allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and anxiety—and its burden on patients and their families. In fact, families that have children with AD report lower overall quality of life than those with otherwise healthy children.1 Given AD’s prevalence across age groups and its effect on the family, family physicians are uniquely positioned to diagnose, care for, and counsel patients with AD and its associated maladies.
The prevalence and pathogenesis of AD
AD affects up to 20% of children and 5% of adults in the United States.2 AD typically manifests before a child reaches age 5 (often in the first 6 months of life), and it is slightly more common in females (1.3:1). A family history of atopy (eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis) is common. In fact, children with one atopic parent have a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of atopic dermatitis; those with 2 atopic parents have a 3- to 5-fold increased risk.3
The pathophysiology of AD is complex, culminating in impaired barrier function of the skin and transepidermal water loss resulting in dry and inflamed skin. Additionally, alterations in a cell-mediated immune response leading to an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated hypersensitivity is also theorized to play a role in the development of AD.
Signs and symptoms
Signs at birth. Physical signs of atopic dermatitis typically appear between birth and 6 months. In infancy, lesions generally occur on the scalp, face (FIGURES 1A and 1B), neck, and extensor surfaces of the extremities. Lesions are typically papules and vesicles, sometimes accompanied by serous exudate and crusting. Eczematous lesions typically spare the groin and diaper area, and their presence in this area should raise suspicion for an alternative diagnosis.
Beginning at age 2 years, eczematous lesions are more commonly limited to the folds of the flexor surfaces. Instead of the weeping and crusting lesions seen in infancy, eczema in older children manifests as dry, lichenified papules and plaques in areas that are typically affected in adults: the wrist, hands, ankles, and popliteal and antecubital fossa.2
Although lesions in adults are similar to those of childhood, they may manifest in a more localized area (hand or eyelid, for example). As is the case in childhood, the lesions are dry, sometimes lichenified, and found on the flexural surfaces (FIGURES 2A and 2B).2
Symptom triggers are unproven
While anecdotal reports cite various triggers for AD flares, a systematic review found little scientific evidence to substantiate identifiable triggers.4 Triggers often cited and studied are foods, dust mite exposure, airborne allergens, detergents, sunlight, fabrics, bacterial infections, and stress. While as many as one-third of people with AD who also have confirmed dust mite allergy report worsening of symptoms when exposed to dust, a Cochrane review of 7 randomized controlled trials totaling 324 adults and children with eczema found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms.5
Continue to: How quality of life diminishes with AD
How quality of life diminishes with AD
AD substantially lessens quality of life. For children, the most distressing physical symptoms include itching that inhibits sleep and provokes scratching, pain, and bleeding. Emotional distress can cause irritability, crying, and uncooperativeness with treatments. Parents also report that they frequently restrict their children from activities, such as playing in the heat or swimming, that may lead to worsening of their eczema.6
The loss of sleep associated with AD is not completely understood but is likely multifactorial. Pruritus and scratching leading to sleeplessness is the most obvious culprit, but an altered circadian rhythm, immune system response, and changes in skin physiology are also likely factors.7 Whatever the cause, sleep disturbance is reported in as many as 60% of patients with AD, and the degree of sleep disturbance is proportional to increases in disease severity and worsening of quality-of-life scores.8 Lost sleep is not limited to patients; parents of children with AD also report significant loss of sleep and subsequent decreased work productivity and quality of life.9
Children with AD are often the target of bullying.10 A 2015 survey by the National Eczema Association indicates that 1 in 5 children reported being bullied due to their AD.11
Associated conditions and comorbidities
AD increases patients’ risks for other illnesses, due either to their underlying atopy or to the effects of
Atopic march
Atopic march—the clinical succession of AD, allergic rhinitis, and asthma—is a well-established clinical progression. The presence of all 3 conditions appears to be more common in children diagnosed with AD before 2 years of age.12 Typically, allergic rhinitis manifests at around age 4, and asthma develops between ages 6 and 8. The severity of AD predicts progression. Compared with an 8% chance of asthma developing among the general population, children with mild AD have a 20% to 30% chance of developing asthma, and those with severe AD have about a 70% chance.12
Continue to: Food allergies
Food allergies
Patients with AD are at higher risk for food-induced anaphylaxis, with up to one-third of AD patients having an IgE-mediated food allergy.13 While it is theorized that the impaired skin barrier of an atopic child may allow for early sensitization and allergy development, a landmark 2015 study demonstrated that early allergen introduction (specifically, peanuts) may serve as a preventive strategy in those at high risk of food allergies.14 Current guidelines recommend that physicians be aware of the increased possibility of food allergies in those with AD, and consider evaluating a child for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy allergy if the child is younger than 5 years and has eczema that does not resolve with treatment, or has eczema and a history of an allergic reaction to a specific food.15
Interestingly, despite the strong association between AD and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares; as such, elimination diets are not universally recommended in those without a proven food allergy.
Psychiatric diagnoses
Children with AD have an increased prevalence of several psychiatric conditions, including ADHD, depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and autism when compared with peers who do not have AD, and the probability correlates with the severity of AD
What we do know is that one of the strongest associations between AD and a psychiatric condition is with ADHD, with a recent pooled meta-analysis showing a 46% increase in risk.17 The incidence of depression among children with AD appears to correlate with the severity of AD symptoms: estimated at 5% with mild AD, 7% with moderate disease, and 14% with severe disease (compared with 3% without AD). Similar incremental increases are seen when correlating AD and anxiety.16
Nonpharmacologic care
Bathing
Bathing habits are critical to controlling AD. While bathing serves to both hydrate the skin and remove allergens, the water’s evaporation off the skin surface can lead to increased transepidermal water loss. Combining bathing and immediate application of a moisturizer improves skin hydration in patients with AD vs bathing alone.18 Thus, consensus guidelines recommend once-daily bathing (bath or shower) to remove scale and crust, followed by immediate application of a moisturizing emollient.19
Continue to: Emollients
Emollients
Application of moisturizing emollients is the mainstay of nonpharmacologic care of AD, and there is strong evidence that their regimented use reduces disease burden and the need for prescription treatment.19 Emollient creams and ointments help retain moisture and improve the skin’s barrier. While ointments may provide a better barrier, patients tend to prefer creams as they are less greasy than ointments.
Emollient therapy may also help prevent development of AD, especially in those infants thought to be at high risk with a family history of atopy. In a multinational randomized controlled trial, infants who received daily full-body application of emollient beginning at 3 weeks of life were significantly less likely than controls to develop AD by 6 months.20 While the mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it is believed that early emollient use prevents skin dehydration and maintains the skin’s barrier integrity, thus decreasing allergen epidermal penetration and subsequent inflammation.
Bleach bath
A bleach bath, prepared by adding 1/2 cup of unconcentrated bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) to a standard 40-gallon bathtub, produces a chlorine mixture equivalent to an average swimming pool. Soaking in a bleach bath for 10 minutes once or twice weekly is thought to reduce inflammation and bacteria on the skin, but studies of its efficacy in improving atopic symptoms are mixed.
In a pooled analysis of 5 studies evaluating bleach baths vs standard baths, there was no significant difference in disease severity at 4 weeks.21 Thus, while bleach baths were effective in decreasing disease severity, they appeared to be no more effective than a standard water bath.21 Bleach baths may be helpful, however, in cases of moderate-to-severe disease with frequent bacterial infections.19
Pharmacologic therapy
Steroids
For symptoms refractory to nonpharmacologic skin care, topical steroids are the initial pharmacologic treatment for AD.19 Choose steroid potency based on symptom severity and disease location. Low- to medium-potency is appropriate for mild disease, and medium- to high-potency is useful for moderate-to-severe symptoms. High-potency steroids are generally avoided on the face and skin folds; however, they can be used for short periods in these areas to induce remission. They must then be quickly tapered and discontinued.
Continue to: Frequency
Frequency. Topical corticosteroids are typically applied twice daily, although recent studies indicate that once-daily application is just as efficacious.22 In addition to treatment of an acute flare, topical steroids are useful as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent outbreaks in the same anatomical site. Guidelines suggest once- or twice-weekly application of a medium-potency steroid to prolong time between flares.19
For children, a practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.23 Topical steroids are generally well tolerated and have a good safety profile. Adverse effects are proportional to the amount and duration of use and include purpura, telangiectasias, striae, and skin atrophy. The risk of skin atrophy increases with higher potency steroids, occlusion (covering affected area after steroid application), use on thin-skinned areas, and older patient age.24
Reassure patients/parents about the safety of topical steroids, as fears regarding the potential adverse effects can limit compliance. In one study of 200 patients with AD, 72.5% of respondents expressed fear of using steroids on their own skin or that of their child, and 24% admitted being noncompliant with therapy based on these concerns.25
Treating flares. Oral steroids are sometimes needed to abort or control an AD flare in older children and adults. A tapering course of prednisone over 5 to 7 days, transitioning to medium- to high-dose topical steroids, may be needed to achieve symptom control.
Topical calcineurin inhibitors
Topical calcineurin inhibitors, including tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are generally second-line therapy to topical corticosteroids. However, as nonsteroidal agents, topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause skin atrophy and can be a first-line option in areas where atrophy is more common (face, eyelids, neck, and skin folds).26
Continue to: A Cochrane review found...
A Cochrane review found tacrolimus 0.1% to be better than low‐potency topical corticosteroids on the face and neck areas, while results were equivocal when compared with moderate‐potency topical corticosteroids on the trunk and extremities (no difference based on physician assessment, but marginal benefit favoring tacrolimus based on participant scoring).27 When compared head-to-head, tacrolimus was more effective than pimecrolimus, although tacrolimus has a higher rate of local irritation. The most common adverse effects are stinging and burning at the application site, although these adverse effects generally improve with repeated application.
There have been long-term safety concerns with topical calcineurin inhibitors—chiefly a 2006 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning regarding a possible link between topical calcineurin inhibitors and cancer. However, while there may be a slight increased risk of lymphoma in AD patients, a recent meta-analysis did not find an association between topical calcineurin inhibitors use and lymphoma.28 Given the initial concern—and pending additional data—the FDA currently recommends reserving topical calcineurin inhibitors for second-line therapy and only for the minimum amount of time to induce improvement. It also recommends avoiding their use in patients younger than 2 years and in those with compromised immune systems.
Cisaborole
Cisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, received FDA approval in 2016 for mild-to-moderate AD. By inhibiting PDE4, the drug limits inflammation. In a multicenter randomized trial, patients applying cisaborole 2% twice a day noted reductions in pruritus, inflammation, excoriation, and lichenification.29 Adverse effects are minimal and limited to application site irritation.
Systemic treatments
While beyond the care of a family physician, symptoms refractory to conservative, nonpharmacologic measures and combinations of topical pharmaceuticals can be treated with systemic immunomodulators such as cyclosporine, azathioprine, and methotrexate. Phototherapy is also effective in patients with more widespread skin involvement. Dupilumab, an injectable monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits inflammation, is approved to treat moderate-to-severe AD in adults.30
Ineffective therapies: Oral montelukast and probiotics
While oral antihistamines are frequently prescribed and used, there are no studies evaluating the use of antihistamines (H1) as monotherapy for AD.31 Nonetheless, while not altering the disease process, the sedative effect of antihistamines may palliate the nocturnal pruritus frequently associated with AD. Although nonsedating antihistamines may still have a role for atopic patients with concurrent seasonal and environmental allergies, there is no evidence to support their use in the treatment of AD.
Continue to: Data are limited...
Data are limited on the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists for AD, and all studies meeting inclusion for a Cochrane review assessed oral montelukast. The review found no benefit with the use of montelukast 10 mg in terms of severity of disease, pruritus, or need for topical steroids.32
A systematic review investigating the benefit of probiotics for the treatment of AD found no improvement in patient-rated eczema scores for quality of life.33 Additionally, a review of 11 randomized controlled trials including 596 participants found no evidence to suggest efficacy of fish oil, zinc, selenium, vitamin D, vitamin E, pyridoxine, sea buckthorn oil, hempseed oil, or sunflower oil in the treatment of AD.34
Education can reduce AD severity
Family physicians can be a source of education and support for patients and families of patients with AD. Support programs for adults with AD—including education, relaxation techniques, and cognitive behavioral therapy—have been shown to decrease disease severity.35 Comparable improvement in disease severity has been demonstrated in children with AD when similar education is provided to them and their families.
CORRESPONDENCE
Franklin Berkey, DO, Penn State Health, 1850 East Park Avenue, Suite 207, State College, PA 16803; fberkey@ pennstatehealth.psu.edu.
1. Carroll CL, Balkrishnan R, Feldman SR, et al. The burden of atopic dermatitis: impact on the patient, family, and society. Pediatr Dermatol. 2005;22:192-199.
2. Ahn C, Huang W. Clinical presentation of atopic dermatitis. In: Fortson E, Feldman SR, Stroud LC, eds. Management of Atopic Dermatitis: Methods and Challenges. Springer International Publishing; 2017:38-46.
3. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamblin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis. Part 1: diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:338-351.
4. Langan SM, Williams HC. What causes worsening of eczema? A systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155:504-514.
5. Nankervis H, Pynn EV, Boyle RJ, et al. House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD008426.
6. Chamlin SL, Frieden IJ, Williams ML, et al. Effects of atopic dermatitis on young American children and their families. Pediatrics. 2004;114:607-611.
7. Chang Y-S, Chiang B-L. Mechanism of sleep disturbance in children with atopic dermatitis and the role of the circadian rhythm and melatonin. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:462.
8. Camfferman D, Kennedy JD, Gold M, et al. Eczema and sleep and its relationship to daytime functioning in children. Sleep Med Rev. 2010;14:359-369.
9. Chamlin SL, Mattson CL, Frieden IJ, et al. The price of pruritus: sleep disturbance and cosleeping in atopic dermatitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:745-750.
10. Drucker AM, Wang AR, Li W-Q, et al. The burden of atopic dermatitis: summary of a report for the National Eczema Association. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137:P26-P30.
11. National Eczema Association. Tools for school: addressing school bullying for kids with eczema. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://nationaleczema.org/children-with-eczema-experience-bullying/
12. Bantz SK, Zhu Z, Zhen T. The atopic march: progression from atopic dermatitis to allergic rhinitis and asthma. J Clin Cell Immunol. 2014;5:202
13. Laird M, Sicco KL. Defining and measuring the scope of atopic dermatitis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1027:93-104.
14. Du Toit G, Roberts G, Sayre PH, et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:803-813.
15. Boyce JA, Assa’ad A, Burks AW, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126:S1–S58.
16. Yaghmaie P, Koudelka CW, Simpson EL. Mental health comorbidity in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131:428-433.
17. Strom MA, Fishbein AB, Paller AS, et al. Association between atopic dermatitis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children and adults. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:920-929.
18. Chiang C, Eichenfield LF. Quantitative assessment of combination bathing and moisturizing regimens on skin hydration in atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26:273-278.
19. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:116-132.
20. Simpson EL, Chalmers JR, Hanifin JM, et al. Emollient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134:818-823.
21. Chopra R, Vakharia PP, Sacotte R, et al. Efficacy of bleach baths in reducing severity of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017;119:435-440.
22. Williams HC. Established corticosteroid creams should be applied only once daily in patients with atopic eczema. BMJ. 2007;334:1272.
23. Long CC, Mills CM, Finlay AY. A practical guide to topical therapy in children. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138:293-296.
24. Callen J, Chamlin S, Eichenfield LF, et al. A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:203-221.
25. Charman CR, Morris AD, Williams HC. Topical corticosteroid phobia in patients with atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2000;142:931-936.
26. Ashcroft DM, Dimmock P, Garside R, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330:516.
27. Cury Martins J, Martins C, Aoki V, et al. Topical tacrolimus for atopic dermatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD009864.
28. Legendre L, Barnetche T, Mazereeuw-Hautier J, et al. Risk of lymphoma in patients with atopic dermatitis and the role of topical treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72:992-1002.
29. Paller AS, Tom WL, Lebwohl MG, et al. Efficacy and safety of crisaborole ointment, a novel, nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor for the topical treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children and adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:494-503.
30. Dupilumab [package insert]. Tarrytown, NY: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2017.
31. van Zuuren EJ, Apfelbacher CJ, Fedorowicz Z, et al. No high level evidence to support the use of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema: a summary of a Cochrane systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014;3:25.
32. Ferguson L, Futamura M, Vakirlis E, et al. Leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018:CD011224.
33. Makrgeorgou A, Leonardi-Bee J, Bath-Hextall FJ, et al. Probiotics for treating eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018:CD006135.
34. Bath-Hextall FJ, Jenkinson C, Humphreys R, et al. Dietary supplements for established atopic eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:CD005205.
35. Sy W, Lamb AJ. Atopic dermatitis disease education. In: Fortson E, Feldman SR, Stroud LC, eds. Management of Atopic Dermatitis: Methods and Challenges. Springer International Publishing; 2017:179-184.
1. Carroll CL, Balkrishnan R, Feldman SR, et al. The burden of atopic dermatitis: impact on the patient, family, and society. Pediatr Dermatol. 2005;22:192-199.
2. Ahn C, Huang W. Clinical presentation of atopic dermatitis. In: Fortson E, Feldman SR, Stroud LC, eds. Management of Atopic Dermatitis: Methods and Challenges. Springer International Publishing; 2017:38-46.
3. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamblin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis. Part 1: diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:338-351.
4. Langan SM, Williams HC. What causes worsening of eczema? A systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155:504-514.
5. Nankervis H, Pynn EV, Boyle RJ, et al. House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD008426.
6. Chamlin SL, Frieden IJ, Williams ML, et al. Effects of atopic dermatitis on young American children and their families. Pediatrics. 2004;114:607-611.
7. Chang Y-S, Chiang B-L. Mechanism of sleep disturbance in children with atopic dermatitis and the role of the circadian rhythm and melatonin. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:462.
8. Camfferman D, Kennedy JD, Gold M, et al. Eczema and sleep and its relationship to daytime functioning in children. Sleep Med Rev. 2010;14:359-369.
9. Chamlin SL, Mattson CL, Frieden IJ, et al. The price of pruritus: sleep disturbance and cosleeping in atopic dermatitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:745-750.
10. Drucker AM, Wang AR, Li W-Q, et al. The burden of atopic dermatitis: summary of a report for the National Eczema Association. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137:P26-P30.
11. National Eczema Association. Tools for school: addressing school bullying for kids with eczema. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://nationaleczema.org/children-with-eczema-experience-bullying/
12. Bantz SK, Zhu Z, Zhen T. The atopic march: progression from atopic dermatitis to allergic rhinitis and asthma. J Clin Cell Immunol. 2014;5:202
13. Laird M, Sicco KL. Defining and measuring the scope of atopic dermatitis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1027:93-104.
14. Du Toit G, Roberts G, Sayre PH, et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:803-813.
15. Boyce JA, Assa’ad A, Burks AW, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126:S1–S58.
16. Yaghmaie P, Koudelka CW, Simpson EL. Mental health comorbidity in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131:428-433.
17. Strom MA, Fishbein AB, Paller AS, et al. Association between atopic dermatitis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children and adults. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:920-929.
18. Chiang C, Eichenfield LF. Quantitative assessment of combination bathing and moisturizing regimens on skin hydration in atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26:273-278.
19. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:116-132.
20. Simpson EL, Chalmers JR, Hanifin JM, et al. Emollient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134:818-823.
21. Chopra R, Vakharia PP, Sacotte R, et al. Efficacy of bleach baths in reducing severity of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017;119:435-440.
22. Williams HC. Established corticosteroid creams should be applied only once daily in patients with atopic eczema. BMJ. 2007;334:1272.
23. Long CC, Mills CM, Finlay AY. A practical guide to topical therapy in children. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138:293-296.
24. Callen J, Chamlin S, Eichenfield LF, et al. A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:203-221.
25. Charman CR, Morris AD, Williams HC. Topical corticosteroid phobia in patients with atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2000;142:931-936.
26. Ashcroft DM, Dimmock P, Garside R, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330:516.
27. Cury Martins J, Martins C, Aoki V, et al. Topical tacrolimus for atopic dermatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD009864.
28. Legendre L, Barnetche T, Mazereeuw-Hautier J, et al. Risk of lymphoma in patients with atopic dermatitis and the role of topical treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72:992-1002.
29. Paller AS, Tom WL, Lebwohl MG, et al. Efficacy and safety of crisaborole ointment, a novel, nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor for the topical treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children and adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:494-503.
30. Dupilumab [package insert]. Tarrytown, NY: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2017.
31. van Zuuren EJ, Apfelbacher CJ, Fedorowicz Z, et al. No high level evidence to support the use of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema: a summary of a Cochrane systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014;3:25.
32. Ferguson L, Futamura M, Vakirlis E, et al. Leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018:CD011224.
33. Makrgeorgou A, Leonardi-Bee J, Bath-Hextall FJ, et al. Probiotics for treating eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018:CD006135.
34. Bath-Hextall FJ, Jenkinson C, Humphreys R, et al. Dietary supplements for established atopic eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:CD005205.
35. Sy W, Lamb AJ. Atopic dermatitis disease education. In: Fortson E, Feldman SR, Stroud LC, eds. Management of Atopic Dermatitis: Methods and Challenges. Springer International Publishing; 2017:179-184.
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
› Advise patients to regularly apply moisturizers, which reduces atopic dermatitis (AD) severity and may avert the need for pharmacologic intervention. A
› Assure patients that a topical corticosteroid is safe and effective as first-line treatment for AD symptoms refractory to nonpharmacologic recommendations. A
› Consider topical calcineurin inhibitors for both acute and chronic AD in adults and children, especially in areas more prone to topical corticosteroid adverse effects. A
Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series
Repeated ketamine infusions linked to rapid relief of PTSD
Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.
In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks.
Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.
In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.
Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.
It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Unmet need
Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.
“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.
The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.
For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.
“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”
Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).
The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).
During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).
In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).
Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
Safe, effective
Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).
Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.
In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.
Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).
Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.
“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.
There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.
The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
‘Large-magnitude improvement’
The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.
The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”
She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.
Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.
“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
Speaks to clinical utility
Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.
“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.
He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.
“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.
Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.
“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.
He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.
“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded.
The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.
In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks.
Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.
In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.
Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.
It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Unmet need
Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.
“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.
The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.
For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.
“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”
Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).
The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).
During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).
In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).
Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
Safe, effective
Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).
Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.
In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.
Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).
Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.
“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.
There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.
The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
‘Large-magnitude improvement’
The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.
The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”
She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.
Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.
“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
Speaks to clinical utility
Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.
“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.
He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.
“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.
Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.
“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.
He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.
“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded.
The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.
In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks.
Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.
In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.
Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.
It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Unmet need
Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.
PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.
“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.
The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.
For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.
“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”
Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).
The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).
During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).
In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).
Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
Safe, effective
Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).
Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.
In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.
Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).
Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.
“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.
There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.
The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
‘Large-magnitude improvement’
The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.
The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”
She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.
Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.
“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
Speaks to clinical utility
Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.
“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.
He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.
“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.
Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.
“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.
He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.
“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded.
The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tactics to prevent or slow progression of CKD in patients with diabetes
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant comorbidity of diabetes mellitus. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) of the National Kidney Foundation defines CKD as the presence of kidney damage or decreased kidney function for ≥ 3 months. CKD caused by diabetes is called diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which is 1 of 3 principal microvascular complications of diabetes. DKD can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring kidney replacement therapy, and is the leading cause of CKD and ESRD in the United States.1-3 Studies have also shown that, particularly in patients with diabetes, CKD considerably increases the risk of cardiovascular events, which often occur prior to ESRD.1,4
This article provides the latest recommendations for evaluating and managing DKD to help you prevent or slow its progression.
Defining and categorizing diabetic kidney disease
CKD is defined as persistently elevated excretion of urinary albumin (albuminuria) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or as the presence of signs of progressive kidney damage.5,6 DKD, also known as diabetic nephropathy, is CKD attributed to long-term diabetes. A patient’s eGFR is the established basis for assignment to a stage (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, or 5) of CKD (TABLE 17) and, along with the category of albuminuria (A1, A2, or A3), can indicate prognosis.
Taking its toll in diabetes
As many as 40% of patients with diabetes develop DKD.8-10 Most studies of DKD have been conducted in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), because the time of clinical onset is typically known.
Type 1 diabetes. DKD usually occurs 10 to 15 years, or later, after the onset of diabetes.6 As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.5,11 After approximately 22.5 years without albuminuria, patients with T1D have approximately a 1% annual risk of DKD.12
Type 2 diabetes (T2D). DKD is often present at diagnosis, likely due to a delay in diagnosis and briefer clinical exposure, compared to T1D. Albuminuria has been reported in as many as 40% of patients with T2D approximately 10 years after onset of diabetes.12,13
Multiple risk factors with no standout “predictor”
Genetic susceptibility, ethnicity, glycemic control, smoking, blood pressure (BP), and the eGFR have been identified as risk factors for renal involvement in diabetes; obesity, oral contraceptives, and age can also contribute. Although each risk factor increases the risk of DKD, no single factor is adequately predictive. Moderately increased albuminuria, the earliest sign of DKD, is associated with progressive nephropathy.12
Continue to: How great is the risk?
How great is the risk? From disease onset to proteinuria and from proteinuria to ESRD, the risk of DKD in T1D and T2D is similar. With appropriate treatment, albuminuria can regress, and the risk of ESRD can be < 20% at 10 years in T1D.12 As in T1D, good glycemic control might result in regression of albuminuria in T2D.14
For unknown reasons, the degree of albuminuria can exist independent of the progression of DKD. Factors responsible for a progressive decline in eGFR in DKD without albuminuria are unknown.12,15
Patient evaluation with an eye toward comorbidities
A comprehensive initial medical evaluation for DKD includes a review of microvascular complications; visits to specialists; lifestyle and behavior patterns (eg, diet, sleep, substance use, and social support); and medication adherence, adverse drug effects, and alternative medicines. Although DKD is often a clinical diagnosis, it can be ruled in by persistent albuminuria or decreased eGFR, or both, in established diabetes or diabetic retinopathy when other causes are unlikely (see “Recommended DKD screening protocol,” below).
Screening for mental health conditions and barriers to self-management is also key.6
Comorbidities, of course, can complicate disease management in patients with diabetes.16-20 Providers and patients therefore need to be aware of potential diabetic comorbidities. For example, DKD and even moderately increased albuminuria significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).12 Other possible comorbidities include (but are not limited to) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fracture, hearing impairment, cancer (eg, liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon, rectum, breast, and bladder), pancreatitis, hypogonadism, obstructive sleep apnea, periodontal disease, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.6
Continue to: Recommended DKD screening protocol
Recommended DKD screening protocol
In all cases of T2D, in cases of T1D of ≥ 5 years’ duration, and in patients with diabetes and comorbid hypertension, perform annual screening for albuminuria, an elevated creatinine level, and a decline in eGFR.
To confirm the diagnosis of DKD, at least 2 of 3 urine specimens must demonstrate an elevated urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) over a 3- to 6-month period.21 Apart from renal damage, exercise within 24 hours before specimen collection, infection, fever, congestive heart failure, hyperglycemia, menstruation, and hypertension can elevate the UACR.6
Levels of the UACR are established as follows22:
- Normal UACR is defined as < 30 milligrams of albumin per gram of creatinine (expressed as “mg/g”).
- Increased urinary albumin excretion is defined as ≥ 30 mg/g.
- Moderately increased albuminuria, a predictor of potential nephropathy, is the excretion of 30 to 300 mg/g.
- Severely increased albuminuria is excretion > 300 mg/g; it is often followed by a gradual decline in eGFR that, without treatment, eventually leads to ESRD.
The rate of decline in eGFR once albuminuria is severely increased is equivalent in T1D and T2D.12 Without intervention, the time from severely increased albuminuria to ESRD in T1D and T2D averages approximately 6 or 7 years.
Clinical features
DKD is typically a clinical diagnosis seen in patients with longstanding diabetes, albuminuria, retinopathy, or a reduced eGFR in the absence of another primary cause of kidney damage. In patients with T1D and DKD, signs of retinopathy and neuropathy are almost always present at diagnosis, unless a diagnosis is made early in the course of diabetes.12 Therefore, the presence of retinopathy suggests that diabetes is the likely cause of CKD.
Continue to: The presence of microvascular disease...
The presence of microvascular disease in patients with T2D and DKD is less predictable.12 In T2D patients who do not have retinopathy, consider causes of CKD other than DKD. Features suggesting that the cause of CKD is an underlying condition other than diabetes are rapidly increasing albuminuria or decreasing eGFR; urinary sediment comprising red blood cells or white blood cells; and nephrotic syndrome.6
As the prevalence of diabetes increases, it has become more common to diagnose DKD by eGFR without albuminuria—underscoring the importance of routine monitoring of eGFR in patients with diabetes.6
Sources of expert guidance. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation23 is preferred for calculating eGFR from serum creatinine: An eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 is considered abnormal.3,12 At these rates, the prevalence of complications related to CKD rises and screening for complications becomes necessary.
A more comprehensive classification of the stages of CKD, incorporating albuminuria and progression of CKD, has been recommended by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).7 Because eGFR and excretion of albumin vary, abnormal test results need to be verified over time to stage the degree of CKD.3,12 Kidney damage often manifests as albuminuria, but also as hematuria, other types of abnormal urinary sediment, radiographic abnormalities, and other abnormal presentations.
Management
Nutritional factors
Excessive protein intake has been shown to increase albuminuria, worsen renal function, and increase CVD mortality in DKD.24-26 Therefore, daily dietary protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight is recommended for patients who are not on dialysis.3 Patients on dialysis might require higher protein intake to preserve muscle mass caused by protein-energy wasting, which is common in dialysis patients.6
Continue to: Low sodium intake
Low sodium intake in CKD patients has been shown to decrease BP and thus slow the progression of renal disease and lower the risk of CVD. The recommended dietary sodium intake in CKD patients is 1500-3000 mg/d.3
Low potassium intake. Hyperkalemia is a serious complication of CKD. A low-potassium diet is recommended in ESRD patients who have a potassium level > 5.5 mEq/L.6
Blood pressure
Preventing and treating hypertension is critical to slowing the progression of CKD and reducing cardiovascular risk. BP should be measured at every clinic visit. Aside from lifestyle changes, medication might be needed to reach target BP.
The American Diabetes Association recommends a BP goal of ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for hypertensive patients with diabetes, although they do state that a lower BP target (≤ 130/80 mm Hg) might be more appropriate for patients with DKD.27
The American College of Cardiology recommends that hypertensive patients with CKD have a BP target of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg.28
Continue to: ACE inhibitors and ARBs
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have renoprotective benefits. These agents are recommended as first-line medications for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and a UACR > 300 mg/g.29-31 Evidence also supports their use when the UACR is 30 to 299 mg/g.
Studies have shown that, in patients with DKD, ACE inhibitors and ARBs can slow the progression of renal disease.29,30,32 There is no difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in their effectiveness for preventing progression of DKD.6 There is no added benefit in combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB33; notably, combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy can increase the risk of adverse events, such as hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury, especially in patients with DKD.33
There is no evidence for starting an ACE inhibitor or ARB to prevent CKD in patients with diabetes who are not hypertensive.5
ACE inhibitors and ARBs should be used with caution in women of childbearing age, who should use a reliable form of contraception if taking one of these drugs.
Diuretics. Thiazide-type and loop diuretics might potentiate the positive effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. KDOQI guidelines recommend that, in patients who require a second agent to control BP, a diuretic should be considered in combination with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.20 A loop diuretic is preferred if the eGFR is < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Continue to: Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers
Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), such as diltiazem and verapamil, have been shown to be more effective then dihydrophyridine CCBs, such as amlodipine and nifedipine, in slowing the progression of renal disease because of their antiproteinuric effects. However, the antiproteinuric effects of nondihydropyridine CCBs are not as strong as those of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and these drugs do not appear to potentiate the effects of an ACE inhibitor or ARB when used in combination.20
Nondihydropyridine CCBs might be a reasonable alternative in patients who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in combination with an ACE inhibitor or ARB have been demonstrated to reduce albuminuria in short-term studies.34,35
Glycemic levels
Studies conducted in patients with T1D, and others in patients with T2D, have shown that tight glycemic control can delay the onset and slow the progression of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.10,36-39 The target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) should be < 7% to prevent or slow progression of DKD.40 However, patients with DKD have an increased risk of hypoglycemic events and increased mortality with more intensive glycemic control.40,41 Given those findings, some patients with DKD and significant comorbidities, ESRD, or limited life expectancy might need to have an A1C target set at 8%.6,42
Adjustments to antidiabetes medications in DKD
In patients with stages 3 to 5 DKD, several common antidiabetic medications might need to be adjusted or discontinued because they decrease creatinine clearance.
Continue to: First-generation sulfonylureas
First-generation sulfonylureas should be avoided in DKD. Glipizide and gliclazide are preferred among second-generation sulfonylureas because they do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients, although patients taking these medications still require close monitoring of their blood glucose level.20
Metformin. In 2016, recommendations changed for the use of metformin in patients with DKD: The eGFR, not the serum creatinine level, should guide treatment.43 Metformin can be used safely in patients with (1) an eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and (2) an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 with close monitoring. Metformin should not be initiated if the eGFR is < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2.43
Antidiabetes medications with direct effect on the kidney
Several antidiabetes medications have a direct effect on the kidney apart from their effect on the blood glucose level.
Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce albuminuria and slow the decrease of eGFR independent of glycemic control. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have also been shown to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with DKD.44,45
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been shown to delay and decrease the progression of DKD.46-48 Also, similar to what is seen with SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists have demonstrable cardiovascular benefit in patients with DKD.46,48
Continue to: Dyslipidemia and DKD
Dyslipidemia and DKD
Because the risk of CVD is increased in patients with DKD, addressing other modifiable risk factors, including dyslipidemia, is recommended in these patients. Patients with diabetes and stages 1 to 4 DKD should be treated with a high-intensity statin or a combination of a statin and ezetimibe.49,50
If a patient is taking a statin and starting dialysis, it’s important to discuss with him or her whether to continue the statin, based on perceived benefits and risks. It is not recommended that statins be initiated in patients on dialysis unless there is a specific cardiovascular indication for doing so. Risk reduction with a statin has been shown to be significantly less in dialysis patients than in patients who are not being treated with dialysis.49
Complications of CKD
Anemia is a common complication of CKD. KDIGO recommends measuring the hemoglobin concentration annually in DKD stage 3 patients without anemia; at least every 6 months in stage 4 patients; and at least every 3 months in stage 5. DKD patients with anemia should have additional laboratory testing: the absolute reticulocyte count, serum ferritin, serum transferrin saturation, vitamin B12, and folate.51
Mineral and bone disorder should be screened for in patients with DKD. TABLE 252 outlines when clinical laboratory tests should be ordered to assess for mineral bone disease.
When to refer to a nephrologist
Refer patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (eGFR, ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2) to a nephrologist for discussion of kidney replacement therapy.6 Patients with stage 3a CKD and severely increased albuminuria or with stage 3b CKD and moderately or severely increased albuminuria should also be referred to a nephrologist for intervention to delay disease progression.
Continue to: Identifying the need for early referral...
Identifying the need for early referral to a nephrologist has been shown to reduce the cost, and improve the quality, of care.53 Other indications for earlier referral include uncertainty about the etiology of renal disease, persistent or severe albuminuria, persistent hematuria, a rapid decline in eGFR, and acute kidney injury. Additionally, referral at an earlier stage of DKD might be needed to assist with complications associated with DKD, such as anemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism, mineral and bone disorder, resistant hypertension, fluid overload, and electrolyte disturbances.6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Colleen Colbert, PhD, and Iqbal Ahmad, PhD, for their review and critique of the manuscript of this article. They also thank Christopher Babiuch, MD, for his guidance in the preparation of the manuscript.
CORRESPONDENCE
Faraz Ahmad, MD, MPH, Care Point East Family Medicine, 543 Taylor Avenue, 2nd floor, Columbus, OH 43203; faraz. ahmad@osumc.edu.
1. Radbill B, Murphy B, LeRoith D. Rationale and strategies for early detection and management of diabetic kidney disease. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:1373-1381.
2. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US Renal Data System 2017 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3 suppl 1):A7.
3. Tuttle KR, Bakris GL, Bilous RW, et al. Diabetic kidney disease: a report from an ADA Consensus Conference. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64:510-533.
4. Fox CS, Matsushita K, Woodward M, et al; . Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without diabetes: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;380:1662-1673.
5. Orchard TJ, Dorman JS, Maser RE, et al. Prevalence of complications in IDDM by sex and duration. Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study II. Diabetes. 1990;39:1116-1124.
6. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(suppl 1):S1-S159. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1
7. National Kidney Foundation. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;3:1-150. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://kdigo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/KDIGO_2012_CKD_GL.pdf
8. Afkarian M, Zelnick LR, Hall YN, et al. Clinical manifestations of kidney disease among US adults with diabetes, 1988-2014. JAMA. 2016;316:602-610.
9. de Boer IH, Rue TC, Hall YN, et al. Temporal trends in the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA. 2011;305:2532-2539.
10. de Boer IH; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. Kidney disease and related findings in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:24-30.
11. Stanton RC. Clinical challenges in diagnosis and management of diabetic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63(2 suppl 2):S3-S21.
12. Mottl AK, Tuttle KR. Diabetic kidney disease: Pathogenesis and epidemiology. UpToDate. Updated August 19, 2019. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.uptodate.com/contents/diabetic-kidney-disease-pathogenesis-and-epidemiology
13. Bakris GL. Moderately increased albuminuria (microalbuminuria) in type 2 diabetes mellitus. UpToDate. Updated November 3, 2020. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/moderately-increased-albuminuria-microalbuminuria-in-type-2-diabetes-mellitus
14. Bandak G, Sang Y, Gasparini A, et al. Hyperkalemia after initiating renin-angiotensin system blockade: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) Project. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e005428.
15. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US Renal Data System 2016 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(3 suppl 1):A7-A8.
16. Nilsson E, Gasparini A, Ärnlöv J, et al. Incidence and determinants of hyperkalemia and hypokalemia in a large healthcare system. Int J Cardiol. 2017;245:277-284.
17. de Boer IH, Gao X, Cleary PA, et al; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Research Group. Albuminuria changes and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 1 diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11:1969-1977.
18. Sumida K, Molnar MZ, Potukuchi PK, et al. Changes in albuminuria and subsequent risk of incident kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12:1941-1949.
19. Borch-Johnsen K, Wenzel H, Viberti GC, et al. Is screening and intervention for microalbuminuria worthwhile in patient with insulin dependent diabetes? BMJ. 1993;306:1722-1725.
20. KDOQI. KDOQI clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49(2 suppl 2):S12-154.
21. Bakris GL. Moderately increased albuminuria (microalbuminuria) in type 1 diabetes mellitus. UpToDate. Updated December 3, 2019. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/moderately-increased-albuminuria-microalbuminuria-in-type-1-diabetes-mellitus
22. Delanaye P, Glassock RJ, Pottel H, et al. An age-calibrated definition of chronic kidney disease: rationale and benefits. Clin Biochem Rev. 2016;37:17-26.
23. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al; , A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:604-612.
24. Wrone EM, Carnethon MR, Palaniappan L, et al; . Association of dietary protein intake and microalbuminuria in healthy adults: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41:580-587.
25. Knight EL, Stampfer MJ, Hankinson SE, et al. The impact of protein intake on renal function decline in women with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:460-467.
26. Bernstein AM, Sun Q, Hu FB, et al. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation. 2010;122:876-883.
27. de Boer, IH, Bangalore S, Benetos A, et al. Diabetes and hypertension: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:1273-1284.
28. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:e127-e248.
29. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al; Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861-869.
30. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, et al. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. The Collaborative Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1456-1462.
31. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet. 2000;355;253-259.
32. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al; . Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:851-860.
33. Fried LF, Emanuele N, Zhang JH, et al; . Combined angiotensin inhibition for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1892-1903.
34. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Chan JC, et al; . Effect of finerenone on albuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:884-894.
35. Filippatos G, Anker SD, M, et al. Randomized controlled study of finerenone vs. eplerenone in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and diabetes mellitus and/or chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2105-2114.
36. The ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2560-2572.
37. Ismail-Beigi F, Craven T, Banerji MA, et al; . Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:419-430.
38. Zoungas S, Chalmers J, Neal B, et al; . Follow-up of blood-pressure lowering and glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1392-1406.
39. Zoungas S, Arima H, Gerstein HC, et al; . Effects of intensive glucose control on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:431-437.
40. Miller ME, Bonds DE, Gerstein HC, et al; . The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010;340;b5444.
41. Papademetriou V, Lovato L, Doumas M, et al; . Chronic kidney disease and intensive glycemic control increase cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Kidney Int. 2015;87:649-659.
42. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for diabetes and CKD: 2012 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:850-886.
43. Imam TH. Changes in metformin use in chronic kidney disease. Clin Kidney J. 2017;10:301-304.
44. Wanner C, Inzucchi SE, Lachin JM, et al; Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:323-334.
45. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al; . Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644-657.
46. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al; . Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:311-322.
47. Mann JFE, DD, Brown-Frandsen K, et al; . Liraglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:839-848.
48. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al; . Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1834-1844.
49. Wanner C, Tonelli M; Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Lipid Guideline Development Work Group Members. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for lipid management in CKD: summary of recommendation statements and clinical approach to the patient. Kidney Int. 2014;85:1303-1309.
50. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019;139:e1082-e1143.
51. National Kidney Foundation KDOQI. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for anemia in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:279-335. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.sciencedirect.com/journal/kidney-international-supplements/vol/2/issue/4
52. National Kidney Foundation KDOQI. Evaluation and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). 2010. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.kidney.org/sites/default/files/02-10-390B_LBA_KDOQI_BoneGuide.pdf
53. Smart MA, Dieberg G, Ladhani M, et al. Early referral to specialist nephrology services for preventing the progression to end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD007333.
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant comorbidity of diabetes mellitus. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) of the National Kidney Foundation defines CKD as the presence of kidney damage or decreased kidney function for ≥ 3 months. CKD caused by diabetes is called diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which is 1 of 3 principal microvascular complications of diabetes. DKD can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring kidney replacement therapy, and is the leading cause of CKD and ESRD in the United States.1-3 Studies have also shown that, particularly in patients with diabetes, CKD considerably increases the risk of cardiovascular events, which often occur prior to ESRD.1,4
This article provides the latest recommendations for evaluating and managing DKD to help you prevent or slow its progression.
Defining and categorizing diabetic kidney disease
CKD is defined as persistently elevated excretion of urinary albumin (albuminuria) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or as the presence of signs of progressive kidney damage.5,6 DKD, also known as diabetic nephropathy, is CKD attributed to long-term diabetes. A patient’s eGFR is the established basis for assignment to a stage (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, or 5) of CKD (TABLE 17) and, along with the category of albuminuria (A1, A2, or A3), can indicate prognosis.
Taking its toll in diabetes
As many as 40% of patients with diabetes develop DKD.8-10 Most studies of DKD have been conducted in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), because the time of clinical onset is typically known.
Type 1 diabetes. DKD usually occurs 10 to 15 years, or later, after the onset of diabetes.6 As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.5,11 After approximately 22.5 years without albuminuria, patients with T1D have approximately a 1% annual risk of DKD.12
Type 2 diabetes (T2D). DKD is often present at diagnosis, likely due to a delay in diagnosis and briefer clinical exposure, compared to T1D. Albuminuria has been reported in as many as 40% of patients with T2D approximately 10 years after onset of diabetes.12,13
Multiple risk factors with no standout “predictor”
Genetic susceptibility, ethnicity, glycemic control, smoking, blood pressure (BP), and the eGFR have been identified as risk factors for renal involvement in diabetes; obesity, oral contraceptives, and age can also contribute. Although each risk factor increases the risk of DKD, no single factor is adequately predictive. Moderately increased albuminuria, the earliest sign of DKD, is associated with progressive nephropathy.12
Continue to: How great is the risk?
How great is the risk? From disease onset to proteinuria and from proteinuria to ESRD, the risk of DKD in T1D and T2D is similar. With appropriate treatment, albuminuria can regress, and the risk of ESRD can be < 20% at 10 years in T1D.12 As in T1D, good glycemic control might result in regression of albuminuria in T2D.14
For unknown reasons, the degree of albuminuria can exist independent of the progression of DKD. Factors responsible for a progressive decline in eGFR in DKD without albuminuria are unknown.12,15
Patient evaluation with an eye toward comorbidities
A comprehensive initial medical evaluation for DKD includes a review of microvascular complications; visits to specialists; lifestyle and behavior patterns (eg, diet, sleep, substance use, and social support); and medication adherence, adverse drug effects, and alternative medicines. Although DKD is often a clinical diagnosis, it can be ruled in by persistent albuminuria or decreased eGFR, or both, in established diabetes or diabetic retinopathy when other causes are unlikely (see “Recommended DKD screening protocol,” below).
Screening for mental health conditions and barriers to self-management is also key.6
Comorbidities, of course, can complicate disease management in patients with diabetes.16-20 Providers and patients therefore need to be aware of potential diabetic comorbidities. For example, DKD and even moderately increased albuminuria significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).12 Other possible comorbidities include (but are not limited to) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fracture, hearing impairment, cancer (eg, liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon, rectum, breast, and bladder), pancreatitis, hypogonadism, obstructive sleep apnea, periodontal disease, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.6
Continue to: Recommended DKD screening protocol
Recommended DKD screening protocol
In all cases of T2D, in cases of T1D of ≥ 5 years’ duration, and in patients with diabetes and comorbid hypertension, perform annual screening for albuminuria, an elevated creatinine level, and a decline in eGFR.
To confirm the diagnosis of DKD, at least 2 of 3 urine specimens must demonstrate an elevated urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) over a 3- to 6-month period.21 Apart from renal damage, exercise within 24 hours before specimen collection, infection, fever, congestive heart failure, hyperglycemia, menstruation, and hypertension can elevate the UACR.6
Levels of the UACR are established as follows22:
- Normal UACR is defined as < 30 milligrams of albumin per gram of creatinine (expressed as “mg/g”).
- Increased urinary albumin excretion is defined as ≥ 30 mg/g.
- Moderately increased albuminuria, a predictor of potential nephropathy, is the excretion of 30 to 300 mg/g.
- Severely increased albuminuria is excretion > 300 mg/g; it is often followed by a gradual decline in eGFR that, without treatment, eventually leads to ESRD.
The rate of decline in eGFR once albuminuria is severely increased is equivalent in T1D and T2D.12 Without intervention, the time from severely increased albuminuria to ESRD in T1D and T2D averages approximately 6 or 7 years.
Clinical features
DKD is typically a clinical diagnosis seen in patients with longstanding diabetes, albuminuria, retinopathy, or a reduced eGFR in the absence of another primary cause of kidney damage. In patients with T1D and DKD, signs of retinopathy and neuropathy are almost always present at diagnosis, unless a diagnosis is made early in the course of diabetes.12 Therefore, the presence of retinopathy suggests that diabetes is the likely cause of CKD.
Continue to: The presence of microvascular disease...
The presence of microvascular disease in patients with T2D and DKD is less predictable.12 In T2D patients who do not have retinopathy, consider causes of CKD other than DKD. Features suggesting that the cause of CKD is an underlying condition other than diabetes are rapidly increasing albuminuria or decreasing eGFR; urinary sediment comprising red blood cells or white blood cells; and nephrotic syndrome.6
As the prevalence of diabetes increases, it has become more common to diagnose DKD by eGFR without albuminuria—underscoring the importance of routine monitoring of eGFR in patients with diabetes.6
Sources of expert guidance. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation23 is preferred for calculating eGFR from serum creatinine: An eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 is considered abnormal.3,12 At these rates, the prevalence of complications related to CKD rises and screening for complications becomes necessary.
A more comprehensive classification of the stages of CKD, incorporating albuminuria and progression of CKD, has been recommended by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).7 Because eGFR and excretion of albumin vary, abnormal test results need to be verified over time to stage the degree of CKD.3,12 Kidney damage often manifests as albuminuria, but also as hematuria, other types of abnormal urinary sediment, radiographic abnormalities, and other abnormal presentations.
Management
Nutritional factors
Excessive protein intake has been shown to increase albuminuria, worsen renal function, and increase CVD mortality in DKD.24-26 Therefore, daily dietary protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight is recommended for patients who are not on dialysis.3 Patients on dialysis might require higher protein intake to preserve muscle mass caused by protein-energy wasting, which is common in dialysis patients.6
Continue to: Low sodium intake
Low sodium intake in CKD patients has been shown to decrease BP and thus slow the progression of renal disease and lower the risk of CVD. The recommended dietary sodium intake in CKD patients is 1500-3000 mg/d.3
Low potassium intake. Hyperkalemia is a serious complication of CKD. A low-potassium diet is recommended in ESRD patients who have a potassium level > 5.5 mEq/L.6
Blood pressure
Preventing and treating hypertension is critical to slowing the progression of CKD and reducing cardiovascular risk. BP should be measured at every clinic visit. Aside from lifestyle changes, medication might be needed to reach target BP.
The American Diabetes Association recommends a BP goal of ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for hypertensive patients with diabetes, although they do state that a lower BP target (≤ 130/80 mm Hg) might be more appropriate for patients with DKD.27
The American College of Cardiology recommends that hypertensive patients with CKD have a BP target of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg.28
Continue to: ACE inhibitors and ARBs
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have renoprotective benefits. These agents are recommended as first-line medications for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and a UACR > 300 mg/g.29-31 Evidence also supports their use when the UACR is 30 to 299 mg/g.
Studies have shown that, in patients with DKD, ACE inhibitors and ARBs can slow the progression of renal disease.29,30,32 There is no difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in their effectiveness for preventing progression of DKD.6 There is no added benefit in combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB33; notably, combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy can increase the risk of adverse events, such as hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury, especially in patients with DKD.33
There is no evidence for starting an ACE inhibitor or ARB to prevent CKD in patients with diabetes who are not hypertensive.5
ACE inhibitors and ARBs should be used with caution in women of childbearing age, who should use a reliable form of contraception if taking one of these drugs.
Diuretics. Thiazide-type and loop diuretics might potentiate the positive effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. KDOQI guidelines recommend that, in patients who require a second agent to control BP, a diuretic should be considered in combination with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.20 A loop diuretic is preferred if the eGFR is < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Continue to: Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers
Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), such as diltiazem and verapamil, have been shown to be more effective then dihydrophyridine CCBs, such as amlodipine and nifedipine, in slowing the progression of renal disease because of their antiproteinuric effects. However, the antiproteinuric effects of nondihydropyridine CCBs are not as strong as those of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and these drugs do not appear to potentiate the effects of an ACE inhibitor or ARB when used in combination.20
Nondihydropyridine CCBs might be a reasonable alternative in patients who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in combination with an ACE inhibitor or ARB have been demonstrated to reduce albuminuria in short-term studies.34,35
Glycemic levels
Studies conducted in patients with T1D, and others in patients with T2D, have shown that tight glycemic control can delay the onset and slow the progression of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.10,36-39 The target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) should be < 7% to prevent or slow progression of DKD.40 However, patients with DKD have an increased risk of hypoglycemic events and increased mortality with more intensive glycemic control.40,41 Given those findings, some patients with DKD and significant comorbidities, ESRD, or limited life expectancy might need to have an A1C target set at 8%.6,42
Adjustments to antidiabetes medications in DKD
In patients with stages 3 to 5 DKD, several common antidiabetic medications might need to be adjusted or discontinued because they decrease creatinine clearance.
Continue to: First-generation sulfonylureas
First-generation sulfonylureas should be avoided in DKD. Glipizide and gliclazide are preferred among second-generation sulfonylureas because they do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients, although patients taking these medications still require close monitoring of their blood glucose level.20
Metformin. In 2016, recommendations changed for the use of metformin in patients with DKD: The eGFR, not the serum creatinine level, should guide treatment.43 Metformin can be used safely in patients with (1) an eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and (2) an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 with close monitoring. Metformin should not be initiated if the eGFR is < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2.43
Antidiabetes medications with direct effect on the kidney
Several antidiabetes medications have a direct effect on the kidney apart from their effect on the blood glucose level.
Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce albuminuria and slow the decrease of eGFR independent of glycemic control. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have also been shown to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with DKD.44,45
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been shown to delay and decrease the progression of DKD.46-48 Also, similar to what is seen with SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists have demonstrable cardiovascular benefit in patients with DKD.46,48
Continue to: Dyslipidemia and DKD
Dyslipidemia and DKD
Because the risk of CVD is increased in patients with DKD, addressing other modifiable risk factors, including dyslipidemia, is recommended in these patients. Patients with diabetes and stages 1 to 4 DKD should be treated with a high-intensity statin or a combination of a statin and ezetimibe.49,50
If a patient is taking a statin and starting dialysis, it’s important to discuss with him or her whether to continue the statin, based on perceived benefits and risks. It is not recommended that statins be initiated in patients on dialysis unless there is a specific cardiovascular indication for doing so. Risk reduction with a statin has been shown to be significantly less in dialysis patients than in patients who are not being treated with dialysis.49
Complications of CKD
Anemia is a common complication of CKD. KDIGO recommends measuring the hemoglobin concentration annually in DKD stage 3 patients without anemia; at least every 6 months in stage 4 patients; and at least every 3 months in stage 5. DKD patients with anemia should have additional laboratory testing: the absolute reticulocyte count, serum ferritin, serum transferrin saturation, vitamin B12, and folate.51
Mineral and bone disorder should be screened for in patients with DKD. TABLE 252 outlines when clinical laboratory tests should be ordered to assess for mineral bone disease.
When to refer to a nephrologist
Refer patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (eGFR, ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2) to a nephrologist for discussion of kidney replacement therapy.6 Patients with stage 3a CKD and severely increased albuminuria or with stage 3b CKD and moderately or severely increased albuminuria should also be referred to a nephrologist for intervention to delay disease progression.
Continue to: Identifying the need for early referral...
Identifying the need for early referral to a nephrologist has been shown to reduce the cost, and improve the quality, of care.53 Other indications for earlier referral include uncertainty about the etiology of renal disease, persistent or severe albuminuria, persistent hematuria, a rapid decline in eGFR, and acute kidney injury. Additionally, referral at an earlier stage of DKD might be needed to assist with complications associated with DKD, such as anemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism, mineral and bone disorder, resistant hypertension, fluid overload, and electrolyte disturbances.6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Colleen Colbert, PhD, and Iqbal Ahmad, PhD, for their review and critique of the manuscript of this article. They also thank Christopher Babiuch, MD, for his guidance in the preparation of the manuscript.
CORRESPONDENCE
Faraz Ahmad, MD, MPH, Care Point East Family Medicine, 543 Taylor Avenue, 2nd floor, Columbus, OH 43203; faraz. ahmad@osumc.edu.
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant comorbidity of diabetes mellitus. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) of the National Kidney Foundation defines CKD as the presence of kidney damage or decreased kidney function for ≥ 3 months. CKD caused by diabetes is called diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which is 1 of 3 principal microvascular complications of diabetes. DKD can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring kidney replacement therapy, and is the leading cause of CKD and ESRD in the United States.1-3 Studies have also shown that, particularly in patients with diabetes, CKD considerably increases the risk of cardiovascular events, which often occur prior to ESRD.1,4
This article provides the latest recommendations for evaluating and managing DKD to help you prevent or slow its progression.
Defining and categorizing diabetic kidney disease
CKD is defined as persistently elevated excretion of urinary albumin (albuminuria) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or as the presence of signs of progressive kidney damage.5,6 DKD, also known as diabetic nephropathy, is CKD attributed to long-term diabetes. A patient’s eGFR is the established basis for assignment to a stage (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, or 5) of CKD (TABLE 17) and, along with the category of albuminuria (A1, A2, or A3), can indicate prognosis.
Taking its toll in diabetes
As many as 40% of patients with diabetes develop DKD.8-10 Most studies of DKD have been conducted in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), because the time of clinical onset is typically known.
Type 1 diabetes. DKD usually occurs 10 to 15 years, or later, after the onset of diabetes.6 As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.5,11 After approximately 22.5 years without albuminuria, patients with T1D have approximately a 1% annual risk of DKD.12
Type 2 diabetes (T2D). DKD is often present at diagnosis, likely due to a delay in diagnosis and briefer clinical exposure, compared to T1D. Albuminuria has been reported in as many as 40% of patients with T2D approximately 10 years after onset of diabetes.12,13
Multiple risk factors with no standout “predictor”
Genetic susceptibility, ethnicity, glycemic control, smoking, blood pressure (BP), and the eGFR have been identified as risk factors for renal involvement in diabetes; obesity, oral contraceptives, and age can also contribute. Although each risk factor increases the risk of DKD, no single factor is adequately predictive. Moderately increased albuminuria, the earliest sign of DKD, is associated with progressive nephropathy.12
Continue to: How great is the risk?
How great is the risk? From disease onset to proteinuria and from proteinuria to ESRD, the risk of DKD in T1D and T2D is similar. With appropriate treatment, albuminuria can regress, and the risk of ESRD can be < 20% at 10 years in T1D.12 As in T1D, good glycemic control might result in regression of albuminuria in T2D.14
For unknown reasons, the degree of albuminuria can exist independent of the progression of DKD. Factors responsible for a progressive decline in eGFR in DKD without albuminuria are unknown.12,15
Patient evaluation with an eye toward comorbidities
A comprehensive initial medical evaluation for DKD includes a review of microvascular complications; visits to specialists; lifestyle and behavior patterns (eg, diet, sleep, substance use, and social support); and medication adherence, adverse drug effects, and alternative medicines. Although DKD is often a clinical diagnosis, it can be ruled in by persistent albuminuria or decreased eGFR, or both, in established diabetes or diabetic retinopathy when other causes are unlikely (see “Recommended DKD screening protocol,” below).
Screening for mental health conditions and barriers to self-management is also key.6
Comorbidities, of course, can complicate disease management in patients with diabetes.16-20 Providers and patients therefore need to be aware of potential diabetic comorbidities. For example, DKD and even moderately increased albuminuria significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).12 Other possible comorbidities include (but are not limited to) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fracture, hearing impairment, cancer (eg, liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon, rectum, breast, and bladder), pancreatitis, hypogonadism, obstructive sleep apnea, periodontal disease, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.6
Continue to: Recommended DKD screening protocol
Recommended DKD screening protocol
In all cases of T2D, in cases of T1D of ≥ 5 years’ duration, and in patients with diabetes and comorbid hypertension, perform annual screening for albuminuria, an elevated creatinine level, and a decline in eGFR.
To confirm the diagnosis of DKD, at least 2 of 3 urine specimens must demonstrate an elevated urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) over a 3- to 6-month period.21 Apart from renal damage, exercise within 24 hours before specimen collection, infection, fever, congestive heart failure, hyperglycemia, menstruation, and hypertension can elevate the UACR.6
Levels of the UACR are established as follows22:
- Normal UACR is defined as < 30 milligrams of albumin per gram of creatinine (expressed as “mg/g”).
- Increased urinary albumin excretion is defined as ≥ 30 mg/g.
- Moderately increased albuminuria, a predictor of potential nephropathy, is the excretion of 30 to 300 mg/g.
- Severely increased albuminuria is excretion > 300 mg/g; it is often followed by a gradual decline in eGFR that, without treatment, eventually leads to ESRD.
The rate of decline in eGFR once albuminuria is severely increased is equivalent in T1D and T2D.12 Without intervention, the time from severely increased albuminuria to ESRD in T1D and T2D averages approximately 6 or 7 years.
Clinical features
DKD is typically a clinical diagnosis seen in patients with longstanding diabetes, albuminuria, retinopathy, or a reduced eGFR in the absence of another primary cause of kidney damage. In patients with T1D and DKD, signs of retinopathy and neuropathy are almost always present at diagnosis, unless a diagnosis is made early in the course of diabetes.12 Therefore, the presence of retinopathy suggests that diabetes is the likely cause of CKD.
Continue to: The presence of microvascular disease...
The presence of microvascular disease in patients with T2D and DKD is less predictable.12 In T2D patients who do not have retinopathy, consider causes of CKD other than DKD. Features suggesting that the cause of CKD is an underlying condition other than diabetes are rapidly increasing albuminuria or decreasing eGFR; urinary sediment comprising red blood cells or white blood cells; and nephrotic syndrome.6
As the prevalence of diabetes increases, it has become more common to diagnose DKD by eGFR without albuminuria—underscoring the importance of routine monitoring of eGFR in patients with diabetes.6
Sources of expert guidance. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation23 is preferred for calculating eGFR from serum creatinine: An eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 is considered abnormal.3,12 At these rates, the prevalence of complications related to CKD rises and screening for complications becomes necessary.
A more comprehensive classification of the stages of CKD, incorporating albuminuria and progression of CKD, has been recommended by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).7 Because eGFR and excretion of albumin vary, abnormal test results need to be verified over time to stage the degree of CKD.3,12 Kidney damage often manifests as albuminuria, but also as hematuria, other types of abnormal urinary sediment, radiographic abnormalities, and other abnormal presentations.
Management
Nutritional factors
Excessive protein intake has been shown to increase albuminuria, worsen renal function, and increase CVD mortality in DKD.24-26 Therefore, daily dietary protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight is recommended for patients who are not on dialysis.3 Patients on dialysis might require higher protein intake to preserve muscle mass caused by protein-energy wasting, which is common in dialysis patients.6
Continue to: Low sodium intake
Low sodium intake in CKD patients has been shown to decrease BP and thus slow the progression of renal disease and lower the risk of CVD. The recommended dietary sodium intake in CKD patients is 1500-3000 mg/d.3
Low potassium intake. Hyperkalemia is a serious complication of CKD. A low-potassium diet is recommended in ESRD patients who have a potassium level > 5.5 mEq/L.6
Blood pressure
Preventing and treating hypertension is critical to slowing the progression of CKD and reducing cardiovascular risk. BP should be measured at every clinic visit. Aside from lifestyle changes, medication might be needed to reach target BP.
The American Diabetes Association recommends a BP goal of ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for hypertensive patients with diabetes, although they do state that a lower BP target (≤ 130/80 mm Hg) might be more appropriate for patients with DKD.27
The American College of Cardiology recommends that hypertensive patients with CKD have a BP target of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg.28
Continue to: ACE inhibitors and ARBs
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have renoprotective benefits. These agents are recommended as first-line medications for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and a UACR > 300 mg/g.29-31 Evidence also supports their use when the UACR is 30 to 299 mg/g.
Studies have shown that, in patients with DKD, ACE inhibitors and ARBs can slow the progression of renal disease.29,30,32 There is no difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in their effectiveness for preventing progression of DKD.6 There is no added benefit in combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB33; notably, combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy can increase the risk of adverse events, such as hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury, especially in patients with DKD.33
There is no evidence for starting an ACE inhibitor or ARB to prevent CKD in patients with diabetes who are not hypertensive.5
ACE inhibitors and ARBs should be used with caution in women of childbearing age, who should use a reliable form of contraception if taking one of these drugs.
Diuretics. Thiazide-type and loop diuretics might potentiate the positive effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. KDOQI guidelines recommend that, in patients who require a second agent to control BP, a diuretic should be considered in combination with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.20 A loop diuretic is preferred if the eGFR is < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Continue to: Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers
Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), such as diltiazem and verapamil, have been shown to be more effective then dihydrophyridine CCBs, such as amlodipine and nifedipine, in slowing the progression of renal disease because of their antiproteinuric effects. However, the antiproteinuric effects of nondihydropyridine CCBs are not as strong as those of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and these drugs do not appear to potentiate the effects of an ACE inhibitor or ARB when used in combination.20
Nondihydropyridine CCBs might be a reasonable alternative in patients who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in combination with an ACE inhibitor or ARB have been demonstrated to reduce albuminuria in short-term studies.34,35
Glycemic levels
Studies conducted in patients with T1D, and others in patients with T2D, have shown that tight glycemic control can delay the onset and slow the progression of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.10,36-39 The target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) should be < 7% to prevent or slow progression of DKD.40 However, patients with DKD have an increased risk of hypoglycemic events and increased mortality with more intensive glycemic control.40,41 Given those findings, some patients with DKD and significant comorbidities, ESRD, or limited life expectancy might need to have an A1C target set at 8%.6,42
Adjustments to antidiabetes medications in DKD
In patients with stages 3 to 5 DKD, several common antidiabetic medications might need to be adjusted or discontinued because they decrease creatinine clearance.
Continue to: First-generation sulfonylureas
First-generation sulfonylureas should be avoided in DKD. Glipizide and gliclazide are preferred among second-generation sulfonylureas because they do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients, although patients taking these medications still require close monitoring of their blood glucose level.20
Metformin. In 2016, recommendations changed for the use of metformin in patients with DKD: The eGFR, not the serum creatinine level, should guide treatment.43 Metformin can be used safely in patients with (1) an eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and (2) an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 with close monitoring. Metformin should not be initiated if the eGFR is < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2.43
Antidiabetes medications with direct effect on the kidney
Several antidiabetes medications have a direct effect on the kidney apart from their effect on the blood glucose level.
Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce albuminuria and slow the decrease of eGFR independent of glycemic control. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have also been shown to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with DKD.44,45
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been shown to delay and decrease the progression of DKD.46-48 Also, similar to what is seen with SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists have demonstrable cardiovascular benefit in patients with DKD.46,48
Continue to: Dyslipidemia and DKD
Dyslipidemia and DKD
Because the risk of CVD is increased in patients with DKD, addressing other modifiable risk factors, including dyslipidemia, is recommended in these patients. Patients with diabetes and stages 1 to 4 DKD should be treated with a high-intensity statin or a combination of a statin and ezetimibe.49,50
If a patient is taking a statin and starting dialysis, it’s important to discuss with him or her whether to continue the statin, based on perceived benefits and risks. It is not recommended that statins be initiated in patients on dialysis unless there is a specific cardiovascular indication for doing so. Risk reduction with a statin has been shown to be significantly less in dialysis patients than in patients who are not being treated with dialysis.49
Complications of CKD
Anemia is a common complication of CKD. KDIGO recommends measuring the hemoglobin concentration annually in DKD stage 3 patients without anemia; at least every 6 months in stage 4 patients; and at least every 3 months in stage 5. DKD patients with anemia should have additional laboratory testing: the absolute reticulocyte count, serum ferritin, serum transferrin saturation, vitamin B12, and folate.51
Mineral and bone disorder should be screened for in patients with DKD. TABLE 252 outlines when clinical laboratory tests should be ordered to assess for mineral bone disease.
When to refer to a nephrologist
Refer patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (eGFR, ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2) to a nephrologist for discussion of kidney replacement therapy.6 Patients with stage 3a CKD and severely increased albuminuria or with stage 3b CKD and moderately or severely increased albuminuria should also be referred to a nephrologist for intervention to delay disease progression.
Continue to: Identifying the need for early referral...
Identifying the need for early referral to a nephrologist has been shown to reduce the cost, and improve the quality, of care.53 Other indications for earlier referral include uncertainty about the etiology of renal disease, persistent or severe albuminuria, persistent hematuria, a rapid decline in eGFR, and acute kidney injury. Additionally, referral at an earlier stage of DKD might be needed to assist with complications associated with DKD, such as anemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism, mineral and bone disorder, resistant hypertension, fluid overload, and electrolyte disturbances.6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Colleen Colbert, PhD, and Iqbal Ahmad, PhD, for their review and critique of the manuscript of this article. They also thank Christopher Babiuch, MD, for his guidance in the preparation of the manuscript.
CORRESPONDENCE
Faraz Ahmad, MD, MPH, Care Point East Family Medicine, 543 Taylor Avenue, 2nd floor, Columbus, OH 43203; faraz. ahmad@osumc.edu.
1. Radbill B, Murphy B, LeRoith D. Rationale and strategies for early detection and management of diabetic kidney disease. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:1373-1381.
2. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US Renal Data System 2017 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3 suppl 1):A7.
3. Tuttle KR, Bakris GL, Bilous RW, et al. Diabetic kidney disease: a report from an ADA Consensus Conference. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64:510-533.
4. Fox CS, Matsushita K, Woodward M, et al; . Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without diabetes: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;380:1662-1673.
5. Orchard TJ, Dorman JS, Maser RE, et al. Prevalence of complications in IDDM by sex and duration. Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study II. Diabetes. 1990;39:1116-1124.
6. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(suppl 1):S1-S159. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1
7. National Kidney Foundation. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;3:1-150. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://kdigo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/KDIGO_2012_CKD_GL.pdf
8. Afkarian M, Zelnick LR, Hall YN, et al. Clinical manifestations of kidney disease among US adults with diabetes, 1988-2014. JAMA. 2016;316:602-610.
9. de Boer IH, Rue TC, Hall YN, et al. Temporal trends in the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA. 2011;305:2532-2539.
10. de Boer IH; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. Kidney disease and related findings in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:24-30.
11. Stanton RC. Clinical challenges in diagnosis and management of diabetic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63(2 suppl 2):S3-S21.
12. Mottl AK, Tuttle KR. Diabetic kidney disease: Pathogenesis and epidemiology. UpToDate. Updated August 19, 2019. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.uptodate.com/contents/diabetic-kidney-disease-pathogenesis-and-epidemiology
13. Bakris GL. Moderately increased albuminuria (microalbuminuria) in type 2 diabetes mellitus. UpToDate. Updated November 3, 2020. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/moderately-increased-albuminuria-microalbuminuria-in-type-2-diabetes-mellitus
14. Bandak G, Sang Y, Gasparini A, et al. Hyperkalemia after initiating renin-angiotensin system blockade: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) Project. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e005428.
15. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US Renal Data System 2016 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(3 suppl 1):A7-A8.
16. Nilsson E, Gasparini A, Ärnlöv J, et al. Incidence and determinants of hyperkalemia and hypokalemia in a large healthcare system. Int J Cardiol. 2017;245:277-284.
17. de Boer IH, Gao X, Cleary PA, et al; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Research Group. Albuminuria changes and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 1 diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11:1969-1977.
18. Sumida K, Molnar MZ, Potukuchi PK, et al. Changes in albuminuria and subsequent risk of incident kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12:1941-1949.
19. Borch-Johnsen K, Wenzel H, Viberti GC, et al. Is screening and intervention for microalbuminuria worthwhile in patient with insulin dependent diabetes? BMJ. 1993;306:1722-1725.
20. KDOQI. KDOQI clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49(2 suppl 2):S12-154.
21. Bakris GL. Moderately increased albuminuria (microalbuminuria) in type 1 diabetes mellitus. UpToDate. Updated December 3, 2019. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/moderately-increased-albuminuria-microalbuminuria-in-type-1-diabetes-mellitus
22. Delanaye P, Glassock RJ, Pottel H, et al. An age-calibrated definition of chronic kidney disease: rationale and benefits. Clin Biochem Rev. 2016;37:17-26.
23. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al; , A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:604-612.
24. Wrone EM, Carnethon MR, Palaniappan L, et al; . Association of dietary protein intake and microalbuminuria in healthy adults: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41:580-587.
25. Knight EL, Stampfer MJ, Hankinson SE, et al. The impact of protein intake on renal function decline in women with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:460-467.
26. Bernstein AM, Sun Q, Hu FB, et al. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation. 2010;122:876-883.
27. de Boer, IH, Bangalore S, Benetos A, et al. Diabetes and hypertension: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:1273-1284.
28. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:e127-e248.
29. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al; Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861-869.
30. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, et al. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. The Collaborative Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1456-1462.
31. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet. 2000;355;253-259.
32. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al; . Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:851-860.
33. Fried LF, Emanuele N, Zhang JH, et al; . Combined angiotensin inhibition for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1892-1903.
34. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Chan JC, et al; . Effect of finerenone on albuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:884-894.
35. Filippatos G, Anker SD, M, et al. Randomized controlled study of finerenone vs. eplerenone in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and diabetes mellitus and/or chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2105-2114.
36. The ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2560-2572.
37. Ismail-Beigi F, Craven T, Banerji MA, et al; . Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:419-430.
38. Zoungas S, Chalmers J, Neal B, et al; . Follow-up of blood-pressure lowering and glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1392-1406.
39. Zoungas S, Arima H, Gerstein HC, et al; . Effects of intensive glucose control on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:431-437.
40. Miller ME, Bonds DE, Gerstein HC, et al; . The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010;340;b5444.
41. Papademetriou V, Lovato L, Doumas M, et al; . Chronic kidney disease and intensive glycemic control increase cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Kidney Int. 2015;87:649-659.
42. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for diabetes and CKD: 2012 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:850-886.
43. Imam TH. Changes in metformin use in chronic kidney disease. Clin Kidney J. 2017;10:301-304.
44. Wanner C, Inzucchi SE, Lachin JM, et al; Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:323-334.
45. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al; . Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644-657.
46. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al; . Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:311-322.
47. Mann JFE, DD, Brown-Frandsen K, et al; . Liraglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:839-848.
48. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al; . Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1834-1844.
49. Wanner C, Tonelli M; Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Lipid Guideline Development Work Group Members. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for lipid management in CKD: summary of recommendation statements and clinical approach to the patient. Kidney Int. 2014;85:1303-1309.
50. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019;139:e1082-e1143.
51. National Kidney Foundation KDOQI. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for anemia in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:279-335. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.sciencedirect.com/journal/kidney-international-supplements/vol/2/issue/4
52. National Kidney Foundation KDOQI. Evaluation and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). 2010. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.kidney.org/sites/default/files/02-10-390B_LBA_KDOQI_BoneGuide.pdf
53. Smart MA, Dieberg G, Ladhani M, et al. Early referral to specialist nephrology services for preventing the progression to end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD007333.
1. Radbill B, Murphy B, LeRoith D. Rationale and strategies for early detection and management of diabetic kidney disease. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:1373-1381.
2. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US Renal Data System 2017 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3 suppl 1):A7.
3. Tuttle KR, Bakris GL, Bilous RW, et al. Diabetic kidney disease: a report from an ADA Consensus Conference. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64:510-533.
4. Fox CS, Matsushita K, Woodward M, et al; . Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without diabetes: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;380:1662-1673.
5. Orchard TJ, Dorman JS, Maser RE, et al. Prevalence of complications in IDDM by sex and duration. Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study II. Diabetes. 1990;39:1116-1124.
6. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(suppl 1):S1-S159. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/41/Supplement_1
7. National Kidney Foundation. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;3:1-150. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://kdigo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/KDIGO_2012_CKD_GL.pdf
8. Afkarian M, Zelnick LR, Hall YN, et al. Clinical manifestations of kidney disease among US adults with diabetes, 1988-2014. JAMA. 2016;316:602-610.
9. de Boer IH, Rue TC, Hall YN, et al. Temporal trends in the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA. 2011;305:2532-2539.
10. de Boer IH; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. Kidney disease and related findings in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:24-30.
11. Stanton RC. Clinical challenges in diagnosis and management of diabetic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63(2 suppl 2):S3-S21.
12. Mottl AK, Tuttle KR. Diabetic kidney disease: Pathogenesis and epidemiology. UpToDate. Updated August 19, 2019. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.uptodate.com/contents/diabetic-kidney-disease-pathogenesis-and-epidemiology
13. Bakris GL. Moderately increased albuminuria (microalbuminuria) in type 2 diabetes mellitus. UpToDate. Updated November 3, 2020. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/moderately-increased-albuminuria-microalbuminuria-in-type-2-diabetes-mellitus
14. Bandak G, Sang Y, Gasparini A, et al. Hyperkalemia after initiating renin-angiotensin system blockade: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) Project. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e005428.
15. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US Renal Data System 2016 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(3 suppl 1):A7-A8.
16. Nilsson E, Gasparini A, Ärnlöv J, et al. Incidence and determinants of hyperkalemia and hypokalemia in a large healthcare system. Int J Cardiol. 2017;245:277-284.
17. de Boer IH, Gao X, Cleary PA, et al; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Research Group. Albuminuria changes and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 1 diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11:1969-1977.
18. Sumida K, Molnar MZ, Potukuchi PK, et al. Changes in albuminuria and subsequent risk of incident kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12:1941-1949.
19. Borch-Johnsen K, Wenzel H, Viberti GC, et al. Is screening and intervention for microalbuminuria worthwhile in patient with insulin dependent diabetes? BMJ. 1993;306:1722-1725.
20. KDOQI. KDOQI clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49(2 suppl 2):S12-154.
21. Bakris GL. Moderately increased albuminuria (microalbuminuria) in type 1 diabetes mellitus. UpToDate. Updated December 3, 2019. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/moderately-increased-albuminuria-microalbuminuria-in-type-1-diabetes-mellitus
22. Delanaye P, Glassock RJ, Pottel H, et al. An age-calibrated definition of chronic kidney disease: rationale and benefits. Clin Biochem Rev. 2016;37:17-26.
23. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al; , A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:604-612.
24. Wrone EM, Carnethon MR, Palaniappan L, et al; . Association of dietary protein intake and microalbuminuria in healthy adults: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41:580-587.
25. Knight EL, Stampfer MJ, Hankinson SE, et al. The impact of protein intake on renal function decline in women with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:460-467.
26. Bernstein AM, Sun Q, Hu FB, et al. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation. 2010;122:876-883.
27. de Boer, IH, Bangalore S, Benetos A, et al. Diabetes and hypertension: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:1273-1284.
28. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:e127-e248.
29. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al; Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861-869.
30. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, et al. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. The Collaborative Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1456-1462.
31. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet. 2000;355;253-259.
32. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al; . Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:851-860.
33. Fried LF, Emanuele N, Zhang JH, et al; . Combined angiotensin inhibition for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1892-1903.
34. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Chan JC, et al; . Effect of finerenone on albuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:884-894.
35. Filippatos G, Anker SD, M, et al. Randomized controlled study of finerenone vs. eplerenone in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and diabetes mellitus and/or chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2105-2114.
36. The ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2560-2572.
37. Ismail-Beigi F, Craven T, Banerji MA, et al; . Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:419-430.
38. Zoungas S, Chalmers J, Neal B, et al; . Follow-up of blood-pressure lowering and glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1392-1406.
39. Zoungas S, Arima H, Gerstein HC, et al; . Effects of intensive glucose control on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:431-437.
40. Miller ME, Bonds DE, Gerstein HC, et al; . The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010;340;b5444.
41. Papademetriou V, Lovato L, Doumas M, et al; . Chronic kidney disease and intensive glycemic control increase cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Kidney Int. 2015;87:649-659.
42. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for diabetes and CKD: 2012 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:850-886.
43. Imam TH. Changes in metformin use in chronic kidney disease. Clin Kidney J. 2017;10:301-304.
44. Wanner C, Inzucchi SE, Lachin JM, et al; Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:323-334.
45. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al; . Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644-657.
46. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al; . Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:311-322.
47. Mann JFE, DD, Brown-Frandsen K, et al; . Liraglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:839-848.
48. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al; . Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1834-1844.
49. Wanner C, Tonelli M; Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Lipid Guideline Development Work Group Members. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for lipid management in CKD: summary of recommendation statements and clinical approach to the patient. Kidney Int. 2014;85:1303-1309.
50. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019;139:e1082-e1143.
51. National Kidney Foundation KDOQI. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for anemia in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:279-335. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.sciencedirect.com/journal/kidney-international-supplements/vol/2/issue/4
52. National Kidney Foundation KDOQI. Evaluation and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). 2010. Accessed January 5, 2021. www.kidney.org/sites/default/files/02-10-390B_LBA_KDOQI_BoneGuide.pdf
53. Smart MA, Dieberg G, Ladhani M, et al. Early referral to specialist nephrology services for preventing the progression to end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD007333.
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
› Screen patients with diabetes annually for diabetic kidney disease with measurement of urinary albumin and the estimated glomerular filtration rate. B
› Optimize blood glucose and blood pressure control in patients with diabetes to prevent or delay progression to diabetic kidney disease. A
› Treat hypertensive patients with diabetes and stages 1 to 4 chronic kidney disease with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II-receptor blocker as a first-line antihypertensive, absent contraindications. A
Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series
APA apologizes for past support of racism in psychiatry
The American Psychiatric Association has issued a formal apology for its past support of structural racism in psychiatry.
The apology, issued Jan. 18, coincided with the federal holiday honoring the life and work of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We apologize for our role in perpetrating structural racism in this country, and we hope to begin to make amends for APA’s and psychiatry’s history of actions, intentional and not, that hurt Black, indigenous, and people of color,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, said in a statement.
The apology was written and issued by the APA Board of Trustees. It acknowledges practices and events in psychiatry that contributed to racial inequality, and expresses the organization’s commitment to developing antiracist policies that promote equity in mental health for all.
“This apology is one important step we needed to take to move forward to a more equitable future. The board is issuing this document on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, because we hope that it honors his life’s work of reconciliation and equality. We do not take that legacy or his call to action lightly and will continue our important work,” said Dr. Geller.
One involved the Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Va., the nation’s first psychiatric care facility, founded in 1773.
Eastern State, which for a time in the 1800s was called the Eastern Lunatic Asylum, was not segregated when founded. However, 70 years later, when the 13 founders of what is now the APA met to discuss improvements in mental health care delivery, the treatment system they created and the organization they founded aligned with that era’s racist social and political policies. In this system, Black patients received psychiatric care separately from White patients, the APA said.
The APA also acknowledged failing to act in Black Americans’ best interest at critical points in the United States’ sociopolitical evolution throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
“This inactivity was notably evident while white supremacists lynched Black people during the Reconstruction Era as well as when Jim Crow segregation was in effect, which led to ‘separate but equal’ standards of care starting in 1896,” the APA said.
Later, the APA failed to declare support for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, along with further major civil rights legislation designed to improve social and psychological conditions for Black people, the organization admitted.
Throughout the decades that followed, psychiatric misdiagnosis among Black, indigenous, and people of color populations were also common, the APA acknowledged.
For example, late 20th century psychiatrists commonly attributed their minority patients’ frustrations to schizophrenia, while categorizing similar behaviors as “neuroticism” in White patients.
The APA pointed to one study which found that APA members diagnosed more Black than White patients with schizophrenia, even when both had otherwise identical clinical presentations.
“This reveals the basis for embedded discrimination within psychiatry that has contributed to reduced quality of care” for Black, indigenous, and people of color, and “perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes,” the APA said.
Saul Levin, MD, the APA’s medical director and CEO, said the Board of Trustees has taken “an important step in issuing this apology. The APA administration is committed to working toward inclusion, health equity, and fairness that everyone deserves.”
The APA Board of Trustees began drafting the apology late last year after it concluded that events and persistent inequities in health care and psychiatry had highlighted an organizational need for action.
The APA’s Presidential Task Force on Structural Racism is continuing with efforts to educate and engage members on the issue and implement changes within the organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has issued a formal apology for its past support of structural racism in psychiatry.
The apology, issued Jan. 18, coincided with the federal holiday honoring the life and work of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We apologize for our role in perpetrating structural racism in this country, and we hope to begin to make amends for APA’s and psychiatry’s history of actions, intentional and not, that hurt Black, indigenous, and people of color,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, said in a statement.
The apology was written and issued by the APA Board of Trustees. It acknowledges practices and events in psychiatry that contributed to racial inequality, and expresses the organization’s commitment to developing antiracist policies that promote equity in mental health for all.
“This apology is one important step we needed to take to move forward to a more equitable future. The board is issuing this document on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, because we hope that it honors his life’s work of reconciliation and equality. We do not take that legacy or his call to action lightly and will continue our important work,” said Dr. Geller.
One involved the Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Va., the nation’s first psychiatric care facility, founded in 1773.
Eastern State, which for a time in the 1800s was called the Eastern Lunatic Asylum, was not segregated when founded. However, 70 years later, when the 13 founders of what is now the APA met to discuss improvements in mental health care delivery, the treatment system they created and the organization they founded aligned with that era’s racist social and political policies. In this system, Black patients received psychiatric care separately from White patients, the APA said.
The APA also acknowledged failing to act in Black Americans’ best interest at critical points in the United States’ sociopolitical evolution throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
“This inactivity was notably evident while white supremacists lynched Black people during the Reconstruction Era as well as when Jim Crow segregation was in effect, which led to ‘separate but equal’ standards of care starting in 1896,” the APA said.
Later, the APA failed to declare support for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, along with further major civil rights legislation designed to improve social and psychological conditions for Black people, the organization admitted.
Throughout the decades that followed, psychiatric misdiagnosis among Black, indigenous, and people of color populations were also common, the APA acknowledged.
For example, late 20th century psychiatrists commonly attributed their minority patients’ frustrations to schizophrenia, while categorizing similar behaviors as “neuroticism” in White patients.
The APA pointed to one study which found that APA members diagnosed more Black than White patients with schizophrenia, even when both had otherwise identical clinical presentations.
“This reveals the basis for embedded discrimination within psychiatry that has contributed to reduced quality of care” for Black, indigenous, and people of color, and “perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes,” the APA said.
Saul Levin, MD, the APA’s medical director and CEO, said the Board of Trustees has taken “an important step in issuing this apology. The APA administration is committed to working toward inclusion, health equity, and fairness that everyone deserves.”
The APA Board of Trustees began drafting the apology late last year after it concluded that events and persistent inequities in health care and psychiatry had highlighted an organizational need for action.
The APA’s Presidential Task Force on Structural Racism is continuing with efforts to educate and engage members on the issue and implement changes within the organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has issued a formal apology for its past support of structural racism in psychiatry.
The apology, issued Jan. 18, coincided with the federal holiday honoring the life and work of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We apologize for our role in perpetrating structural racism in this country, and we hope to begin to make amends for APA’s and psychiatry’s history of actions, intentional and not, that hurt Black, indigenous, and people of color,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, said in a statement.
The apology was written and issued by the APA Board of Trustees. It acknowledges practices and events in psychiatry that contributed to racial inequality, and expresses the organization’s commitment to developing antiracist policies that promote equity in mental health for all.
“This apology is one important step we needed to take to move forward to a more equitable future. The board is issuing this document on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, because we hope that it honors his life’s work of reconciliation and equality. We do not take that legacy or his call to action lightly and will continue our important work,” said Dr. Geller.
One involved the Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Va., the nation’s first psychiatric care facility, founded in 1773.
Eastern State, which for a time in the 1800s was called the Eastern Lunatic Asylum, was not segregated when founded. However, 70 years later, when the 13 founders of what is now the APA met to discuss improvements in mental health care delivery, the treatment system they created and the organization they founded aligned with that era’s racist social and political policies. In this system, Black patients received psychiatric care separately from White patients, the APA said.
The APA also acknowledged failing to act in Black Americans’ best interest at critical points in the United States’ sociopolitical evolution throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
“This inactivity was notably evident while white supremacists lynched Black people during the Reconstruction Era as well as when Jim Crow segregation was in effect, which led to ‘separate but equal’ standards of care starting in 1896,” the APA said.
Later, the APA failed to declare support for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, along with further major civil rights legislation designed to improve social and psychological conditions for Black people, the organization admitted.
Throughout the decades that followed, psychiatric misdiagnosis among Black, indigenous, and people of color populations were also common, the APA acknowledged.
For example, late 20th century psychiatrists commonly attributed their minority patients’ frustrations to schizophrenia, while categorizing similar behaviors as “neuroticism” in White patients.
The APA pointed to one study which found that APA members diagnosed more Black than White patients with schizophrenia, even when both had otherwise identical clinical presentations.
“This reveals the basis for embedded discrimination within psychiatry that has contributed to reduced quality of care” for Black, indigenous, and people of color, and “perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes,” the APA said.
Saul Levin, MD, the APA’s medical director and CEO, said the Board of Trustees has taken “an important step in issuing this apology. The APA administration is committed to working toward inclusion, health equity, and fairness that everyone deserves.”
The APA Board of Trustees began drafting the apology late last year after it concluded that events and persistent inequities in health care and psychiatry had highlighted an organizational need for action.
The APA’s Presidential Task Force on Structural Racism is continuing with efforts to educate and engage members on the issue and implement changes within the organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Give women's mental health a seat at the health care table
Why it’s time for women’s mental health to be recognized as the subspecialty it already is
It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.
By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.1 It is time for that to change.
Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.
What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.2 We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.
with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.
Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.3 The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.
Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.4 It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.5 Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.6
Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.
It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.7 Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.
A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.
The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.
Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.
References
1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.
2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.
3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.
4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.
5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.
6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.
7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.
Why it’s time for women’s mental health to be recognized as the subspecialty it already is
Why it’s time for women’s mental health to be recognized as the subspecialty it already is
It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.
By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.1 It is time for that to change.
Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.
What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.2 We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.
with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.
Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.3 The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.
Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.4 It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.5 Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.6
Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.
It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.7 Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.
A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.
The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.
Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.
References
1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.
2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.
3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.
4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.
5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.
6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.
7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.
It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.
By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.1 It is time for that to change.
Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.
What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.2 We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.
with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.
Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.3 The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.
Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.4 It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.5 Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.6
Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.
It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.7 Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.
A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.
The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.
Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.
References
1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.
2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.
3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.
4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.
5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.
6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.
7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.