Mental Health

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical practice guidelines advise screening women for perinatal depression twice prenatally and once postpartum, but providers at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may not be adhering closely to those recommendations. In a multisite cohort study, the researchers enrolled women veterans who were pregnant and delivered newborns between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. The researchers combined electronic health record and claims data with information collected from prenatal and postpartum telephone surveys.

Of the 663 women involved, 93% received primary care at a VA facility during pregnancy; 41% saw a VA mental health provider. Less than half of the sample had been screened for depression during the perinatal period, despite contact with VA providers. Only 13% of the women had both prenatal and postnatal screens.

Screened veterans were less likely to be diagnosed with depression by a VA provider in either the preconception or pregnancy periods, compared with those not screened (11% vs 24% and 14% vs 23%, respectively). 

Among unscreened women, 18% scored positive for depression prenatally and 9% postnatally on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale. The researchers note that lack of screening can hinder connection to VA mental health treatment and referral resources.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians screen mothers for postpartum depression at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after childbirth. But extending that into toddlerhood could pick up more women at risk, say National Institutes of Health researchers. “[S]ix months may not be long enough to gauge depressive symptoms,” said Diane Putnick, PhD, primary author.

In their study of 4,866 women, the researchers analyzed data from the Upstate KIDS study, which included babies born between 2008 and 2010 in New York State. The researchers found that approximately 1 in 4 women experienced high levels of depressive symptoms at some point during the 3 postnatal years.

In addition to extending the screening period to 36 months, the researchers advise keeping watch on women with underlying conditions, such as mood disorders and/or gestational diabetes, who were more likely to have higher levels of depressive symptoms that persisted.

Clinical practice guidelines advise screening women for perinatal depression twice prenatally and once postpartum, but providers at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may not be adhering closely to those recommendations. In a multisite cohort study, the researchers enrolled women veterans who were pregnant and delivered newborns between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. The researchers combined electronic health record and claims data with information collected from prenatal and postpartum telephone surveys.

Of the 663 women involved, 93% received primary care at a VA facility during pregnancy; 41% saw a VA mental health provider. Less than half of the sample had been screened for depression during the perinatal period, despite contact with VA providers. Only 13% of the women had both prenatal and postnatal screens.

Screened veterans were less likely to be diagnosed with depression by a VA provider in either the preconception or pregnancy periods, compared with those not screened (11% vs 24% and 14% vs 23%, respectively). 

Among unscreened women, 18% scored positive for depression prenatally and 9% postnatally on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale. The researchers note that lack of screening can hinder connection to VA mental health treatment and referral resources.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians screen mothers for postpartum depression at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after childbirth. But extending that into toddlerhood could pick up more women at risk, say National Institutes of Health researchers. “[S]ix months may not be long enough to gauge depressive symptoms,” said Diane Putnick, PhD, primary author.

In their study of 4,866 women, the researchers analyzed data from the Upstate KIDS study, which included babies born between 2008 and 2010 in New York State. The researchers found that approximately 1 in 4 women experienced high levels of depressive symptoms at some point during the 3 postnatal years.

In addition to extending the screening period to 36 months, the researchers advise keeping watch on women with underlying conditions, such as mood disorders and/or gestational diabetes, who were more likely to have higher levels of depressive symptoms that persisted.

Clinical practice guidelines advise screening women for perinatal depression twice prenatally and once postpartum, but providers at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may not be adhering closely to those recommendations. In a multisite cohort study, the researchers enrolled women veterans who were pregnant and delivered newborns between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. The researchers combined electronic health record and claims data with information collected from prenatal and postpartum telephone surveys.

Of the 663 women involved, 93% received primary care at a VA facility during pregnancy; 41% saw a VA mental health provider. Less than half of the sample had been screened for depression during the perinatal period, despite contact with VA providers. Only 13% of the women had both prenatal and postnatal screens.

Screened veterans were less likely to be diagnosed with depression by a VA provider in either the preconception or pregnancy periods, compared with those not screened (11% vs 24% and 14% vs 23%, respectively). 

Among unscreened women, 18% scored positive for depression prenatally and 9% postnatally on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale. The researchers note that lack of screening can hinder connection to VA mental health treatment and referral resources.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians screen mothers for postpartum depression at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after childbirth. But extending that into toddlerhood could pick up more women at risk, say National Institutes of Health researchers. “[S]ix months may not be long enough to gauge depressive symptoms,” said Diane Putnick, PhD, primary author.

In their study of 4,866 women, the researchers analyzed data from the Upstate KIDS study, which included babies born between 2008 and 2010 in New York State. The researchers found that approximately 1 in 4 women experienced high levels of depressive symptoms at some point during the 3 postnatal years.

In addition to extending the screening period to 36 months, the researchers advise keeping watch on women with underlying conditions, such as mood disorders and/or gestational diabetes, who were more likely to have higher levels of depressive symptoms that persisted.

Don’t wait to give patients with first-episode psychosis long-acting injectable formulations of second-generation antipsychotics, according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.

Many clinicians wait to use long-acting injectables (LAIs) until the patient has experienced multiple relapses, but using them after the first discharge may help prevent future relapse, Dr. Nasrallah, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati, said at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAIs and clozapine are “vastly underutilized” after the first discharge, he noted. “I really encourage everybody to use them without hesitation as early as possible.”

In patients with first-episode psychosis, “the most important thing, in my opinion, is to start establishing a therapeutic alliance with the patient from day one,” Dr. Nasrallah said. “It’s always important in psychiatry, but it’s particularly important for first-episode psychosis.”

These patients respond to low doses of antipsychotics and should not be given first-generation antipsychotics because of a risk for acute extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, and neurotoxicity.

“I usually select an antipsychotic that is extended release and also available as a long-acting injectable formulation,” Dr. Nasrallah said, noting that it helps when he gives a patient a long-acting injectable right after discharge. During hospitalization, Dr. Nasrallah said, he educates the patient and their family about psychosis, treatment, how psychosis affects the brain, and adherence to treatment.

“The primary goal, of course, is to achieve remission and very importantly, to prevent a second episode,” he said. “This is the golden opportunity for us psychiatrists to prevent the patient from relapsing again and again. That is the reason for disability and for brain damage, because every psychotic episode destroys brain tissue. That is why I am very eager to not only achieve a remission in the first episode but also to position the patient to be protected after discharge by giving them long-acting injectable.”

After a clinician performs a full workup to rule out substance use or a general medical condition inducing first-episode psychosis, Dr. Nasrallah recommends paliperidone extended-release (ER), given to patients in the morning because of its tolerability and the availability of an LAI version of the drug. “I start with 3 mg a day; that’s the lowest dose,” he said. “If the patient is very sick and agitated, I might go to 6 mg a day, which is actually a very good dose for first-episode patients, and it’s still quite well tolerated.”

Oral or injectable lorazepam taken as needed may be given to a patient with first-episode psychosis with agitation. For patients who manifest akathisia, twice or thrice daily propranolol at dose of 10-20 mg can be used off label, he said. Dr. Nasrallah also recommended twice-daily omega 3 at a dose of 1,000 mg or N-acetylcysteine at a dose of 600 mg per day as supplements.

“They’re not approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for first-episode psychosis, but there are numerous publications in the literature by academic psychiatrists showing that they are quite beneficial, and they reduce the two destructive processes during psychosis, which are neuroinflammation and oxidative stress, or free radicals,” he said. “Those two supplements can help in the acute phase of the illness.”

Another option for clinicians is to begin a patient with first-episode psychosis on oral aripiprazole at a dose of 5 mg per day for 2 days, increasing the dose to 7.5 mg per day for 2 days, then increasing to 10 mg per day. “It is not extended-release, so you have to start with low doses to protect the patient from side effects,” Dr. Nasrallah explained. “Some patients may need 15 or 20 [mg], but most first-episode patients may do well on 10 [mg] without risking side effects.”
 

Planning for discharge

Patients who tolerate aripiprazole can start the long-acting aripiprazole lauroxil at discharge, and clinicians have two options to choose from. One formulation “requires 2 weeks of oral supplementation, which you can do in the hospital if you start the patient on oral aripiprazole, and then you can give that injection prior to discharge.” Another option involves giving the patient “any antipsychotic you like and then switch[ing] the patient to aripiprazole lauroxil. The full dose can be given without oral supplementation on the day of discharge.”

Dr. Nasrallah emphasized the use of LAIs in patients discharged for first-episode psychosis. In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry, researchers found use of LAI risperidone in patients with first-episode psychosis significantly reduced the risk of psychotic exacerbation and relapse compared with patients who were given oral risperidone (JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72:822-9).

“This kind of well-done study shows you that you can do a great job protecting your patient from the very beginning by giving long-acting injectables,” Dr. Nasrallah explained. “That’s why you have to develop rapport with the patient. That’s why you have to convince the patient to take the injectable, and that’s why you have to educate the patient about the hazards of psychosis to the brain, and the fact that it’s very hard to remember to take the pills, because the illness itself can interfere with that due to cognitive impairment [and] negative symptoms.” Another reason for nonadherence is that the patients might not believe they are sick, he added.

After 2 or 3 weeks, if a patient with first-episode psychosis has a minimal response or does not response at all to an LAI, clozapine is an “aggressive” option that may help nonresponders. For patients with schizophrenia, “about 65%-70% would respond to a dopamine antagonist and the remaining 30% are going to need clozapine sooner or later,” Dr. Nasrallah said. “For clozapine after one or two failures [on LAIs] with an adequate dose and adequate duration, don’t wait. Give the patient clozapine, give them an opportunity to regain their life. I’ve seen some very gratifying results with clozapine in those who respond to it.

“The outcome of schizophrenia may be far less malignant than the perception out there if we actually ensure adherence very early and manage the first-episode aggressively, like cardiologists manage the first heart attack,” he said. “[Cardiologists] do everything in their power to protect the patient from a second heart attack, and I regard psychosis as a ‘brain attack.’ ”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reported that he has received research grants from Acadia; served as a consultant for Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Janssen, Otsuka, Indivior, Intracellular, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Teva, and Boehringer-Ingelheim; and is on the speakers bureau for Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Janssen, Otsuka, Indivior, Intracellular, Neurocrine, Noven, Sunovion, and Teva.

Don’t wait to give patients with first-episode psychosis long-acting injectable formulations of second-generation antipsychotics, according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.

Many clinicians wait to use long-acting injectables (LAIs) until the patient has experienced multiple relapses, but using them after the first discharge may help prevent future relapse, Dr. Nasrallah, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati, said at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAIs and clozapine are “vastly underutilized” after the first discharge, he noted. “I really encourage everybody to use them without hesitation as early as possible.”

In patients with first-episode psychosis, “the most important thing, in my opinion, is to start establishing a therapeutic alliance with the patient from day one,” Dr. Nasrallah said. “It’s always important in psychiatry, but it’s particularly important for first-episode psychosis.”

These patients respond to low doses of antipsychotics and should not be given first-generation antipsychotics because of a risk for acute extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, and neurotoxicity.

“I usually select an antipsychotic that is extended release and also available as a long-acting injectable formulation,” Dr. Nasrallah said, noting that it helps when he gives a patient a long-acting injectable right after discharge. During hospitalization, Dr. Nasrallah said, he educates the patient and their family about psychosis, treatment, how psychosis affects the brain, and adherence to treatment.

“The primary goal, of course, is to achieve remission and very importantly, to prevent a second episode,” he said. “This is the golden opportunity for us psychiatrists to prevent the patient from relapsing again and again. That is the reason for disability and for brain damage, because every psychotic episode destroys brain tissue. That is why I am very eager to not only achieve a remission in the first episode but also to position the patient to be protected after discharge by giving them long-acting injectable.”

After a clinician performs a full workup to rule out substance use or a general medical condition inducing first-episode psychosis, Dr. Nasrallah recommends paliperidone extended-release (ER), given to patients in the morning because of its tolerability and the availability of an LAI version of the drug. “I start with 3 mg a day; that’s the lowest dose,” he said. “If the patient is very sick and agitated, I might go to 6 mg a day, which is actually a very good dose for first-episode patients, and it’s still quite well tolerated.”

Oral or injectable lorazepam taken as needed may be given to a patient with first-episode psychosis with agitation. For patients who manifest akathisia, twice or thrice daily propranolol at dose of 10-20 mg can be used off label, he said. Dr. Nasrallah also recommended twice-daily omega 3 at a dose of 1,000 mg or N-acetylcysteine at a dose of 600 mg per day as supplements.

“They’re not approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for first-episode psychosis, but there are numerous publications in the literature by academic psychiatrists showing that they are quite beneficial, and they reduce the two destructive processes during psychosis, which are neuroinflammation and oxidative stress, or free radicals,” he said. “Those two supplements can help in the acute phase of the illness.”

Another option for clinicians is to begin a patient with first-episode psychosis on oral aripiprazole at a dose of 5 mg per day for 2 days, increasing the dose to 7.5 mg per day for 2 days, then increasing to 10 mg per day. “It is not extended-release, so you have to start with low doses to protect the patient from side effects,” Dr. Nasrallah explained. “Some patients may need 15 or 20 [mg], but most first-episode patients may do well on 10 [mg] without risking side effects.”
 

Planning for discharge

Patients who tolerate aripiprazole can start the long-acting aripiprazole lauroxil at discharge, and clinicians have two options to choose from. One formulation “requires 2 weeks of oral supplementation, which you can do in the hospital if you start the patient on oral aripiprazole, and then you can give that injection prior to discharge.” Another option involves giving the patient “any antipsychotic you like and then switch[ing] the patient to aripiprazole lauroxil. The full dose can be given without oral supplementation on the day of discharge.”

Dr. Nasrallah emphasized the use of LAIs in patients discharged for first-episode psychosis. In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry, researchers found use of LAI risperidone in patients with first-episode psychosis significantly reduced the risk of psychotic exacerbation and relapse compared with patients who were given oral risperidone (JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72:822-9).

“This kind of well-done study shows you that you can do a great job protecting your patient from the very beginning by giving long-acting injectables,” Dr. Nasrallah explained. “That’s why you have to develop rapport with the patient. That’s why you have to convince the patient to take the injectable, and that’s why you have to educate the patient about the hazards of psychosis to the brain, and the fact that it’s very hard to remember to take the pills, because the illness itself can interfere with that due to cognitive impairment [and] negative symptoms.” Another reason for nonadherence is that the patients might not believe they are sick, he added.

After 2 or 3 weeks, if a patient with first-episode psychosis has a minimal response or does not response at all to an LAI, clozapine is an “aggressive” option that may help nonresponders. For patients with schizophrenia, “about 65%-70% would respond to a dopamine antagonist and the remaining 30% are going to need clozapine sooner or later,” Dr. Nasrallah said. “For clozapine after one or two failures [on LAIs] with an adequate dose and adequate duration, don’t wait. Give the patient clozapine, give them an opportunity to regain their life. I’ve seen some very gratifying results with clozapine in those who respond to it.

“The outcome of schizophrenia may be far less malignant than the perception out there if we actually ensure adherence very early and manage the first-episode aggressively, like cardiologists manage the first heart attack,” he said. “[Cardiologists] do everything in their power to protect the patient from a second heart attack, and I regard psychosis as a ‘brain attack.’ ”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reported that he has received research grants from Acadia; served as a consultant for Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Janssen, Otsuka, Indivior, Intracellular, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Teva, and Boehringer-Ingelheim; and is on the speakers bureau for Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Janssen, Otsuka, Indivior, Intracellular, Neurocrine, Noven, Sunovion, and Teva.

Don’t wait to give patients with first-episode psychosis long-acting injectable formulations of second-generation antipsychotics, according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.

Many clinicians wait to use long-acting injectables (LAIs) until the patient has experienced multiple relapses, but using them after the first discharge may help prevent future relapse, Dr. Nasrallah, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati, said at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAIs and clozapine are “vastly underutilized” after the first discharge, he noted. “I really encourage everybody to use them without hesitation as early as possible.”

In patients with first-episode psychosis, “the most important thing, in my opinion, is to start establishing a therapeutic alliance with the patient from day one,” Dr. Nasrallah said. “It’s always important in psychiatry, but it’s particularly important for first-episode psychosis.”

These patients respond to low doses of antipsychotics and should not be given first-generation antipsychotics because of a risk for acute extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, and neurotoxicity.

“I usually select an antipsychotic that is extended release and also available as a long-acting injectable formulation,” Dr. Nasrallah said, noting that it helps when he gives a patient a long-acting injectable right after discharge. During hospitalization, Dr. Nasrallah said, he educates the patient and their family about psychosis, treatment, how psychosis affects the brain, and adherence to treatment.

“The primary goal, of course, is to achieve remission and very importantly, to prevent a second episode,” he said. “This is the golden opportunity for us psychiatrists to prevent the patient from relapsing again and again. That is the reason for disability and for brain damage, because every psychotic episode destroys brain tissue. That is why I am very eager to not only achieve a remission in the first episode but also to position the patient to be protected after discharge by giving them long-acting injectable.”

After a clinician performs a full workup to rule out substance use or a general medical condition inducing first-episode psychosis, Dr. Nasrallah recommends paliperidone extended-release (ER), given to patients in the morning because of its tolerability and the availability of an LAI version of the drug. “I start with 3 mg a day; that’s the lowest dose,” he said. “If the patient is very sick and agitated, I might go to 6 mg a day, which is actually a very good dose for first-episode patients, and it’s still quite well tolerated.”

Oral or injectable lorazepam taken as needed may be given to a patient with first-episode psychosis with agitation. For patients who manifest akathisia, twice or thrice daily propranolol at dose of 10-20 mg can be used off label, he said. Dr. Nasrallah also recommended twice-daily omega 3 at a dose of 1,000 mg or N-acetylcysteine at a dose of 600 mg per day as supplements.

“They’re not approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for first-episode psychosis, but there are numerous publications in the literature by academic psychiatrists showing that they are quite beneficial, and they reduce the two destructive processes during psychosis, which are neuroinflammation and oxidative stress, or free radicals,” he said. “Those two supplements can help in the acute phase of the illness.”

Another option for clinicians is to begin a patient with first-episode psychosis on oral aripiprazole at a dose of 5 mg per day for 2 days, increasing the dose to 7.5 mg per day for 2 days, then increasing to 10 mg per day. “It is not extended-release, so you have to start with low doses to protect the patient from side effects,” Dr. Nasrallah explained. “Some patients may need 15 or 20 [mg], but most first-episode patients may do well on 10 [mg] without risking side effects.”
 

Planning for discharge

Patients who tolerate aripiprazole can start the long-acting aripiprazole lauroxil at discharge, and clinicians have two options to choose from. One formulation “requires 2 weeks of oral supplementation, which you can do in the hospital if you start the patient on oral aripiprazole, and then you can give that injection prior to discharge.” Another option involves giving the patient “any antipsychotic you like and then switch[ing] the patient to aripiprazole lauroxil. The full dose can be given without oral supplementation on the day of discharge.”

Dr. Nasrallah emphasized the use of LAIs in patients discharged for first-episode psychosis. In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry, researchers found use of LAI risperidone in patients with first-episode psychosis significantly reduced the risk of psychotic exacerbation and relapse compared with patients who were given oral risperidone (JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72:822-9).

“This kind of well-done study shows you that you can do a great job protecting your patient from the very beginning by giving long-acting injectables,” Dr. Nasrallah explained. “That’s why you have to develop rapport with the patient. That’s why you have to convince the patient to take the injectable, and that’s why you have to educate the patient about the hazards of psychosis to the brain, and the fact that it’s very hard to remember to take the pills, because the illness itself can interfere with that due to cognitive impairment [and] negative symptoms.” Another reason for nonadherence is that the patients might not believe they are sick, he added.

After 2 or 3 weeks, if a patient with first-episode psychosis has a minimal response or does not response at all to an LAI, clozapine is an “aggressive” option that may help nonresponders. For patients with schizophrenia, “about 65%-70% would respond to a dopamine antagonist and the remaining 30% are going to need clozapine sooner or later,” Dr. Nasrallah said. “For clozapine after one or two failures [on LAIs] with an adequate dose and adequate duration, don’t wait. Give the patient clozapine, give them an opportunity to regain their life. I’ve seen some very gratifying results with clozapine in those who respond to it.

“The outcome of schizophrenia may be far less malignant than the perception out there if we actually ensure adherence very early and manage the first-episode aggressively, like cardiologists manage the first heart attack,” he said. “[Cardiologists] do everything in their power to protect the patient from a second heart attack, and I regard psychosis as a ‘brain attack.’ ”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reported that he has received research grants from Acadia; served as a consultant for Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Janssen, Otsuka, Indivior, Intracellular, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Teva, and Boehringer-Ingelheim; and is on the speakers bureau for Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Janssen, Otsuka, Indivior, Intracellular, Neurocrine, Noven, Sunovion, and Teva.

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared for marketing a smartphone app that can detect and interrupt nightmares in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The NightWare app, from Minneapolis-based NightWare Inc., runs on the Apple Watch and Apple iPhone.

During sleep, Apple Watch sensors monitor heart rate and body movement. These data are used to create a unique sleep profile using a proprietary algorithm.

When the NightWare app detects that a patient is experiencing a nightmare based on changes in heart rate and movement, it provides slight vibrations through the Apple Watch to arouse the patient and interrupt the nightmare, without fully awakening the patient, the company notes.

NightWare is available by prescription only and is intended for use in adults aged 22 years and older with PTSD.

“Sleep is an essential part of a person’s daily routine. However, certain adults who have a nightmare disorder or who experience nightmares from PTSD are not able to get the rest they need,” Carlos Peña, PhD, director, Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said in a news release.

This authorization “offers a new, low-risk treatment option that uses digital technology in an effort to provide temporary relief from sleep disturbance related to nightmares,” said Dr. Peña.

NightWare was tested in a 30-day randomized, sham-controlled trial of 70 patients. Patients in the sham group wore the device, but no vibrations were provided.

Both the sham and active groups showed improvement in sleep on standard sleep scales, with the active group showing greater improvement than sham. “The evidence demonstrated the probable benefits outweighed the probable risks,” the FDA said in a statement.

NightWare is not a standalone therapy for PTSD and should be used in conjunction with prescribed medications for PTSD and other recommended therapies for PTSD-associated nightmares and nightmare disorder, the agency said.

NightWare was granted breakthrough device designation for the treatment of nightmares in patients with PTSD. The device reviewed through the de novo premarket pathway, a regulatory pathway for some low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.

Along with this marketing authorization, the FDA is establishing “special controls” designed to provide a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for tests of this type,” the agency said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared for marketing a smartphone app that can detect and interrupt nightmares in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The NightWare app, from Minneapolis-based NightWare Inc., runs on the Apple Watch and Apple iPhone.

During sleep, Apple Watch sensors monitor heart rate and body movement. These data are used to create a unique sleep profile using a proprietary algorithm.

When the NightWare app detects that a patient is experiencing a nightmare based on changes in heart rate and movement, it provides slight vibrations through the Apple Watch to arouse the patient and interrupt the nightmare, without fully awakening the patient, the company notes.

NightWare is available by prescription only and is intended for use in adults aged 22 years and older with PTSD.

“Sleep is an essential part of a person’s daily routine. However, certain adults who have a nightmare disorder or who experience nightmares from PTSD are not able to get the rest they need,” Carlos Peña, PhD, director, Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said in a news release.

This authorization “offers a new, low-risk treatment option that uses digital technology in an effort to provide temporary relief from sleep disturbance related to nightmares,” said Dr. Peña.

NightWare was tested in a 30-day randomized, sham-controlled trial of 70 patients. Patients in the sham group wore the device, but no vibrations were provided.

Both the sham and active groups showed improvement in sleep on standard sleep scales, with the active group showing greater improvement than sham. “The evidence demonstrated the probable benefits outweighed the probable risks,” the FDA said in a statement.

NightWare is not a standalone therapy for PTSD and should be used in conjunction with prescribed medications for PTSD and other recommended therapies for PTSD-associated nightmares and nightmare disorder, the agency said.

NightWare was granted breakthrough device designation for the treatment of nightmares in patients with PTSD. The device reviewed through the de novo premarket pathway, a regulatory pathway for some low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.

Along with this marketing authorization, the FDA is establishing “special controls” designed to provide a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for tests of this type,” the agency said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared for marketing a smartphone app that can detect and interrupt nightmares in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The NightWare app, from Minneapolis-based NightWare Inc., runs on the Apple Watch and Apple iPhone.

During sleep, Apple Watch sensors monitor heart rate and body movement. These data are used to create a unique sleep profile using a proprietary algorithm.

When the NightWare app detects that a patient is experiencing a nightmare based on changes in heart rate and movement, it provides slight vibrations through the Apple Watch to arouse the patient and interrupt the nightmare, without fully awakening the patient, the company notes.

NightWare is available by prescription only and is intended for use in adults aged 22 years and older with PTSD.

“Sleep is an essential part of a person’s daily routine. However, certain adults who have a nightmare disorder or who experience nightmares from PTSD are not able to get the rest they need,” Carlos Peña, PhD, director, Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said in a news release.

This authorization “offers a new, low-risk treatment option that uses digital technology in an effort to provide temporary relief from sleep disturbance related to nightmares,” said Dr. Peña.

NightWare was tested in a 30-day randomized, sham-controlled trial of 70 patients. Patients in the sham group wore the device, but no vibrations were provided.

Both the sham and active groups showed improvement in sleep on standard sleep scales, with the active group showing greater improvement than sham. “The evidence demonstrated the probable benefits outweighed the probable risks,” the FDA said in a statement.

NightWare is not a standalone therapy for PTSD and should be used in conjunction with prescribed medications for PTSD and other recommended therapies for PTSD-associated nightmares and nightmare disorder, the agency said.

NightWare was granted breakthrough device designation for the treatment of nightmares in patients with PTSD. The device reviewed through the de novo premarket pathway, a regulatory pathway for some low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.

Along with this marketing authorization, the FDA is establishing “special controls” designed to provide a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for tests of this type,” the agency said.

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

You have a responsibility to screen families for food insecurity, intervene to help them, and advocate on behalf of those experiencing or at risk of food insecurity, according to Kofi Essel, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s National Hospital in Washington.

YES Market Media/Shutterstock

More than one in four adults are dealing with food access hardships during the pandemic, Dr. Essel said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food insecurity is often interchangeable with hunger and refers to limited or uncertain availability of foods that are nutritious and safe.

“Food insecurity is as much about the threat of deprivation as it is about deprivation itself: A food-insecure life means a life lived in fear of hunger, and the psychological toll that takes,” according to a 2020 New York Times photo feature on food insecurity by Brenda Ann Kenneally that Dr. Essel quoted.

The lived experience of food insecure households includes food anxiety, a preoccupation with being able to get enough food that takes up cognitive bandwidth and prevents people from being able to focus on other important things. Another feature of food-insecure homes is a monotony of diet, which often involves an increase in caloric density and decrease in nutritional quality. As food insecurity grows more dire, adults’ food intake decreases, and then children’s intake decreases as adults seek out any way to get food, including “socially unacceptable” ways, which can include food pantries and bartering for food.

Food insecurity is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes even after accounting for other confounders, including decreased overall health, mental health, and educational outcomes. It’s also associated with an increase in developmental delays, hospitalizations, iron deficiency, asthma, and birth defects, among other problems. Somewhat paradoxically, it’s associated with both an increase and a decrease in obesity in the research.

Megan J. Gray, MD, MPH, assistant professor of pediatrics and population health at Dell Medical School at the The University of Texas at Austin, attended Dr. Essel’s session because food insecurity during COVID-19 now affects about half her patients, according to screening research she’s conducted.

“I wanted to learn more about the nuances of screening and using language and talking points that are helpful with families and with staff in building a culture of discussing food insecurity in our clinics,” Dr. Gray said in an interview. “What I’ve learned in my clinic is that if we don’t ask about it, families aren’t telling us – food insecurity is hiding in plain sight.”

She particularly appreciated Dr. Essel’s slides on the progression of food insecurity and how they acknowledged the mental health burden of food insecurity among parents.

“Right now during COVID-19, I see more patients I would call ‘socially complex’ rather than ‘medically complex,’ ” she said. “We all need to get a crash course in social work and Dr. Essel’s presentation is a great starting place.”

Screening for food insecurity

Beginning in 2015, an AAP policy statement charged pediatricians to “screen and intervene” with regard to food insecurity and their patients, Dr. Essel said. The statement also called for pediatricians to advocate for programs and policies that end childhood food insecurity.

The policy statement recommended a validated two-question screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign:

1. “Within the past 12 months, we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.”

2. “Within the past 12 months, the food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.”

But in screening, you need to be conscious of how dignity intersects with food insecurity concerns, Dr. Essel said.

“We need to create dignity for our families,” he said. “We need to create a safe environment for our families and use appropriate tools when necessary to be able to identify families that are struggling with food insecurity.”

That need is seen in research on food screening. The Hunger Vital Signs questions can be asked with a dichotomous variable, as a yes/no question, or on a Likert scale, though the latter is a more complex way to ask.

A 2017 study found, however, that asking with “yes/no” answers missed more than a quarter of at-risk families. In the AAP survey using “yes/no” answers, 31% of families screened positive for being at risk of food insecurity, compared with 46% when the same question was asked on a Likert scale. It seems the ability to answer with “sometimes” feels “safer” than answering “yes,” Dr. Essel said.

Another factor that potentially affects answers is how doctors ask. In a March 2020 study at a single primary care practice, 16% of families screened positive with yes/no responses to a food insecurity screen when the questions were written, compared with 10% of positive screens with verbal responses (P < .001).

Epidemiology of food insecurity

The most updated United States Department of Agriculture report on food insecurity released in September shows the United States finally reached prerecession levels in 2019, with 11% of families designated as “food insecure.” But 2019 data cannot show what has occurred since the pandemic.

Further, the numbers are higher in households with children: Fourteen percent, or one in seven households with children, are experiencing food insecurity. Racial and ethnic disparities in food insecurity have remained consistent over the past 2 decades, with about twice as many Black and Hispanic homes experiencing food insecurity as White homes.

More recent research using Census Household Pulse Surveys has found a tremendous increase in food insecurity for children in 2020. One in three Black children and one in four Hispanic children are food insecure, according to these surveys. The rates are one in six for Asian households and one in ten for White households.

“The disparity is consistent,” Dr. Essel said. “We see what COVID has done. We once may have described it as a great equalizer – everyone is touched in the same way – but the reality is, this is actually a great magnifier. It’s revealing to us and magnifying disparities that have existed for far too long and has really allowed us to see it in a new way.”

A big part of disparities in food insecurity is disparities in wealth, “the safety net or cushion for families when things go wrong,” Dr. Essel said. The median wealth of White Americans in 2016 was $171,000, compared to $20,700 among Latinx Americans and $17,600 among Black Americans, according to the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances.
 

Food insecurity interventions

Federal nutrition programs – such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meal programs – are key to addressing food insecurity, Dr. Essel said.

“They have a long track record of rescuing families out of poverty, of rescuing families from food security and improving overall health of families,” he said.

But emergency food relief programs are important as well. Four in 10 families currently coming into food pantries are new recipients, and these resources have seen a 60% increase in clients, he said.

“This is utterly unreasonable for them to be able to manage,” he said. “Food pantries are essential but inadequate to compensate for large numbers of families,” even while they also may be the only option for families unable or unwilling to access federal programs. For example, for every one meal that food banks can provide, SNAP can provide nine meals, Dr. Essel said. Further, during times of economic downtown, every SNAP $1 spent generates $1.50 to $2 in economic activity.

Currently, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program provides benefits to families for school breakfast and lunch and has been extended through December 2021. Another federal pandemic response was to increase SNAP to the maximum household benefit for families, about $646 for a family of four, although 40% of households were already receiving the maximum benefit.
 

Food insecurity advocacy

You can advocate for any one of multiple pillars when it comes to food insecurity, Dr. Essel said. “Food cannot solve food insecurity by itself,” he said. “We have to think about root causes – systemic causes – and think about unemployment, livable wage, systemic racism, oppression, an inequitable food system. All of these things are pillars that any of you can advocate for when recognizing a family that is struggling with food insecurity.”

He offered several suggestions for advocacy:

• Join your local AAP chapter and prioritize food insecurity.
• Join a local antihunger task force.
• Make your clinical environment as safe as possible for families to respond to questions about food insecurity.
• Know what’s happening in your community immigrant populations.
• Provide up-to-date information to families about eligibility for federal programs.
• Share stories through op-eds and letters to the editor, and by contacting congressional representatives and providing expert testimony to school boards and city councils.
• Educate others about food insecurity through the above channels and on social media.

Jessica Lazerov, MD, a general pediatrician at Children’s National Anacostia and assistant professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, said the session was fantastic.

“Dr. Essel went beyond the basics of food insecurity, delving into the root causes, potential solutions, and important considerations when screening for food insecurity in practice,” Dr. Lazerov said in an interview. “I enjoyed his focus on advocacy, as well as the fact that he spent a bit of time reviewing how the COVID pandemic has affected food insecurity. I truly felt empowered to take my advocacy efforts a step further as Dr. Essel laid out concrete, actionable next steps, as well as a review of the most relevant and current information about food insecurity.”

Dr. Essel, Dr. Lazerov, and Dr. Gray have no relevant financial disclosures.

You have a responsibility to screen families for food insecurity, intervene to help them, and advocate on behalf of those experiencing or at risk of food insecurity, according to Kofi Essel, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s National Hospital in Washington.

YES Market Media/Shutterstock

More than one in four adults are dealing with food access hardships during the pandemic, Dr. Essel said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food insecurity is often interchangeable with hunger and refers to limited or uncertain availability of foods that are nutritious and safe.

“Food insecurity is as much about the threat of deprivation as it is about deprivation itself: A food-insecure life means a life lived in fear of hunger, and the psychological toll that takes,” according to a 2020 New York Times photo feature on food insecurity by Brenda Ann Kenneally that Dr. Essel quoted.

The lived experience of food insecure households includes food anxiety, a preoccupation with being able to get enough food that takes up cognitive bandwidth and prevents people from being able to focus on other important things. Another feature of food-insecure homes is a monotony of diet, which often involves an increase in caloric density and decrease in nutritional quality. As food insecurity grows more dire, adults’ food intake decreases, and then children’s intake decreases as adults seek out any way to get food, including “socially unacceptable” ways, which can include food pantries and bartering for food.

Food insecurity is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes even after accounting for other confounders, including decreased overall health, mental health, and educational outcomes. It’s also associated with an increase in developmental delays, hospitalizations, iron deficiency, asthma, and birth defects, among other problems. Somewhat paradoxically, it’s associated with both an increase and a decrease in obesity in the research.

Megan J. Gray, MD, MPH, assistant professor of pediatrics and population health at Dell Medical School at the The University of Texas at Austin, attended Dr. Essel’s session because food insecurity during COVID-19 now affects about half her patients, according to screening research she’s conducted.

“I wanted to learn more about the nuances of screening and using language and talking points that are helpful with families and with staff in building a culture of discussing food insecurity in our clinics,” Dr. Gray said in an interview. “What I’ve learned in my clinic is that if we don’t ask about it, families aren’t telling us – food insecurity is hiding in plain sight.”

She particularly appreciated Dr. Essel’s slides on the progression of food insecurity and how they acknowledged the mental health burden of food insecurity among parents.

“Right now during COVID-19, I see more patients I would call ‘socially complex’ rather than ‘medically complex,’ ” she said. “We all need to get a crash course in social work and Dr. Essel’s presentation is a great starting place.”

Screening for food insecurity

Beginning in 2015, an AAP policy statement charged pediatricians to “screen and intervene” with regard to food insecurity and their patients, Dr. Essel said. The statement also called for pediatricians to advocate for programs and policies that end childhood food insecurity.

The policy statement recommended a validated two-question screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign:

1. “Within the past 12 months, we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.”

2. “Within the past 12 months, the food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.”

But in screening, you need to be conscious of how dignity intersects with food insecurity concerns, Dr. Essel said.

“We need to create dignity for our families,” he said. “We need to create a safe environment for our families and use appropriate tools when necessary to be able to identify families that are struggling with food insecurity.”

That need is seen in research on food screening. The Hunger Vital Signs questions can be asked with a dichotomous variable, as a yes/no question, or on a Likert scale, though the latter is a more complex way to ask.

A 2017 study found, however, that asking with “yes/no” answers missed more than a quarter of at-risk families. In the AAP survey using “yes/no” answers, 31% of families screened positive for being at risk of food insecurity, compared with 46% when the same question was asked on a Likert scale. It seems the ability to answer with “sometimes” feels “safer” than answering “yes,” Dr. Essel said.

Another factor that potentially affects answers is how doctors ask. In a March 2020 study at a single primary care practice, 16% of families screened positive with yes/no responses to a food insecurity screen when the questions were written, compared with 10% of positive screens with verbal responses (P < .001).

Epidemiology of food insecurity

The most updated United States Department of Agriculture report on food insecurity released in September shows the United States finally reached prerecession levels in 2019, with 11% of families designated as “food insecure.” But 2019 data cannot show what has occurred since the pandemic.

Further, the numbers are higher in households with children: Fourteen percent, or one in seven households with children, are experiencing food insecurity. Racial and ethnic disparities in food insecurity have remained consistent over the past 2 decades, with about twice as many Black and Hispanic homes experiencing food insecurity as White homes.

More recent research using Census Household Pulse Surveys has found a tremendous increase in food insecurity for children in 2020. One in three Black children and one in four Hispanic children are food insecure, according to these surveys. The rates are one in six for Asian households and one in ten for White households.

“The disparity is consistent,” Dr. Essel said. “We see what COVID has done. We once may have described it as a great equalizer – everyone is touched in the same way – but the reality is, this is actually a great magnifier. It’s revealing to us and magnifying disparities that have existed for far too long and has really allowed us to see it in a new way.”

A big part of disparities in food insecurity is disparities in wealth, “the safety net or cushion for families when things go wrong,” Dr. Essel said. The median wealth of White Americans in 2016 was $171,000, compared to $20,700 among Latinx Americans and $17,600 among Black Americans, according to the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances.
 

Food insecurity interventions

Federal nutrition programs – such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meal programs – are key to addressing food insecurity, Dr. Essel said.

“They have a long track record of rescuing families out of poverty, of rescuing families from food security and improving overall health of families,” he said.

But emergency food relief programs are important as well. Four in 10 families currently coming into food pantries are new recipients, and these resources have seen a 60% increase in clients, he said.

“This is utterly unreasonable for them to be able to manage,” he said. “Food pantries are essential but inadequate to compensate for large numbers of families,” even while they also may be the only option for families unable or unwilling to access federal programs. For example, for every one meal that food banks can provide, SNAP can provide nine meals, Dr. Essel said. Further, during times of economic downtown, every SNAP $1 spent generates $1.50 to $2 in economic activity.

Currently, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program provides benefits to families for school breakfast and lunch and has been extended through December 2021. Another federal pandemic response was to increase SNAP to the maximum household benefit for families, about $646 for a family of four, although 40% of households were already receiving the maximum benefit.
 

Food insecurity advocacy

You can advocate for any one of multiple pillars when it comes to food insecurity, Dr. Essel said. “Food cannot solve food insecurity by itself,” he said. “We have to think about root causes – systemic causes – and think about unemployment, livable wage, systemic racism, oppression, an inequitable food system. All of these things are pillars that any of you can advocate for when recognizing a family that is struggling with food insecurity.”

He offered several suggestions for advocacy:

• Join your local AAP chapter and prioritize food insecurity.
• Join a local antihunger task force.
• Make your clinical environment as safe as possible for families to respond to questions about food insecurity.
• Know what’s happening in your community immigrant populations.
• Provide up-to-date information to families about eligibility for federal programs.
• Share stories through op-eds and letters to the editor, and by contacting congressional representatives and providing expert testimony to school boards and city councils.
• Educate others about food insecurity through the above channels and on social media.

Jessica Lazerov, MD, a general pediatrician at Children’s National Anacostia and assistant professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, said the session was fantastic.

“Dr. Essel went beyond the basics of food insecurity, delving into the root causes, potential solutions, and important considerations when screening for food insecurity in practice,” Dr. Lazerov said in an interview. “I enjoyed his focus on advocacy, as well as the fact that he spent a bit of time reviewing how the COVID pandemic has affected food insecurity. I truly felt empowered to take my advocacy efforts a step further as Dr. Essel laid out concrete, actionable next steps, as well as a review of the most relevant and current information about food insecurity.”

Dr. Essel, Dr. Lazerov, and Dr. Gray have no relevant financial disclosures.

You have a responsibility to screen families for food insecurity, intervene to help them, and advocate on behalf of those experiencing or at risk of food insecurity, according to Kofi Essel, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s National Hospital in Washington.

YES Market Media/Shutterstock

More than one in four adults are dealing with food access hardships during the pandemic, Dr. Essel said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food insecurity is often interchangeable with hunger and refers to limited or uncertain availability of foods that are nutritious and safe.

“Food insecurity is as much about the threat of deprivation as it is about deprivation itself: A food-insecure life means a life lived in fear of hunger, and the psychological toll that takes,” according to a 2020 New York Times photo feature on food insecurity by Brenda Ann Kenneally that Dr. Essel quoted.

The lived experience of food insecure households includes food anxiety, a preoccupation with being able to get enough food that takes up cognitive bandwidth and prevents people from being able to focus on other important things. Another feature of food-insecure homes is a monotony of diet, which often involves an increase in caloric density and decrease in nutritional quality. As food insecurity grows more dire, adults’ food intake decreases, and then children’s intake decreases as adults seek out any way to get food, including “socially unacceptable” ways, which can include food pantries and bartering for food.

Food insecurity is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes even after accounting for other confounders, including decreased overall health, mental health, and educational outcomes. It’s also associated with an increase in developmental delays, hospitalizations, iron deficiency, asthma, and birth defects, among other problems. Somewhat paradoxically, it’s associated with both an increase and a decrease in obesity in the research.

Megan J. Gray, MD, MPH, assistant professor of pediatrics and population health at Dell Medical School at the The University of Texas at Austin, attended Dr. Essel’s session because food insecurity during COVID-19 now affects about half her patients, according to screening research she’s conducted.

“I wanted to learn more about the nuances of screening and using language and talking points that are helpful with families and with staff in building a culture of discussing food insecurity in our clinics,” Dr. Gray said in an interview. “What I’ve learned in my clinic is that if we don’t ask about it, families aren’t telling us – food insecurity is hiding in plain sight.”

She particularly appreciated Dr. Essel’s slides on the progression of food insecurity and how they acknowledged the mental health burden of food insecurity among parents.

“Right now during COVID-19, I see more patients I would call ‘socially complex’ rather than ‘medically complex,’ ” she said. “We all need to get a crash course in social work and Dr. Essel’s presentation is a great starting place.”

Screening for food insecurity

Beginning in 2015, an AAP policy statement charged pediatricians to “screen and intervene” with regard to food insecurity and their patients, Dr. Essel said. The statement also called for pediatricians to advocate for programs and policies that end childhood food insecurity.

The policy statement recommended a validated two-question screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign:

1. “Within the past 12 months, we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.”

2. “Within the past 12 months, the food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.”

But in screening, you need to be conscious of how dignity intersects with food insecurity concerns, Dr. Essel said.

“We need to create dignity for our families,” he said. “We need to create a safe environment for our families and use appropriate tools when necessary to be able to identify families that are struggling with food insecurity.”

That need is seen in research on food screening. The Hunger Vital Signs questions can be asked with a dichotomous variable, as a yes/no question, or on a Likert scale, though the latter is a more complex way to ask.

A 2017 study found, however, that asking with “yes/no” answers missed more than a quarter of at-risk families. In the AAP survey using “yes/no” answers, 31% of families screened positive for being at risk of food insecurity, compared with 46% when the same question was asked on a Likert scale. It seems the ability to answer with “sometimes” feels “safer” than answering “yes,” Dr. Essel said.

Another factor that potentially affects answers is how doctors ask. In a March 2020 study at a single primary care practice, 16% of families screened positive with yes/no responses to a food insecurity screen when the questions were written, compared with 10% of positive screens with verbal responses (P < .001).

Epidemiology of food insecurity

The most updated United States Department of Agriculture report on food insecurity released in September shows the United States finally reached prerecession levels in 2019, with 11% of families designated as “food insecure.” But 2019 data cannot show what has occurred since the pandemic.

Further, the numbers are higher in households with children: Fourteen percent, or one in seven households with children, are experiencing food insecurity. Racial and ethnic disparities in food insecurity have remained consistent over the past 2 decades, with about twice as many Black and Hispanic homes experiencing food insecurity as White homes.

More recent research using Census Household Pulse Surveys has found a tremendous increase in food insecurity for children in 2020. One in three Black children and one in four Hispanic children are food insecure, according to these surveys. The rates are one in six for Asian households and one in ten for White households.

“The disparity is consistent,” Dr. Essel said. “We see what COVID has done. We once may have described it as a great equalizer – everyone is touched in the same way – but the reality is, this is actually a great magnifier. It’s revealing to us and magnifying disparities that have existed for far too long and has really allowed us to see it in a new way.”

A big part of disparities in food insecurity is disparities in wealth, “the safety net or cushion for families when things go wrong,” Dr. Essel said. The median wealth of White Americans in 2016 was $171,000, compared to $20,700 among Latinx Americans and $17,600 among Black Americans, according to the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances.
 

Food insecurity interventions

Federal nutrition programs – such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meal programs – are key to addressing food insecurity, Dr. Essel said.

“They have a long track record of rescuing families out of poverty, of rescuing families from food security and improving overall health of families,” he said.

But emergency food relief programs are important as well. Four in 10 families currently coming into food pantries are new recipients, and these resources have seen a 60% increase in clients, he said.

“This is utterly unreasonable for them to be able to manage,” he said. “Food pantries are essential but inadequate to compensate for large numbers of families,” even while they also may be the only option for families unable or unwilling to access federal programs. For example, for every one meal that food banks can provide, SNAP can provide nine meals, Dr. Essel said. Further, during times of economic downtown, every SNAP $1 spent generates $1.50 to $2 in economic activity.

Currently, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program provides benefits to families for school breakfast and lunch and has been extended through December 2021. Another federal pandemic response was to increase SNAP to the maximum household benefit for families, about $646 for a family of four, although 40% of households were already receiving the maximum benefit.
 

Food insecurity advocacy

You can advocate for any one of multiple pillars when it comes to food insecurity, Dr. Essel said. “Food cannot solve food insecurity by itself,” he said. “We have to think about root causes – systemic causes – and think about unemployment, livable wage, systemic racism, oppression, an inequitable food system. All of these things are pillars that any of you can advocate for when recognizing a family that is struggling with food insecurity.”

He offered several suggestions for advocacy:

• Join your local AAP chapter and prioritize food insecurity.
• Join a local antihunger task force.
• Make your clinical environment as safe as possible for families to respond to questions about food insecurity.
• Know what’s happening in your community immigrant populations.
• Provide up-to-date information to families about eligibility for federal programs.
• Share stories through op-eds and letters to the editor, and by contacting congressional representatives and providing expert testimony to school boards and city councils.
• Educate others about food insecurity through the above channels and on social media.

Jessica Lazerov, MD, a general pediatrician at Children’s National Anacostia and assistant professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, said the session was fantastic.

“Dr. Essel went beyond the basics of food insecurity, delving into the root causes, potential solutions, and important considerations when screening for food insecurity in practice,” Dr. Lazerov said in an interview. “I enjoyed his focus on advocacy, as well as the fact that he spent a bit of time reviewing how the COVID pandemic has affected food insecurity. I truly felt empowered to take my advocacy efforts a step further as Dr. Essel laid out concrete, actionable next steps, as well as a review of the most relevant and current information about food insecurity.”

Dr. Essel, Dr. Lazerov, and Dr. Gray have no relevant financial disclosures.

Amid recent reports of hackers targeting and blackmailing health care systems and even patients, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies have issued warning of “imminent” cyberattacks on more U.S. hospitals.

Thinkstock compilation

A new report released by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, noted that the FBI and the Department of Health & Human Services have “credible information of an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and health care providers.”

The agencies are urging “timely and reasonable precautions” to protect health care networks from these threats.

As reported, hackers accessed patient records at Vastaamo, Finland’s largest private psychotherapy system, and emailed some patients last month demanding €200 in bitcoin or else personal health data would be released online.

In June, the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an information technology (IT) “security incident” that led to the payout of $1.14 million to individuals responsible for a malware attack in exchange for the return of data.

In addition, last week, Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls, Ore., released a statement in which it said there had been a ransomware attack on its computer systems. Although “there is no evidence that patient information has been compromised,” some of its systems are still down.

“We’re open for business, it’s just not business as usual,” Tom Hottman, public information officer at Sky Lakes, said in an interview.

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview, “People have known for a long time that there are nefarious actors out there.” He said all health care systems should be prepared to deal with these problems.

“In the face of a warning from the FBI, I’d say that’s even more important now,” Dr. Appelbaum added.
 

‘Malicious cyber actors’

In the new CISA report, the agency noted that it, the FBI, and the HHS have been assessing “malicious cyber actors” targeting health care systems with malware loaders such as TrickBot and BazarLoader, which often lead to data theft, ransomware attacks, and service disruptions.

“The cybercriminal enterprise behind TrickBot, which is likely also the creator of BazarLoader malware, has continued to develop new functionality and tools, increasing the ease, speed, and profitability of victimization,” the report authors wrote.

Phishing campaigns often contain attachments with malware or links to malicious websites. “Loaders start the infection chain by distributing the payload,” the report noted. A backdoor mechanism is then installed on the victim’s device.

In addition to TrickBot and BazarLoader (or BazarBackdoor), the report discussed other malicious tools, including Ryuk and Conti, which are types of ransomware that can infect systems for hackers’ financial gain.

“These issues will be particularly challenging for organizations within the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, administrators will need to balance this risk when determining their cybersecurity investments,” the agencies wrote.

Dr. Appelbaum said his organization is taking the warning seriously.

“When the report first came out, I received emails from every system that I’m affiliated with warning about it and encouraging me as a member of the medical staff to take the usual prudent precautions,” such as not opening attachments or links from unknown sources, he said.

“The FBI warning has what seems like very reasonable advice, which is that every system should automatically back up their data off site in a separate system that’s differently accessible,” he added.

After a ransomware attack, the most recently entered information may not be backed up and could get lost, but “that’s a lot easier to deal with then losing access to all of your medical records,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

Ipsit Vahia, MD, medical director at the Institute for Technology and Psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., noted that, in answer to the FBI warning, he has heard that many centers, including his own, are warning their clinicians not to open any email attachments at this time.
 

Recent attacks

UCSF issued a statement noting that malware detected in early June led to the encryption of “a limited number of servers” in its medical school, making them temporarily inaccessible.

“We do not currently believe patient medical records were exposed,” the university said in the statement.

It added that because the encrypted data were necessary for “some of the academic work” conducted at UCSF, they agreed to pay a portion of the ransom demand – about $1.14 million. The hackers then provided a tool that unlocked the encrypted data.

“We continue to cooperate with law enforcement and we appreciate everyone’s understanding that we are limited in what we can share while we continue our investigation,” the statement reads. UCSF declined a request for further comment.

At Sky Lakes Medical Center, computer systems are still down after its ransomware attack, including use of electronic medical records, but the Oregon-based health care system is still seeing patients.

They are “being interviewed old school,” with the admitting process being conducted on paper, “but patient care goes on,” said Mr. Hottman.

In addition to a teaching hospital, Sky Lakes comprises specialty and primary care clinics, including a cancer treatment center. All remain open to patients at this time.

Diagnostic imaging is also continuing, but “getting the image to a place it can be read” has become more complicated, said Mr. Hottman.

“We have some work-arounds in process, and a plan is being assembled that we think will be in place as early as this weekend so that we can get those images read starting next week,” he said.

In addition, “scheduling is a little clunky,” he reported. However, “we have an awesome staff with a good attitude, so there’s still a whole lot we can do.”

He also noted that his institution has reconfirmed that, as of Nov. 4, no patient data had been compromised.

‘Especially chilling’

Targeting hospitals through cyberattacks isn’t new. In 2017, the WannaCry virus affected more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, including the operating system of the U.K. National Health Service. The cyberattack locked clinicians out of NHS patient records and other digital tools for 3 days.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, as hospital systems become more dependent on the Internet and on electronic communications, they become more vulnerable to data breaches.

“I think it’s clear that there have been concerted efforts lately to undertake attacks on health care IT systems to either hold them hostage, as in a ransomware attack, or to download files and use that information for profit,” he said.

Still, Dr. Vahia noted that contacting patients directly, which occurred in the Finland data breach and blackmail scheme, is something new. It is “especially chilling” that individual psychiatric patients were targeted.

“It is difficult to even fathom the kind of damage that can be done by compromised mental health records. It’s difficult to overstate how big a deal this is, and we should be treating it with the appropriate level of urgency,” he said in an interview.

“It shows how badly things can go wrong when security is compromised; and it should make us take a step back and survey the world of digital health to gain recognition of how much risk there might be that we haven’t really understood before,” Dr. Vahia said.
 

Clinical tips

Asked whether he had any tips to share with clinicians, Mr. Hottman noted that the best time to have a plan is before something dire happens.

“I would make [the possibility of cyberattacks] part of the emergency preparedness program. What if you don’t have access to computers? What do you do?” It’s important to answer those questions prior to systems going down, he said.

Mr. Hottman reported that after a mechanical failure last year put their computer systems offline for a day, “we started putting all critical information on paper and in a binder,” including phone numbers for the state police.

Dr. Vahia noted that another important step for clinicians “is to just pause and take stock of how digitally dependent” health care is becoming. He also warned that precautions should be taken regarding wearables and apps, as well as for electronic medical records. He noted the importance of strong passwords and two-step verification processes.

Even with the risks, digital technology has had a major impact on health care efficiency. “It’s not perfect, the work is ongoing, and there are big questions that need to be addressed, but in the end, the ability of technology when used right and securely” leads to better patient care, he said.

John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, agreed that digital health care is and will remain very important; but at the same time, security issues need proper attention.

“When you look back at medical hacks that have happened, there’s often a human error behind it. It’s rare for someone to break encryption. I think we have pretty darn good security, but we need to realize that sometimes errors will happen,” he said in an interview.

As an example, Dr. Torous, who is also chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Health and Technology Committee, cited phishing emails, which depend on a user clicking a link that can cause a virus to be downloaded into their network.

“You can be cautious, but it takes just one person to download an attachment with a virus in it” to cause disruptions, Dr. Torous said.
 

Telehealth implications

After its data breach, Vastaamo posted on its website a notice that video is never recorded during the centers’ telehealth sessions, and so patients need not worry that any videos could be leaked online.

Asked whether video is commonly recorded during telehealth sessions in the United States, Dr. Vahia said that he was not aware of sessions being recorded, especially because the amount of the data would be too great to store indefinitely.

Dr. Appelbaum agreed and said that, to his knowledge, no clinicians at Columbia University are recording telehealth sessions. He said that it would represent a privacy threat, and he noted that most health care providers “don’t have the time to go back and watch videos of their interactions with patients.”

In the case of recordings for research purposes, he emphasized that it would be important to get consent and then store the health information offline.

As for other telehealth security risks, Dr. Vahia noted that it is possible that if a computer or device is compromised, an individual could hack into a camera and observe the session. In addition to microphones, “these pose some especially high vulnerabilities,” he said. “Clinicians need to pay attention as to whether the cameras they’re using for telecare are on or if they’re covered when not in use. And they should pay attention to security settings on smartphones and ensure microphones are not turned on as the default.”

Dr. Appelbaum said the HIPAA requires that telehealth sessions be conducted on secure systems, so clinicians need to ascertain whether the system they’re using complies with that rule.

“Particularly people who are not part of larger systems and would not usually take on that responsibility, maybe they’re in private practice or a small group, they really need to check on the security level and on HIPAA compliance and not just assume that it is adequately secure,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum, who is also a past president of the APA and director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University, noted that the major risk for hospitals after a cyberattack is probably not liability to individual patients.

“It’s much more likely that they would face fines from HIPAA if it’s found that they failed to live up to HIPAA requirements,” he said.

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

Amid recent reports of hackers targeting and blackmailing health care systems and even patients, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies have issued warning of “imminent” cyberattacks on more U.S. hospitals.

Thinkstock compilation

A new report released by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, noted that the FBI and the Department of Health & Human Services have “credible information of an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and health care providers.”

The agencies are urging “timely and reasonable precautions” to protect health care networks from these threats.

As reported, hackers accessed patient records at Vastaamo, Finland’s largest private psychotherapy system, and emailed some patients last month demanding €200 in bitcoin or else personal health data would be released online.

In June, the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an information technology (IT) “security incident” that led to the payout of $1.14 million to individuals responsible for a malware attack in exchange for the return of data.

In addition, last week, Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls, Ore., released a statement in which it said there had been a ransomware attack on its computer systems. Although “there is no evidence that patient information has been compromised,” some of its systems are still down.

“We’re open for business, it’s just not business as usual,” Tom Hottman, public information officer at Sky Lakes, said in an interview.

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview, “People have known for a long time that there are nefarious actors out there.” He said all health care systems should be prepared to deal with these problems.

“In the face of a warning from the FBI, I’d say that’s even more important now,” Dr. Appelbaum added.
 

‘Malicious cyber actors’

In the new CISA report, the agency noted that it, the FBI, and the HHS have been assessing “malicious cyber actors” targeting health care systems with malware loaders such as TrickBot and BazarLoader, which often lead to data theft, ransomware attacks, and service disruptions.

“The cybercriminal enterprise behind TrickBot, which is likely also the creator of BazarLoader malware, has continued to develop new functionality and tools, increasing the ease, speed, and profitability of victimization,” the report authors wrote.

Phishing campaigns often contain attachments with malware or links to malicious websites. “Loaders start the infection chain by distributing the payload,” the report noted. A backdoor mechanism is then installed on the victim’s device.

In addition to TrickBot and BazarLoader (or BazarBackdoor), the report discussed other malicious tools, including Ryuk and Conti, which are types of ransomware that can infect systems for hackers’ financial gain.

“These issues will be particularly challenging for organizations within the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, administrators will need to balance this risk when determining their cybersecurity investments,” the agencies wrote.

Dr. Appelbaum said his organization is taking the warning seriously.

“When the report first came out, I received emails from every system that I’m affiliated with warning about it and encouraging me as a member of the medical staff to take the usual prudent precautions,” such as not opening attachments or links from unknown sources, he said.

“The FBI warning has what seems like very reasonable advice, which is that every system should automatically back up their data off site in a separate system that’s differently accessible,” he added.

After a ransomware attack, the most recently entered information may not be backed up and could get lost, but “that’s a lot easier to deal with then losing access to all of your medical records,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

Ipsit Vahia, MD, medical director at the Institute for Technology and Psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., noted that, in answer to the FBI warning, he has heard that many centers, including his own, are warning their clinicians not to open any email attachments at this time.
 

Recent attacks

UCSF issued a statement noting that malware detected in early June led to the encryption of “a limited number of servers” in its medical school, making them temporarily inaccessible.

“We do not currently believe patient medical records were exposed,” the university said in the statement.

It added that because the encrypted data were necessary for “some of the academic work” conducted at UCSF, they agreed to pay a portion of the ransom demand – about $1.14 million. The hackers then provided a tool that unlocked the encrypted data.

“We continue to cooperate with law enforcement and we appreciate everyone’s understanding that we are limited in what we can share while we continue our investigation,” the statement reads. UCSF declined a request for further comment.

At Sky Lakes Medical Center, computer systems are still down after its ransomware attack, including use of electronic medical records, but the Oregon-based health care system is still seeing patients.

They are “being interviewed old school,” with the admitting process being conducted on paper, “but patient care goes on,” said Mr. Hottman.

In addition to a teaching hospital, Sky Lakes comprises specialty and primary care clinics, including a cancer treatment center. All remain open to patients at this time.

Diagnostic imaging is also continuing, but “getting the image to a place it can be read” has become more complicated, said Mr. Hottman.

“We have some work-arounds in process, and a plan is being assembled that we think will be in place as early as this weekend so that we can get those images read starting next week,” he said.

In addition, “scheduling is a little clunky,” he reported. However, “we have an awesome staff with a good attitude, so there’s still a whole lot we can do.”

He also noted that his institution has reconfirmed that, as of Nov. 4, no patient data had been compromised.

‘Especially chilling’

Targeting hospitals through cyberattacks isn’t new. In 2017, the WannaCry virus affected more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, including the operating system of the U.K. National Health Service. The cyberattack locked clinicians out of NHS patient records and other digital tools for 3 days.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, as hospital systems become more dependent on the Internet and on electronic communications, they become more vulnerable to data breaches.

“I think it’s clear that there have been concerted efforts lately to undertake attacks on health care IT systems to either hold them hostage, as in a ransomware attack, or to download files and use that information for profit,” he said.

Still, Dr. Vahia noted that contacting patients directly, which occurred in the Finland data breach and blackmail scheme, is something new. It is “especially chilling” that individual psychiatric patients were targeted.

“It is difficult to even fathom the kind of damage that can be done by compromised mental health records. It’s difficult to overstate how big a deal this is, and we should be treating it with the appropriate level of urgency,” he said in an interview.

“It shows how badly things can go wrong when security is compromised; and it should make us take a step back and survey the world of digital health to gain recognition of how much risk there might be that we haven’t really understood before,” Dr. Vahia said.
 

Clinical tips

Asked whether he had any tips to share with clinicians, Mr. Hottman noted that the best time to have a plan is before something dire happens.

“I would make [the possibility of cyberattacks] part of the emergency preparedness program. What if you don’t have access to computers? What do you do?” It’s important to answer those questions prior to systems going down, he said.

Mr. Hottman reported that after a mechanical failure last year put their computer systems offline for a day, “we started putting all critical information on paper and in a binder,” including phone numbers for the state police.

Dr. Vahia noted that another important step for clinicians “is to just pause and take stock of how digitally dependent” health care is becoming. He also warned that precautions should be taken regarding wearables and apps, as well as for electronic medical records. He noted the importance of strong passwords and two-step verification processes.

Even with the risks, digital technology has had a major impact on health care efficiency. “It’s not perfect, the work is ongoing, and there are big questions that need to be addressed, but in the end, the ability of technology when used right and securely” leads to better patient care, he said.

John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, agreed that digital health care is and will remain very important; but at the same time, security issues need proper attention.

“When you look back at medical hacks that have happened, there’s often a human error behind it. It’s rare for someone to break encryption. I think we have pretty darn good security, but we need to realize that sometimes errors will happen,” he said in an interview.

As an example, Dr. Torous, who is also chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Health and Technology Committee, cited phishing emails, which depend on a user clicking a link that can cause a virus to be downloaded into their network.

“You can be cautious, but it takes just one person to download an attachment with a virus in it” to cause disruptions, Dr. Torous said.
 

Telehealth implications

After its data breach, Vastaamo posted on its website a notice that video is never recorded during the centers’ telehealth sessions, and so patients need not worry that any videos could be leaked online.

Asked whether video is commonly recorded during telehealth sessions in the United States, Dr. Vahia said that he was not aware of sessions being recorded, especially because the amount of the data would be too great to store indefinitely.

Dr. Appelbaum agreed and said that, to his knowledge, no clinicians at Columbia University are recording telehealth sessions. He said that it would represent a privacy threat, and he noted that most health care providers “don’t have the time to go back and watch videos of their interactions with patients.”

In the case of recordings for research purposes, he emphasized that it would be important to get consent and then store the health information offline.

As for other telehealth security risks, Dr. Vahia noted that it is possible that if a computer or device is compromised, an individual could hack into a camera and observe the session. In addition to microphones, “these pose some especially high vulnerabilities,” he said. “Clinicians need to pay attention as to whether the cameras they’re using for telecare are on or if they’re covered when not in use. And they should pay attention to security settings on smartphones and ensure microphones are not turned on as the default.”

Dr. Appelbaum said the HIPAA requires that telehealth sessions be conducted on secure systems, so clinicians need to ascertain whether the system they’re using complies with that rule.

“Particularly people who are not part of larger systems and would not usually take on that responsibility, maybe they’re in private practice or a small group, they really need to check on the security level and on HIPAA compliance and not just assume that it is adequately secure,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum, who is also a past president of the APA and director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University, noted that the major risk for hospitals after a cyberattack is probably not liability to individual patients.

“It’s much more likely that they would face fines from HIPAA if it’s found that they failed to live up to HIPAA requirements,” he said.

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

Amid recent reports of hackers targeting and blackmailing health care systems and even patients, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies have issued warning of “imminent” cyberattacks on more U.S. hospitals.

Thinkstock compilation

A new report released by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, noted that the FBI and the Department of Health & Human Services have “credible information of an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and health care providers.”

The agencies are urging “timely and reasonable precautions” to protect health care networks from these threats.

As reported, hackers accessed patient records at Vastaamo, Finland’s largest private psychotherapy system, and emailed some patients last month demanding €200 in bitcoin or else personal health data would be released online.

In June, the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an information technology (IT) “security incident” that led to the payout of $1.14 million to individuals responsible for a malware attack in exchange for the return of data.

In addition, last week, Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls, Ore., released a statement in which it said there had been a ransomware attack on its computer systems. Although “there is no evidence that patient information has been compromised,” some of its systems are still down.

“We’re open for business, it’s just not business as usual,” Tom Hottman, public information officer at Sky Lakes, said in an interview.

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview, “People have known for a long time that there are nefarious actors out there.” He said all health care systems should be prepared to deal with these problems.

“In the face of a warning from the FBI, I’d say that’s even more important now,” Dr. Appelbaum added.
 

‘Malicious cyber actors’

In the new CISA report, the agency noted that it, the FBI, and the HHS have been assessing “malicious cyber actors” targeting health care systems with malware loaders such as TrickBot and BazarLoader, which often lead to data theft, ransomware attacks, and service disruptions.

“The cybercriminal enterprise behind TrickBot, which is likely also the creator of BazarLoader malware, has continued to develop new functionality and tools, increasing the ease, speed, and profitability of victimization,” the report authors wrote.

Phishing campaigns often contain attachments with malware or links to malicious websites. “Loaders start the infection chain by distributing the payload,” the report noted. A backdoor mechanism is then installed on the victim’s device.

In addition to TrickBot and BazarLoader (or BazarBackdoor), the report discussed other malicious tools, including Ryuk and Conti, which are types of ransomware that can infect systems for hackers’ financial gain.

“These issues will be particularly challenging for organizations within the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, administrators will need to balance this risk when determining their cybersecurity investments,” the agencies wrote.

Dr. Appelbaum said his organization is taking the warning seriously.

“When the report first came out, I received emails from every system that I’m affiliated with warning about it and encouraging me as a member of the medical staff to take the usual prudent precautions,” such as not opening attachments or links from unknown sources, he said.

“The FBI warning has what seems like very reasonable advice, which is that every system should automatically back up their data off site in a separate system that’s differently accessible,” he added.

After a ransomware attack, the most recently entered information may not be backed up and could get lost, but “that’s a lot easier to deal with then losing access to all of your medical records,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

Ipsit Vahia, MD, medical director at the Institute for Technology and Psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., noted that, in answer to the FBI warning, he has heard that many centers, including his own, are warning their clinicians not to open any email attachments at this time.
 

Recent attacks

UCSF issued a statement noting that malware detected in early June led to the encryption of “a limited number of servers” in its medical school, making them temporarily inaccessible.

“We do not currently believe patient medical records were exposed,” the university said in the statement.

It added that because the encrypted data were necessary for “some of the academic work” conducted at UCSF, they agreed to pay a portion of the ransom demand – about $1.14 million. The hackers then provided a tool that unlocked the encrypted data.

“We continue to cooperate with law enforcement and we appreciate everyone’s understanding that we are limited in what we can share while we continue our investigation,” the statement reads. UCSF declined a request for further comment.

At Sky Lakes Medical Center, computer systems are still down after its ransomware attack, including use of electronic medical records, but the Oregon-based health care system is still seeing patients.

They are “being interviewed old school,” with the admitting process being conducted on paper, “but patient care goes on,” said Mr. Hottman.

In addition to a teaching hospital, Sky Lakes comprises specialty and primary care clinics, including a cancer treatment center. All remain open to patients at this time.

Diagnostic imaging is also continuing, but “getting the image to a place it can be read” has become more complicated, said Mr. Hottman.

“We have some work-arounds in process, and a plan is being assembled that we think will be in place as early as this weekend so that we can get those images read starting next week,” he said.

In addition, “scheduling is a little clunky,” he reported. However, “we have an awesome staff with a good attitude, so there’s still a whole lot we can do.”

He also noted that his institution has reconfirmed that, as of Nov. 4, no patient data had been compromised.

‘Especially chilling’

Targeting hospitals through cyberattacks isn’t new. In 2017, the WannaCry virus affected more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, including the operating system of the U.K. National Health Service. The cyberattack locked clinicians out of NHS patient records and other digital tools for 3 days.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, as hospital systems become more dependent on the Internet and on electronic communications, they become more vulnerable to data breaches.

“I think it’s clear that there have been concerted efforts lately to undertake attacks on health care IT systems to either hold them hostage, as in a ransomware attack, or to download files and use that information for profit,” he said.

Still, Dr. Vahia noted that contacting patients directly, which occurred in the Finland data breach and blackmail scheme, is something new. It is “especially chilling” that individual psychiatric patients were targeted.

“It is difficult to even fathom the kind of damage that can be done by compromised mental health records. It’s difficult to overstate how big a deal this is, and we should be treating it with the appropriate level of urgency,” he said in an interview.

“It shows how badly things can go wrong when security is compromised; and it should make us take a step back and survey the world of digital health to gain recognition of how much risk there might be that we haven’t really understood before,” Dr. Vahia said.
 

Clinical tips

Asked whether he had any tips to share with clinicians, Mr. Hottman noted that the best time to have a plan is before something dire happens.

“I would make [the possibility of cyberattacks] part of the emergency preparedness program. What if you don’t have access to computers? What do you do?” It’s important to answer those questions prior to systems going down, he said.

Mr. Hottman reported that after a mechanical failure last year put their computer systems offline for a day, “we started putting all critical information on paper and in a binder,” including phone numbers for the state police.

Dr. Vahia noted that another important step for clinicians “is to just pause and take stock of how digitally dependent” health care is becoming. He also warned that precautions should be taken regarding wearables and apps, as well as for electronic medical records. He noted the importance of strong passwords and two-step verification processes.

Even with the risks, digital technology has had a major impact on health care efficiency. “It’s not perfect, the work is ongoing, and there are big questions that need to be addressed, but in the end, the ability of technology when used right and securely” leads to better patient care, he said.

John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, agreed that digital health care is and will remain very important; but at the same time, security issues need proper attention.

“When you look back at medical hacks that have happened, there’s often a human error behind it. It’s rare for someone to break encryption. I think we have pretty darn good security, but we need to realize that sometimes errors will happen,” he said in an interview.

As an example, Dr. Torous, who is also chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Health and Technology Committee, cited phishing emails, which depend on a user clicking a link that can cause a virus to be downloaded into their network.

“You can be cautious, but it takes just one person to download an attachment with a virus in it” to cause disruptions, Dr. Torous said.
 

Telehealth implications

After its data breach, Vastaamo posted on its website a notice that video is never recorded during the centers’ telehealth sessions, and so patients need not worry that any videos could be leaked online.

Asked whether video is commonly recorded during telehealth sessions in the United States, Dr. Vahia said that he was not aware of sessions being recorded, especially because the amount of the data would be too great to store indefinitely.

Dr. Appelbaum agreed and said that, to his knowledge, no clinicians at Columbia University are recording telehealth sessions. He said that it would represent a privacy threat, and he noted that most health care providers “don’t have the time to go back and watch videos of their interactions with patients.”

In the case of recordings for research purposes, he emphasized that it would be important to get consent and then store the health information offline.

As for other telehealth security risks, Dr. Vahia noted that it is possible that if a computer or device is compromised, an individual could hack into a camera and observe the session. In addition to microphones, “these pose some especially high vulnerabilities,” he said. “Clinicians need to pay attention as to whether the cameras they’re using for telecare are on or if they’re covered when not in use. And they should pay attention to security settings on smartphones and ensure microphones are not turned on as the default.”

Dr. Appelbaum said the HIPAA requires that telehealth sessions be conducted on secure systems, so clinicians need to ascertain whether the system they’re using complies with that rule.

“Particularly people who are not part of larger systems and would not usually take on that responsibility, maybe they’re in private practice or a small group, they really need to check on the security level and on HIPAA compliance and not just assume that it is adequately secure,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum, who is also a past president of the APA and director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University, noted that the major risk for hospitals after a cyberattack is probably not liability to individual patients.

“It’s much more likely that they would face fines from HIPAA if it’s found that they failed to live up to HIPAA requirements,” he said.

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

Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in “magic mushrooms,” rapidly improves symptoms and produces remission in as little as two sessions for patients with major depression, new research suggests.

Results of a small randomized trial showed that treatment with psilocybin was associated with a greater than 50% reduction in depressive symptoms in 67% of study participants. In addition, 71% showed improvement at 4-week follow-up, with more than 50% achieving remission.

“The finding that the majority of people whom we treated showed efficacy was quite a remarkable and gratifying finding and really sets the stage for psilocybin as a treatment for major depression,” senior investigator Roland Griffiths, PhD, Oliver Lee McCabe III Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a statement.

“Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this as a new therapy is that psilocybin works as a therapeutic intervention with a single session or a few sessions, and then the effects are enduring. In contrast, most conventional treatments for depression ... are given chronically and also have chronic side effects,” added Dr. Griffiths, who is also director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

The study was published online Nov.4 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Growing evidence base

As previously reported, psilocybin improves depressive symptoms for patients with cancer. However, these patients might be regarded as having a “reactive depression” to their life-threatening illness, said Dr. Griffiths.

“This study built on that previous research by asking the question, is psilocybin effective in patients who have major depressive disorder, [which is] a much larger population?” he said.

In addition, prior studies of psilocybin-assisted therapy had no control group, lead author Alan Davis, PhD, adjunct assistant professor in the psychedelic research unit, Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

The researchers created a control condition by randomly assigning 24 individuals (mean age, 39.8 years; 67% women) who were currently experiencing a moderate or severe major depressive episode to receive either immediate treatment (IT) (n = 13) or delayed treatment (DT) (n = 11).

Participants had longstanding depression, with a mean of 22.4 months in the current depressive episode. They were required to avoid using other antidepressants for 4 weeks prior to screening and up to 4 months following enrollment.

Patients were also required to be medically stable; have no personal/family history of psychotic or bipolar disorders; no past-year alcohol, substance, or nicotine use disorder; and no substantial lifetime or recent use of ketamine or classic hallucinogens.

Depression was measured using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 and the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD). A baseline score of ≥17 was required for enrollment.

Participants received eight preparatory meetings with two session facilitators before the first psilocybin session and then 2-3 hours of follow-up meetings after the psilocybin sessions. In addition, they received 13 sessions of psychotherapy.

After completing these preparatory sessions, they underwent two psilocybin sessions, administered a mean of 1.6 weeks apart.

Participants in the DT group were assessed for depressive symptoms weekly for 8 weeks prior to entering the treatment protocol.
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Participants in the IT group exhibited significantly lower depression scores on the GRID-HAMD at 1 and 4 weeks after the second psilocybin session in comparison with patients in the DT group during the corresponding weeks.

Moreover, the effect sizes at weeks 5 and 8 were “large” (d = 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.0; and d = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6, respectively).

An analysis of outcomes showed that, for all 24 participants, at 1 and at 4 weeks following the psilocybin intervention, 67% and 71% of participants, respectively, had a “clinically significant response” in depressive symptoms; 60% and 56%, respectively, met criteria for remission.

Within-subject T tests likewise revealed significant decreases in depression scores from baseline to 1- and 4-week follow-ups (P < .001; d = 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.0; and P < .001; d = 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-4.9, respectively).

Importantly, participants experienced no serious adverse effects.

Dr. Griffiths said he was “surprised” by the findings. “We knew that psilocybin would be effective in reactive depression of the type associated with illness, but we did not know that this would be the case in the large number of individuals who qualify for having [major depressive disorder].”

Dr. Davis said the finding “represents a large effect of this treatment among people with major depressive disorder – an approximately 4 times larger effect, compared to studies of antidepressant drugs.”

Dr. Davis noted that psychotherapy was an “essential” component of the study protocol. “It is likely that the combination of psychotherapy and psilocybin is what makes this treatment efficacious and that this treatment will always have a psychotherapy component and will not be Food and Drug Administration approved as a standalone medication.”

Tipping point

Collin Reiff, MD, clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at New York University noted that because psychedelics are “still stigmatized,” the publication of this study in “one of the highest-impact journals in all of psychiatry suggests that research into psychedelics is now in the mainstream and that the academic psychiatry research community is paying close attention to what is happening.” He described this as a “tipping point.”

Dr. Reiff, who was not involved with the study, noted that research had been conducted on psychedelic compounds until the 1960s, “when they left the research lab and went mainstream, leading to the shutting down and subsequent dormancy of the research for the next 30-40 years.”

Psychedelic research is “undergoing a renaissance and no longer regarded with as much skepticism, but it is important to take our time doing this research so we do not repeat what happened in the 1960s,” said Dr. Reiff.

In an accompanying editorial, Charles F. Reynolds III, MD, endowed professor in geriatric psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pennsylvania, questioned “for whom psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is appropriate (or not), particularly in patients with depression who are suicidal of have a history of suicide attempt.”

Dr. Reynolds, who is also director of the Aging Institute of UPMC, who was not involved with the study, wrote that “personalizing the management of depression has to entail an understanding of the multiple contexts in which depression occurs, including genetic, developmental, psychosocial, cultural, medical, neurocognitive, and spiritual.”

The study was supported by a crowdsourcing campaign organized by Tim Ferris, as well as by grants from the Riverstyx Foundation. The Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research is funded by the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation and receives support from Tim Ferriss, Matt Mullenweg, Craig Nerenberg, and Blake Mycoskie. It is also supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Davis received support from the NIDA. Dr. Griffiths was partially supported by a NIDA grant. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the original article. Reiff reports owning stock in Compass Pathways. Dr. Reynolds reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in “magic mushrooms,” rapidly improves symptoms and produces remission in as little as two sessions for patients with major depression, new research suggests.

Results of a small randomized trial showed that treatment with psilocybin was associated with a greater than 50% reduction in depressive symptoms in 67% of study participants. In addition, 71% showed improvement at 4-week follow-up, with more than 50% achieving remission.

“The finding that the majority of people whom we treated showed efficacy was quite a remarkable and gratifying finding and really sets the stage for psilocybin as a treatment for major depression,” senior investigator Roland Griffiths, PhD, Oliver Lee McCabe III Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a statement.

“Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this as a new therapy is that psilocybin works as a therapeutic intervention with a single session or a few sessions, and then the effects are enduring. In contrast, most conventional treatments for depression ... are given chronically and also have chronic side effects,” added Dr. Griffiths, who is also director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

The study was published online Nov.4 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Growing evidence base

As previously reported, psilocybin improves depressive symptoms for patients with cancer. However, these patients might be regarded as having a “reactive depression” to their life-threatening illness, said Dr. Griffiths.

“This study built on that previous research by asking the question, is psilocybin effective in patients who have major depressive disorder, [which is] a much larger population?” he said.

In addition, prior studies of psilocybin-assisted therapy had no control group, lead author Alan Davis, PhD, adjunct assistant professor in the psychedelic research unit, Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

The researchers created a control condition by randomly assigning 24 individuals (mean age, 39.8 years; 67% women) who were currently experiencing a moderate or severe major depressive episode to receive either immediate treatment (IT) (n = 13) or delayed treatment (DT) (n = 11).

Participants had longstanding depression, with a mean of 22.4 months in the current depressive episode. They were required to avoid using other antidepressants for 4 weeks prior to screening and up to 4 months following enrollment.

Patients were also required to be medically stable; have no personal/family history of psychotic or bipolar disorders; no past-year alcohol, substance, or nicotine use disorder; and no substantial lifetime or recent use of ketamine or classic hallucinogens.

Depression was measured using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 and the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD). A baseline score of ≥17 was required for enrollment.

Participants received eight preparatory meetings with two session facilitators before the first psilocybin session and then 2-3 hours of follow-up meetings after the psilocybin sessions. In addition, they received 13 sessions of psychotherapy.

After completing these preparatory sessions, they underwent two psilocybin sessions, administered a mean of 1.6 weeks apart.

Participants in the DT group were assessed for depressive symptoms weekly for 8 weeks prior to entering the treatment protocol.
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Participants in the IT group exhibited significantly lower depression scores on the GRID-HAMD at 1 and 4 weeks after the second psilocybin session in comparison with patients in the DT group during the corresponding weeks.

Moreover, the effect sizes at weeks 5 and 8 were “large” (d = 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.0; and d = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6, respectively).

An analysis of outcomes showed that, for all 24 participants, at 1 and at 4 weeks following the psilocybin intervention, 67% and 71% of participants, respectively, had a “clinically significant response” in depressive symptoms; 60% and 56%, respectively, met criteria for remission.

Within-subject T tests likewise revealed significant decreases in depression scores from baseline to 1- and 4-week follow-ups (P < .001; d = 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.0; and P < .001; d = 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-4.9, respectively).

Importantly, participants experienced no serious adverse effects.

Dr. Griffiths said he was “surprised” by the findings. “We knew that psilocybin would be effective in reactive depression of the type associated with illness, but we did not know that this would be the case in the large number of individuals who qualify for having [major depressive disorder].”

Dr. Davis said the finding “represents a large effect of this treatment among people with major depressive disorder – an approximately 4 times larger effect, compared to studies of antidepressant drugs.”

Dr. Davis noted that psychotherapy was an “essential” component of the study protocol. “It is likely that the combination of psychotherapy and psilocybin is what makes this treatment efficacious and that this treatment will always have a psychotherapy component and will not be Food and Drug Administration approved as a standalone medication.”

Tipping point

Collin Reiff, MD, clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at New York University noted that because psychedelics are “still stigmatized,” the publication of this study in “one of the highest-impact journals in all of psychiatry suggests that research into psychedelics is now in the mainstream and that the academic psychiatry research community is paying close attention to what is happening.” He described this as a “tipping point.”

Dr. Reiff, who was not involved with the study, noted that research had been conducted on psychedelic compounds until the 1960s, “when they left the research lab and went mainstream, leading to the shutting down and subsequent dormancy of the research for the next 30-40 years.”

Psychedelic research is “undergoing a renaissance and no longer regarded with as much skepticism, but it is important to take our time doing this research so we do not repeat what happened in the 1960s,” said Dr. Reiff.

In an accompanying editorial, Charles F. Reynolds III, MD, endowed professor in geriatric psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pennsylvania, questioned “for whom psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is appropriate (or not), particularly in patients with depression who are suicidal of have a history of suicide attempt.”

Dr. Reynolds, who is also director of the Aging Institute of UPMC, who was not involved with the study, wrote that “personalizing the management of depression has to entail an understanding of the multiple contexts in which depression occurs, including genetic, developmental, psychosocial, cultural, medical, neurocognitive, and spiritual.”

The study was supported by a crowdsourcing campaign organized by Tim Ferris, as well as by grants from the Riverstyx Foundation. The Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research is funded by the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation and receives support from Tim Ferriss, Matt Mullenweg, Craig Nerenberg, and Blake Mycoskie. It is also supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Davis received support from the NIDA. Dr. Griffiths was partially supported by a NIDA grant. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the original article. Reiff reports owning stock in Compass Pathways. Dr. Reynolds reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in “magic mushrooms,” rapidly improves symptoms and produces remission in as little as two sessions for patients with major depression, new research suggests.

Results of a small randomized trial showed that treatment with psilocybin was associated with a greater than 50% reduction in depressive symptoms in 67% of study participants. In addition, 71% showed improvement at 4-week follow-up, with more than 50% achieving remission.

“The finding that the majority of people whom we treated showed efficacy was quite a remarkable and gratifying finding and really sets the stage for psilocybin as a treatment for major depression,” senior investigator Roland Griffiths, PhD, Oliver Lee McCabe III Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a statement.

“Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this as a new therapy is that psilocybin works as a therapeutic intervention with a single session or a few sessions, and then the effects are enduring. In contrast, most conventional treatments for depression ... are given chronically and also have chronic side effects,” added Dr. Griffiths, who is also director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

The study was published online Nov.4 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Growing evidence base

As previously reported, psilocybin improves depressive symptoms for patients with cancer. However, these patients might be regarded as having a “reactive depression” to their life-threatening illness, said Dr. Griffiths.

“This study built on that previous research by asking the question, is psilocybin effective in patients who have major depressive disorder, [which is] a much larger population?” he said.

In addition, prior studies of psilocybin-assisted therapy had no control group, lead author Alan Davis, PhD, adjunct assistant professor in the psychedelic research unit, Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

The researchers created a control condition by randomly assigning 24 individuals (mean age, 39.8 years; 67% women) who were currently experiencing a moderate or severe major depressive episode to receive either immediate treatment (IT) (n = 13) or delayed treatment (DT) (n = 11).

Participants had longstanding depression, with a mean of 22.4 months in the current depressive episode. They were required to avoid using other antidepressants for 4 weeks prior to screening and up to 4 months following enrollment.

Patients were also required to be medically stable; have no personal/family history of psychotic or bipolar disorders; no past-year alcohol, substance, or nicotine use disorder; and no substantial lifetime or recent use of ketamine or classic hallucinogens.

Depression was measured using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 and the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD). A baseline score of ≥17 was required for enrollment.

Participants received eight preparatory meetings with two session facilitators before the first psilocybin session and then 2-3 hours of follow-up meetings after the psilocybin sessions. In addition, they received 13 sessions of psychotherapy.

After completing these preparatory sessions, they underwent two psilocybin sessions, administered a mean of 1.6 weeks apart.

Participants in the DT group were assessed for depressive symptoms weekly for 8 weeks prior to entering the treatment protocol.
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Participants in the IT group exhibited significantly lower depression scores on the GRID-HAMD at 1 and 4 weeks after the second psilocybin session in comparison with patients in the DT group during the corresponding weeks.

Moreover, the effect sizes at weeks 5 and 8 were “large” (d = 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.0; and d = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6, respectively).

An analysis of outcomes showed that, for all 24 participants, at 1 and at 4 weeks following the psilocybin intervention, 67% and 71% of participants, respectively, had a “clinically significant response” in depressive symptoms; 60% and 56%, respectively, met criteria for remission.

Within-subject T tests likewise revealed significant decreases in depression scores from baseline to 1- and 4-week follow-ups (P < .001; d = 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.0; and P < .001; d = 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-4.9, respectively).

Importantly, participants experienced no serious adverse effects.

Dr. Griffiths said he was “surprised” by the findings. “We knew that psilocybin would be effective in reactive depression of the type associated with illness, but we did not know that this would be the case in the large number of individuals who qualify for having [major depressive disorder].”

Dr. Davis said the finding “represents a large effect of this treatment among people with major depressive disorder – an approximately 4 times larger effect, compared to studies of antidepressant drugs.”

Dr. Davis noted that psychotherapy was an “essential” component of the study protocol. “It is likely that the combination of psychotherapy and psilocybin is what makes this treatment efficacious and that this treatment will always have a psychotherapy component and will not be Food and Drug Administration approved as a standalone medication.”

Tipping point

Collin Reiff, MD, clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at New York University noted that because psychedelics are “still stigmatized,” the publication of this study in “one of the highest-impact journals in all of psychiatry suggests that research into psychedelics is now in the mainstream and that the academic psychiatry research community is paying close attention to what is happening.” He described this as a “tipping point.”

Dr. Reiff, who was not involved with the study, noted that research had been conducted on psychedelic compounds until the 1960s, “when they left the research lab and went mainstream, leading to the shutting down and subsequent dormancy of the research for the next 30-40 years.”

Psychedelic research is “undergoing a renaissance and no longer regarded with as much skepticism, but it is important to take our time doing this research so we do not repeat what happened in the 1960s,” said Dr. Reiff.

In an accompanying editorial, Charles F. Reynolds III, MD, endowed professor in geriatric psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pennsylvania, questioned “for whom psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is appropriate (or not), particularly in patients with depression who are suicidal of have a history of suicide attempt.”

Dr. Reynolds, who is also director of the Aging Institute of UPMC, who was not involved with the study, wrote that “personalizing the management of depression has to entail an understanding of the multiple contexts in which depression occurs, including genetic, developmental, psychosocial, cultural, medical, neurocognitive, and spiritual.”

The study was supported by a crowdsourcing campaign organized by Tim Ferris, as well as by grants from the Riverstyx Foundation. The Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research is funded by the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation and receives support from Tim Ferriss, Matt Mullenweg, Craig Nerenberg, and Blake Mycoskie. It is also supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Davis received support from the NIDA. Dr. Griffiths was partially supported by a NIDA grant. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the original article. Reiff reports owning stock in Compass Pathways. Dr. Reynolds reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since 2008, suicide has ranked as the tenth leading cause of death for all ages in the US, with rates of suicide continuing to rise.^1-3 Suicide is even more urgent to address in veteran populations. The age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was more than 1.5 times greater for veterans than it was for nonveteran adults.² Of importance, rates of suicide are increasing at a faster rate in veterans who are not connected to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care.^4,5 These at-risk veterans include individuals who are eligible for VHA care yet have not had a VHA appointment within the year before death; veterans who may be ineligible to receive VHA care due to complex rules set by legislation; and veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in VHA care. Notably, between 2005 and 2016, the number of veterans not enrolled in VHA care rose more quickly than did the number of veterans enrolled in VHA care.^5,6 Thus, to impact the high veteran suicide rates, an emergent challenge for VHA is to prevent suicide among unenrolled veterans and veterans receiving community care, while continuing to increase access to mental health services for veterans enrolled in VHA health care.

In response to the high rates of veteran suicide deaths, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed a broad, multicomponent suicide prevention program that is unparalleled in private US health care systems.^4,7 Suicide prevention efforts are led and implemented by both the VHA National Center for Patient Safety and the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Program components are numerous and multifaceted, falling within the broad promotion and prevention strategies outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).^1,8-11 The NAM continuum of prevention model encompassing multiple strategies is also referred to as the Universal, Selective, Indicated (USI) Model.^7,8,10 The VHA suicide prevention program contains a wide spread of program components, making it both comprehensive and innovative (Table 1).

Although significant momentum and progress has been made within the VHA, policy set by legislation has historically limited access to VHA health care services to VHA-eligible veterans. This is particularly concerning given the rising suicide rates among veterans not engaged in VHA care.² Adding to this complexity, recent legislation has increased veterans’ access to non-VHA health care, in addition to their existing access through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.^12-14 Best practices for suicide prevention are not often implemented in the private sector; thus, these systems are ill prepared to adequately meet the suicide prevention care needs of veterans.^4,15-18 Furthermore, VHA and non-VHA services generally are not well coordinated, and private sector health care providers (HCPs) are not required to complete a commensurate level of suicide prevention training as are VHA HCPs.^16-18 Most non-VHA HCPs do not receive military cultural competence training.¹⁹ These issues create a significant gap in suicide prevention services and may contribute to the increases in suicide rates in veterans who do not receive VHA care. Thus, changes in policy to increase access through private sector care may have paradoxical effects on veteran suicide deaths. To impact the veteran suicide rate, VHA must develop and disseminate best practices for veterans who use non-VHA services.

A Roadmap to Suicide Prevention

There is significant momentum at the federal level regarding this issue. The President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End the National Tragedy of Suicide (Executive Order 13,861) directs the VHA to work closely with community organizations to improve veteran suicide prevention.²⁰ The VHA and partners, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are bridging this gap with collaborative efforts that increase suicide prevention resources for veterans living in the community through programs such as the Governor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. These programs intend to empower communities to develop statewide, strategic action plans to prevent veteran suicide.^7,21-24

In addition to partnerships, VHA has built other aspects of outreach and intervention into its programming. A key VHA initiative is to “know all veterans” by committing to identifying and reaching out to all veterans who may be at risk for suicide.²² The VHA has committed to offering “emergency stabilization care for former service members who present at the facility with an emergent mental health need” regardless of eligibility.²⁵ The intent is to provide temporary emergent mental health care to veterans who are otherwise ineligible for care, such as those who were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions while the VHA determines eligibility status.²⁶ However, veterans must meet certain criteria, and there is a limit on services.

Although services are being expanded to reach veterans who do not access VHA health care, how to best implement these new directives with regard to suicide prevention is unclear. Strategic development and innovations to expand suicide prevention care to veterans outside the current reach of VHA are desperately needed.

Program Overview 

VHA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry-Suicide Prevention Collaborative (PSCI-SPC), funded by the VHA National Center for Patient Safety, aims to help fill the gap in community-based suicide prevention for veterans. PSCI-SPC is located within the VHA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center in Aurora, Colorado. The overarching mission of PSCI-SPC is to develop, implement, and evaluate practical solutions to reduce suicide among veterans not receiving VHA care. PSCI-SPC serves as a national clinical innovation and dissemination center for best practices in suicide prevention for organizations that serve veterans who receive care in the community. PSCI-SPC creates products to support dissemination of these practices to other VAMCs and works to ensure these programs are sustainable. PSCI-SPC focuses on 3 primary objectives. All PSCI-SPC projects are currently underway.

Objective 1: Growing a Community Learning Collaborative

Acknowledging that nearly two-thirds of veterans who die by suicide do not use VHA services, PSCI-SPC aims to reduce suicide among all veterans by expanding the reach of best practices for suicide prevention to veterans who receive myriad services in the community.²⁷ Community organizations are defined here as organizations that may in some way serve, interact with, or work with veterans, and/or employ veterans. Examples include non-VHA health care systems, public services such as police and fire departments, nonprofit organizations, mental health clinics, and veterans’ courts. As veterans increasingly seek health care and other services within their communities, the success of suicide prevention will be influenced by the capability of non-VHA public and private organizations. Objective 1, therefore, seeks to develop a VHA-community collaborative that can be leveraged to improve systems of suicide prevention.

Current programs in the VHA have focused on implementation of suicide prevention awareness and prevention education campaigns instead of grassroots partnerships that are intended to be sustainable. Additionally, these programs typically lack the capacity and systems to sustain numerous meaningful community partnerships. Traditionally, community organizations have been hesitant to partner with government agencies, such as the VHA, due to histories of institutional mistrust and bureaucracy.²⁸

The PSCI-SPC model for developing a VHA-community collaborative partnership draws from the tradition of community-based participatory research. The best community-based participatory research practices are to build on strengths and resources within the local community; develop collaborative, equitable partnerships that involve an empowering and power-sharing process; foster colearning, heuristics, and capacity building among partners; and focus on systems development using an iterative process. These practices also are consistent with the literature on learning collaboratives.^29-31

The premise for a learning collaborative is to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice in health care.³¹ Figure 1 depicts how this collaborative was developed, and how it supports Objectives 2 and 3. To achieve Objective 1, we developed a VHA-learning collaborative of 13 influential community partners in the Denver and Colorado Springs region of Colorado. The VHA team consists of a learning collaborative leader, a program manager, and a program support assistant. The principal investigator attends and contributes to all meetings. Learning collaborative partners include a university psychology clinic that focuses on veterans’ care, 3 veterans service organizations, a mental health private practice, a university school of nursing, a community mental health center, veterans’ courts, and 5 city departments.

Objective 2: Implementation Toolkit

The second PSCI-SPC objective is to develop a toolkit for the implementation of best practices within a VHA-community suicide prevention learning collaborative. Lessons from the development of a successful suicide prevention learning collaborative will be shared through an online guide that other VHA facilities can use to support similar collaborative efforts within their communities. The toolkit will be disseminated across the VHA to assist suicide prevention coordinators and other staff in developing a suicide prevention learning collaborative at their facilities.

PSCI-SPC uses the Zero Suicide framework and the VA/US Department of Defense (DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide as models for preventing suicide in veterans not enrolled in VHA care.^11,32 This implementation toolkit focuses on how to implement suicide prevention best practices into organizations that serve veterans. This toolkit differs from clinical practice guidelines in that it focuses on implementation strategies to promote success and effectively address challenges.

In order to provide a menu of available options for the learning collaborative and resulting toolkit, PSCI-SPC uses a logic model to compare the components of the VHA suicide prevention program, as well as other similar veteran and military suicide prevention programs.^{7,12,14,21,33,34} These programs are categorized into 2 types of prevention frameworks, the USI model as described above, and the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework (Table 2).³⁵ The SAMHSA framework was designed to promote mental health and prevent substance abuse, yet the derived classification is also applicable to suicide prevention programs.³⁵ The results of the logic model comparison form the basis of the best practice interventions for the learning collaborative and initial toolkit. In addition to the best practice interventions, the toolkit consists of documents describing how to develop a veteran suicide prevention learning collaborative, as well as tools for learning collaborative members. Current tool development includes workbooks to guide collaborative members through the implementation process, guides for community organizations in implementing suicide prevention screening and risk assessment, a standard operating procedure for suicide prevention in a veterans court, and peer support training for veteran suicide prevention.

Objective 3: High-Risk Veterans Not Receiving VHA Care

Although veterans not receiving VHA care account for a number of veteran deaths by suicide, we are not aware of any current VHA programs that provide temporary psychotherapy and intensive case management to at-risk veterans ineligible for VHA care who are in need of immediate care while an appropriate permanent community placement is identified. In the current system, veterans in the community can present to VHA suicide prevention services through several different systems, including referrals to VHA and the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL). However, a portion of VCL calls are from veterans whose VHA eligibility is unknown or who are ineligible for services. If veterans are at imminent risk for suicide, emergency care is coordinated for them. However, if veterans are not at imminent suicide risk they are referred to the local suicide prevention coordinator and instructed to independently work toward determining their VHA eligibility.

It is currently unknown how many veterans follow through with these instructions. Nonetheless, if veterans are deemed eligible, they may present to VHA to obtain a same-day appointment. If not eligible, a suicide prevention coordinator may give them the phone number of a community referral. However, this practice is not standardized across VA medical centers, and the provided resources are up to the suicide prevention coordinator to research. Additionally, when a VHA suicide prevention coordinator leaves the position, knowledge of these community resources and rapport with community HCPs are often lost, leaving the next coordinator to develop these again, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources. It is also unknown how many veterans complete this contact and receive evidence-based treatment following referral. This is a complex system to navigate, particularly when at risk for suicide and in need of immediate but not emergency services.

Suicide prevention in such circumstances may be improved by adapting current suicide prevention practices, including evidence-based interventions, and the new VHA intensive case management program,^11,36 within a Zero Suicide framework. PSCI-SPC has developed a brief intervention to transition ineligible veterans to permanent community treatment and provide them with additional resources to meet their varied needs. The brief 1 to 3 session intervention combines practices from brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) for suicide prevention, crisis response planning (CRP), and intensive case management within a Zero Suicide framework. Both the 2019 VA/DoD suicide prevention clinical practice guidelines and Zero Suicide recommend using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for suicide prevention.^11,32 These interventions are packaged into a single intervention delivered by a PSCI-SPC therapist, typically a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed clinical psychologist, or an unlicensed psychologist under the supervision of a licensed clinical psychologist.

BCBT is one type of CBT that has shown initial efficacy in reducing suicide attempts.³⁷ BCBT reduces the risk for suicide attempts both at the conclusion of treatment and at 24-month follow-up.³⁷ BCBT is boiled down to its most essential components so it can be delivered in a distilled format. An essential element of BCBT that will remain is the CRP. A CRP^11,37,38 entails collaboratively identifying effective, appropriate coping strategies and specific individuals to contact during a crisis. CRPs demonstrated efficacy as a stand-alone intervention to existing suicide prevention methods in a randomized clinical trial, such that individuals who received CRP had faster reductions in suicidal ideation and were 76% less likely to make a suicide attempt during the 6-month follow-up period.³⁹ These results demonstrate that use of a CRP is connected to a decrease in suicidal behavior among suicidal patients.

The VHA has developed and is piloting a new initiative focused on restructuring its intensive case management services. RACETIME to Integrated Care (eg, Risk stratification, Assessment of complexity, Coordinator of lead assignment, Evaluate whole health needs, Trusting partnerships, Integrate care, Monitor progress, Experience of the veteran and employee) is a framework that assists VHA case managers in transitioning from a traditional case management mind-set to a more integrated and holistic method of care.³⁶ RACETIME intensive case management practices will be incorporated into the intervention. However, RACETIME focuses on case management internally to the VHA. A modification for this treatment will be to focus on intensive case management from a mental health perspective and connecting to external community resources. Community referrals are mapped within a structured process and stored on a shared drive. This improves continuity between suicide prevention coordinators when they leave for a new position.

This intervention is conducted within a Zero Suicide framework. Pertinent to PSCI-SPC innovation to enhance care for non-VHA veterans is the care transitions element within the Zero Suicide framework, which has developed comprehensive suicide prevention guidance, including a pathway to care.³² This pathway refers a process to conduct follow-up supportive contacts that are tracked and recorded.

The PSCI-SPC pilot program incorporates the elements of CRP and brief CBT within a Zero Suicide framework. The PSCI-SPC team is developing and testing a protocol for providing brief treatment and community referrals to ineligible veterans that integrates these programming elements (Figure 2). A PSCI-SPC social worker will coordinate with the eligibility office to determine VHA eligibility. Ineligible veterans are referred to community partners and nonenrolled, eligible veterans are linked to VHA HCPs if they desire. These transitions will be coordinated, closely monitored, and verified. The PSCI-SPC team receives referrals from the VCL and other VHA programs that are in contact with ineligible veterans. Other program eligibility criteria include meeting 1 of 3 criteria: (1) a lifetime suicide attempt; (2) suicidal ideation in the past 6 months; or (3) a current mental health disorder. At the outset of the program, it is explained that the purpose of the intervention is to provide short-term, transitional services to assist the veteran in attaining a permanent mental health placement.

Discussion

Improving suicide prevention for veterans who receive non-VHA health care is essential to significantly reduce veteran suicide rates. For the past decade, VHA suicide prevention initiatives have largely focused on veterans eligible for care, although the fastest increase in veteran suicide rates has occurred among veterans not connected to VHA services. Currently, if a veteran is deemed ineligible for care, it is up to the veteran to find other health care services in his or her community. There is not always a clear next step for the veteran to take, nor clear guidance provided to the VHA registration staff to assist with this care transition. This is particularly concerning for veterans at high risk for suicide as this could further thwart the veteran’s sense of belongingness and increase perceived burdensomeness, both suicide risk factors, and discourage them from attaining help.⁴⁰ Overall, while the VHA has successfully implemented diverse suicide prevention initiatives and services, the need for continued system improvement focused on non-VHA veterans remains. PSCI-SPC was developed for this purpose.

By creating a collaborative that will connect VHA and community organizations, there will be better utilization of resources and more appropriate referrals throughout systems that interact with veterans. Sharing suicide prevention best practices between VHA and community partners is expected to increase access to mental health treatment to all veterans. Finally, by allowing best practices for suicide prevention in the VHA to serve as a guide in the development of best practices for suicide prevention between the VHA and the local health and behavioral health care community, PSCI-SPC will create a new suicide prevention intervention for veterans with mental health needs. Through these initiatives, PSCI-SPC will support providers’ and concerned citizens’ efforts to ensure that fewer veterans fall through the cracks of disjointed systems and will promote healthier communities where, regardless of VHA enrollment status, veterans receive suicide prevention care.

Conclusions

PSCI-SPC is a novel center for the innovation and dissemination of the nation’s best practices in suicide prevention for veterans who are ineligible for or otherwise not engaged in VHA services and who turn to their community for health care. PSCI-SPC not only seeks to create, develop, and measure various solutions to reduce suicide among veterans who receive non-VHA care, but also seeks to facilitate the overall quality of existing practices for suicide prevention and care coordination for enrolled veterans who use community resources. By bridging the gap between the VHA, civilian health care systems, and other community partners striving to prevent veteran suicides, we can create better access to care and a more seamless path of communication among these important entities that impact the lives of our veterans daily

Since 2008, suicide has ranked as the tenth leading cause of death for all ages in the US, with rates of suicide continuing to rise.^1-3 Suicide is even more urgent to address in veteran populations. The age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was more than 1.5 times greater for veterans than it was for nonveteran adults.² Of importance, rates of suicide are increasing at a faster rate in veterans who are not connected to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care.^4,5 These at-risk veterans include individuals who are eligible for VHA care yet have not had a VHA appointment within the year before death; veterans who may be ineligible to receive VHA care due to complex rules set by legislation; and veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in VHA care. Notably, between 2005 and 2016, the number of veterans not enrolled in VHA care rose more quickly than did the number of veterans enrolled in VHA care.^5,6 Thus, to impact the high veteran suicide rates, an emergent challenge for VHA is to prevent suicide among unenrolled veterans and veterans receiving community care, while continuing to increase access to mental health services for veterans enrolled in VHA health care.

In response to the high rates of veteran suicide deaths, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed a broad, multicomponent suicide prevention program that is unparalleled in private US health care systems.^4,7 Suicide prevention efforts are led and implemented by both the VHA National Center for Patient Safety and the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Program components are numerous and multifaceted, falling within the broad promotion and prevention strategies outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).^1,8-11 The NAM continuum of prevention model encompassing multiple strategies is also referred to as the Universal, Selective, Indicated (USI) Model.^7,8,10 The VHA suicide prevention program contains a wide spread of program components, making it both comprehensive and innovative (Table 1).

Although significant momentum and progress has been made within the VHA, policy set by legislation has historically limited access to VHA health care services to VHA-eligible veterans. This is particularly concerning given the rising suicide rates among veterans not engaged in VHA care.² Adding to this complexity, recent legislation has increased veterans’ access to non-VHA health care, in addition to their existing access through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.^12-14 Best practices for suicide prevention are not often implemented in the private sector; thus, these systems are ill prepared to adequately meet the suicide prevention care needs of veterans.^4,15-18 Furthermore, VHA and non-VHA services generally are not well coordinated, and private sector health care providers (HCPs) are not required to complete a commensurate level of suicide prevention training as are VHA HCPs.^16-18 Most non-VHA HCPs do not receive military cultural competence training.¹⁹ These issues create a significant gap in suicide prevention services and may contribute to the increases in suicide rates in veterans who do not receive VHA care. Thus, changes in policy to increase access through private sector care may have paradoxical effects on veteran suicide deaths. To impact the veteran suicide rate, VHA must develop and disseminate best practices for veterans who use non-VHA services.

A Roadmap to Suicide Prevention

There is significant momentum at the federal level regarding this issue. The President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End the National Tragedy of Suicide (Executive Order 13,861) directs the VHA to work closely with community organizations to improve veteran suicide prevention.²⁰ The VHA and partners, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are bridging this gap with collaborative efforts that increase suicide prevention resources for veterans living in the community through programs such as the Governor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. These programs intend to empower communities to develop statewide, strategic action plans to prevent veteran suicide.^7,21-24

In addition to partnerships, VHA has built other aspects of outreach and intervention into its programming. A key VHA initiative is to “know all veterans” by committing to identifying and reaching out to all veterans who may be at risk for suicide.²² The VHA has committed to offering “emergency stabilization care for former service members who present at the facility with an emergent mental health need” regardless of eligibility.²⁵ The intent is to provide temporary emergent mental health care to veterans who are otherwise ineligible for care, such as those who were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions while the VHA determines eligibility status.²⁶ However, veterans must meet certain criteria, and there is a limit on services.

Although services are being expanded to reach veterans who do not access VHA health care, how to best implement these new directives with regard to suicide prevention is unclear. Strategic development and innovations to expand suicide prevention care to veterans outside the current reach of VHA are desperately needed.

Program Overview 

VHA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry-Suicide Prevention Collaborative (PSCI-SPC), funded by the VHA National Center for Patient Safety, aims to help fill the gap in community-based suicide prevention for veterans. PSCI-SPC is located within the VHA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center in Aurora, Colorado. The overarching mission of PSCI-SPC is to develop, implement, and evaluate practical solutions to reduce suicide among veterans not receiving VHA care. PSCI-SPC serves as a national clinical innovation and dissemination center for best practices in suicide prevention for organizations that serve veterans who receive care in the community. PSCI-SPC creates products to support dissemination of these practices to other VAMCs and works to ensure these programs are sustainable. PSCI-SPC focuses on 3 primary objectives. All PSCI-SPC projects are currently underway.

Objective 1: Growing a Community Learning Collaborative

Acknowledging that nearly two-thirds of veterans who die by suicide do not use VHA services, PSCI-SPC aims to reduce suicide among all veterans by expanding the reach of best practices for suicide prevention to veterans who receive myriad services in the community.²⁷ Community organizations are defined here as organizations that may in some way serve, interact with, or work with veterans, and/or employ veterans. Examples include non-VHA health care systems, public services such as police and fire departments, nonprofit organizations, mental health clinics, and veterans’ courts. As veterans increasingly seek health care and other services within their communities, the success of suicide prevention will be influenced by the capability of non-VHA public and private organizations. Objective 1, therefore, seeks to develop a VHA-community collaborative that can be leveraged to improve systems of suicide prevention.

Current programs in the VHA have focused on implementation of suicide prevention awareness and prevention education campaigns instead of grassroots partnerships that are intended to be sustainable. Additionally, these programs typically lack the capacity and systems to sustain numerous meaningful community partnerships. Traditionally, community organizations have been hesitant to partner with government agencies, such as the VHA, due to histories of institutional mistrust and bureaucracy.²⁸

The PSCI-SPC model for developing a VHA-community collaborative partnership draws from the tradition of community-based participatory research. The best community-based participatory research practices are to build on strengths and resources within the local community; develop collaborative, equitable partnerships that involve an empowering and power-sharing process; foster colearning, heuristics, and capacity building among partners; and focus on systems development using an iterative process. These practices also are consistent with the literature on learning collaboratives.^29-31

The premise for a learning collaborative is to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice in health care.³¹ Figure 1 depicts how this collaborative was developed, and how it supports Objectives 2 and 3. To achieve Objective 1, we developed a VHA-learning collaborative of 13 influential community partners in the Denver and Colorado Springs region of Colorado. The VHA team consists of a learning collaborative leader, a program manager, and a program support assistant. The principal investigator attends and contributes to all meetings. Learning collaborative partners include a university psychology clinic that focuses on veterans’ care, 3 veterans service organizations, a mental health private practice, a university school of nursing, a community mental health center, veterans’ courts, and 5 city departments.

Objective 2: Implementation Toolkit

The second PSCI-SPC objective is to develop a toolkit for the implementation of best practices within a VHA-community suicide prevention learning collaborative. Lessons from the development of a successful suicide prevention learning collaborative will be shared through an online guide that other VHA facilities can use to support similar collaborative efforts within their communities. The toolkit will be disseminated across the VHA to assist suicide prevention coordinators and other staff in developing a suicide prevention learning collaborative at their facilities.

PSCI-SPC uses the Zero Suicide framework and the VA/US Department of Defense (DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide as models for preventing suicide in veterans not enrolled in VHA care.^11,32 This implementation toolkit focuses on how to implement suicide prevention best practices into organizations that serve veterans. This toolkit differs from clinical practice guidelines in that it focuses on implementation strategies to promote success and effectively address challenges.

In order to provide a menu of available options for the learning collaborative and resulting toolkit, PSCI-SPC uses a logic model to compare the components of the VHA suicide prevention program, as well as other similar veteran and military suicide prevention programs.^{7,12,14,21,33,34} These programs are categorized into 2 types of prevention frameworks, the USI model as described above, and the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework (Table 2).³⁵ The SAMHSA framework was designed to promote mental health and prevent substance abuse, yet the derived classification is also applicable to suicide prevention programs.³⁵ The results of the logic model comparison form the basis of the best practice interventions for the learning collaborative and initial toolkit. In addition to the best practice interventions, the toolkit consists of documents describing how to develop a veteran suicide prevention learning collaborative, as well as tools for learning collaborative members. Current tool development includes workbooks to guide collaborative members through the implementation process, guides for community organizations in implementing suicide prevention screening and risk assessment, a standard operating procedure for suicide prevention in a veterans court, and peer support training for veteran suicide prevention.

Objective 3: High-Risk Veterans Not Receiving VHA Care

Although veterans not receiving VHA care account for a number of veteran deaths by suicide, we are not aware of any current VHA programs that provide temporary psychotherapy and intensive case management to at-risk veterans ineligible for VHA care who are in need of immediate care while an appropriate permanent community placement is identified. In the current system, veterans in the community can present to VHA suicide prevention services through several different systems, including referrals to VHA and the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL). However, a portion of VCL calls are from veterans whose VHA eligibility is unknown or who are ineligible for services. If veterans are at imminent risk for suicide, emergency care is coordinated for them. However, if veterans are not at imminent suicide risk they are referred to the local suicide prevention coordinator and instructed to independently work toward determining their VHA eligibility.

It is currently unknown how many veterans follow through with these instructions. Nonetheless, if veterans are deemed eligible, they may present to VHA to obtain a same-day appointment. If not eligible, a suicide prevention coordinator may give them the phone number of a community referral. However, this practice is not standardized across VA medical centers, and the provided resources are up to the suicide prevention coordinator to research. Additionally, when a VHA suicide prevention coordinator leaves the position, knowledge of these community resources and rapport with community HCPs are often lost, leaving the next coordinator to develop these again, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources. It is also unknown how many veterans complete this contact and receive evidence-based treatment following referral. This is a complex system to navigate, particularly when at risk for suicide and in need of immediate but not emergency services.

Suicide prevention in such circumstances may be improved by adapting current suicide prevention practices, including evidence-based interventions, and the new VHA intensive case management program,^11,36 within a Zero Suicide framework. PSCI-SPC has developed a brief intervention to transition ineligible veterans to permanent community treatment and provide them with additional resources to meet their varied needs. The brief 1 to 3 session intervention combines practices from brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) for suicide prevention, crisis response planning (CRP), and intensive case management within a Zero Suicide framework. Both the 2019 VA/DoD suicide prevention clinical practice guidelines and Zero Suicide recommend using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for suicide prevention.^11,32 These interventions are packaged into a single intervention delivered by a PSCI-SPC therapist, typically a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed clinical psychologist, or an unlicensed psychologist under the supervision of a licensed clinical psychologist.

BCBT is one type of CBT that has shown initial efficacy in reducing suicide attempts.³⁷ BCBT reduces the risk for suicide attempts both at the conclusion of treatment and at 24-month follow-up.³⁷ BCBT is boiled down to its most essential components so it can be delivered in a distilled format. An essential element of BCBT that will remain is the CRP. A CRP^11,37,38 entails collaboratively identifying effective, appropriate coping strategies and specific individuals to contact during a crisis. CRPs demonstrated efficacy as a stand-alone intervention to existing suicide prevention methods in a randomized clinical trial, such that individuals who received CRP had faster reductions in suicidal ideation and were 76% less likely to make a suicide attempt during the 6-month follow-up period.³⁹ These results demonstrate that use of a CRP is connected to a decrease in suicidal behavior among suicidal patients.

The VHA has developed and is piloting a new initiative focused on restructuring its intensive case management services. RACETIME to Integrated Care (eg, Risk stratification, Assessment of complexity, Coordinator of lead assignment, Evaluate whole health needs, Trusting partnerships, Integrate care, Monitor progress, Experience of the veteran and employee) is a framework that assists VHA case managers in transitioning from a traditional case management mind-set to a more integrated and holistic method of care.³⁶ RACETIME intensive case management practices will be incorporated into the intervention. However, RACETIME focuses on case management internally to the VHA. A modification for this treatment will be to focus on intensive case management from a mental health perspective and connecting to external community resources. Community referrals are mapped within a structured process and stored on a shared drive. This improves continuity between suicide prevention coordinators when they leave for a new position.

This intervention is conducted within a Zero Suicide framework. Pertinent to PSCI-SPC innovation to enhance care for non-VHA veterans is the care transitions element within the Zero Suicide framework, which has developed comprehensive suicide prevention guidance, including a pathway to care.³² This pathway refers a process to conduct follow-up supportive contacts that are tracked and recorded.

The PSCI-SPC pilot program incorporates the elements of CRP and brief CBT within a Zero Suicide framework. The PSCI-SPC team is developing and testing a protocol for providing brief treatment and community referrals to ineligible veterans that integrates these programming elements (Figure 2). A PSCI-SPC social worker will coordinate with the eligibility office to determine VHA eligibility. Ineligible veterans are referred to community partners and nonenrolled, eligible veterans are linked to VHA HCPs if they desire. These transitions will be coordinated, closely monitored, and verified. The PSCI-SPC team receives referrals from the VCL and other VHA programs that are in contact with ineligible veterans. Other program eligibility criteria include meeting 1 of 3 criteria: (1) a lifetime suicide attempt; (2) suicidal ideation in the past 6 months; or (3) a current mental health disorder. At the outset of the program, it is explained that the purpose of the intervention is to provide short-term, transitional services to assist the veteran in attaining a permanent mental health placement.

Discussion

Improving suicide prevention for veterans who receive non-VHA health care is essential to significantly reduce veteran suicide rates. For the past decade, VHA suicide prevention initiatives have largely focused on veterans eligible for care, although the fastest increase in veteran suicide rates has occurred among veterans not connected to VHA services. Currently, if a veteran is deemed ineligible for care, it is up to the veteran to find other health care services in his or her community. There is not always a clear next step for the veteran to take, nor clear guidance provided to the VHA registration staff to assist with this care transition. This is particularly concerning for veterans at high risk for suicide as this could further thwart the veteran’s sense of belongingness and increase perceived burdensomeness, both suicide risk factors, and discourage them from attaining help.⁴⁰ Overall, while the VHA has successfully implemented diverse suicide prevention initiatives and services, the need for continued system improvement focused on non-VHA veterans remains. PSCI-SPC was developed for this purpose.

By creating a collaborative that will connect VHA and community organizations, there will be better utilization of resources and more appropriate referrals throughout systems that interact with veterans. Sharing suicide prevention best practices between VHA and community partners is expected to increase access to mental health treatment to all veterans. Finally, by allowing best practices for suicide prevention in the VHA to serve as a guide in the development of best practices for suicide prevention between the VHA and the local health and behavioral health care community, PSCI-SPC will create a new suicide prevention intervention for veterans with mental health needs. Through these initiatives, PSCI-SPC will support providers’ and concerned citizens’ efforts to ensure that fewer veterans fall through the cracks of disjointed systems and will promote healthier communities where, regardless of VHA enrollment status, veterans receive suicide prevention care.

Conclusions

PSCI-SPC is a novel center for the innovation and dissemination of the nation’s best practices in suicide prevention for veterans who are ineligible for or otherwise not engaged in VHA services and who turn to their community for health care. PSCI-SPC not only seeks to create, develop, and measure various solutions to reduce suicide among veterans who receive non-VHA care, but also seeks to facilitate the overall quality of existing practices for suicide prevention and care coordination for enrolled veterans who use community resources. By bridging the gap between the VHA, civilian health care systems, and other community partners striving to prevent veteran suicides, we can create better access to care and a more seamless path of communication among these important entities that impact the lives of our veterans daily

Since 2008, suicide has ranked as the tenth leading cause of death for all ages in the US, with rates of suicide continuing to rise.^1-3 Suicide is even more urgent to address in veteran populations. The age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was more than 1.5 times greater for veterans than it was for nonveteran adults.² Of importance, rates of suicide are increasing at a faster rate in veterans who are not connected to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care.^4,5 These at-risk veterans include individuals who are eligible for VHA care yet have not had a VHA appointment within the year before death; veterans who may be ineligible to receive VHA care due to complex rules set by legislation; and veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in VHA care. Notably, between 2005 and 2016, the number of veterans not enrolled in VHA care rose more quickly than did the number of veterans enrolled in VHA care.^5,6 Thus, to impact the high veteran suicide rates, an emergent challenge for VHA is to prevent suicide among unenrolled veterans and veterans receiving community care, while continuing to increase access to mental health services for veterans enrolled in VHA health care.

In response to the high rates of veteran suicide deaths, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed a broad, multicomponent suicide prevention program that is unparalleled in private US health care systems.^4,7 Suicide prevention efforts are led and implemented by both the VHA National Center for Patient Safety and the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Program components are numerous and multifaceted, falling within the broad promotion and prevention strategies outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).^1,8-11 The NAM continuum of prevention model encompassing multiple strategies is also referred to as the Universal, Selective, Indicated (USI) Model.^7,8,10 The VHA suicide prevention program contains a wide spread of program components, making it both comprehensive and innovative (Table 1).

Although significant momentum and progress has been made within the VHA, policy set by legislation has historically limited access to VHA health care services to VHA-eligible veterans. This is particularly concerning given the rising suicide rates among veterans not engaged in VHA care.² Adding to this complexity, recent legislation has increased veterans’ access to non-VHA health care, in addition to their existing access through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.^12-14 Best practices for suicide prevention are not often implemented in the private sector; thus, these systems are ill prepared to adequately meet the suicide prevention care needs of veterans.^4,15-18 Furthermore, VHA and non-VHA services generally are not well coordinated, and private sector health care providers (HCPs) are not required to complete a commensurate level of suicide prevention training as are VHA HCPs.^16-18 Most non-VHA HCPs do not receive military cultural competence training.¹⁹ These issues create a significant gap in suicide prevention services and may contribute to the increases in suicide rates in veterans who do not receive VHA care. Thus, changes in policy to increase access through private sector care may have paradoxical effects on veteran suicide deaths. To impact the veteran suicide rate, VHA must develop and disseminate best practices for veterans who use non-VHA services.

A Roadmap to Suicide Prevention

There is significant momentum at the federal level regarding this issue. The President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End the National Tragedy of Suicide (Executive Order 13,861) directs the VHA to work closely with community organizations to improve veteran suicide prevention.²⁰ The VHA and partners, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are bridging this gap with collaborative efforts that increase suicide prevention resources for veterans living in the community through programs such as the Governor’s Challenges to Prevent Suicide Among Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. These programs intend to empower communities to develop statewide, strategic action plans to prevent veteran suicide.^7,21-24

In addition to partnerships, VHA has built other aspects of outreach and intervention into its programming. A key VHA initiative is to “know all veterans” by committing to identifying and reaching out to all veterans who may be at risk for suicide.²² The VHA has committed to offering “emergency stabilization care for former service members who present at the facility with an emergent mental health need” regardless of eligibility.²⁵ The intent is to provide temporary emergent mental health care to veterans who are otherwise ineligible for care, such as those who were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions while the VHA determines eligibility status.²⁶ However, veterans must meet certain criteria, and there is a limit on services.

Although services are being expanded to reach veterans who do not access VHA health care, how to best implement these new directives with regard to suicide prevention is unclear. Strategic development and innovations to expand suicide prevention care to veterans outside the current reach of VHA are desperately needed.

Program Overview 

VHA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry-Suicide Prevention Collaborative (PSCI-SPC), funded by the VHA National Center for Patient Safety, aims to help fill the gap in community-based suicide prevention for veterans. PSCI-SPC is located within the VHA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center in Aurora, Colorado. The overarching mission of PSCI-SPC is to develop, implement, and evaluate practical solutions to reduce suicide among veterans not receiving VHA care. PSCI-SPC serves as a national clinical innovation and dissemination center for best practices in suicide prevention for organizations that serve veterans who receive care in the community. PSCI-SPC creates products to support dissemination of these practices to other VAMCs and works to ensure these programs are sustainable. PSCI-SPC focuses on 3 primary objectives. All PSCI-SPC projects are currently underway.

Objective 1: Growing a Community Learning Collaborative

Acknowledging that nearly two-thirds of veterans who die by suicide do not use VHA services, PSCI-SPC aims to reduce suicide among all veterans by expanding the reach of best practices for suicide prevention to veterans who receive myriad services in the community.²⁷ Community organizations are defined here as organizations that may in some way serve, interact with, or work with veterans, and/or employ veterans. Examples include non-VHA health care systems, public services such as police and fire departments, nonprofit organizations, mental health clinics, and veterans’ courts. As veterans increasingly seek health care and other services within their communities, the success of suicide prevention will be influenced by the capability of non-VHA public and private organizations. Objective 1, therefore, seeks to develop a VHA-community collaborative that can be leveraged to improve systems of suicide prevention.

Current programs in the VHA have focused on implementation of suicide prevention awareness and prevention education campaigns instead of grassroots partnerships that are intended to be sustainable. Additionally, these programs typically lack the capacity and systems to sustain numerous meaningful community partnerships. Traditionally, community organizations have been hesitant to partner with government agencies, such as the VHA, due to histories of institutional mistrust and bureaucracy.²⁸

The PSCI-SPC model for developing a VHA-community collaborative partnership draws from the tradition of community-based participatory research. The best community-based participatory research practices are to build on strengths and resources within the local community; develop collaborative, equitable partnerships that involve an empowering and power-sharing process; foster colearning, heuristics, and capacity building among partners; and focus on systems development using an iterative process. These practices also are consistent with the literature on learning collaboratives.^29-31

The premise for a learning collaborative is to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice in health care.³¹ Figure 1 depicts how this collaborative was developed, and how it supports Objectives 2 and 3. To achieve Objective 1, we developed a VHA-learning collaborative of 13 influential community partners in the Denver and Colorado Springs region of Colorado. The VHA team consists of a learning collaborative leader, a program manager, and a program support assistant. The principal investigator attends and contributes to all meetings. Learning collaborative partners include a university psychology clinic that focuses on veterans’ care, 3 veterans service organizations, a mental health private practice, a university school of nursing, a community mental health center, veterans’ courts, and 5 city departments.

Objective 2: Implementation Toolkit

The second PSCI-SPC objective is to develop a toolkit for the implementation of best practices within a VHA-community suicide prevention learning collaborative. Lessons from the development of a successful suicide prevention learning collaborative will be shared through an online guide that other VHA facilities can use to support similar collaborative efforts within their communities. The toolkit will be disseminated across the VHA to assist suicide prevention coordinators and other staff in developing a suicide prevention learning collaborative at their facilities.

PSCI-SPC uses the Zero Suicide framework and the VA/US Department of Defense (DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide as models for preventing suicide in veterans not enrolled in VHA care.^11,32 This implementation toolkit focuses on how to implement suicide prevention best practices into organizations that serve veterans. This toolkit differs from clinical practice guidelines in that it focuses on implementation strategies to promote success and effectively address challenges.

In order to provide a menu of available options for the learning collaborative and resulting toolkit, PSCI-SPC uses a logic model to compare the components of the VHA suicide prevention program, as well as other similar veteran and military suicide prevention programs.^{7,12,14,21,33,34} These programs are categorized into 2 types of prevention frameworks, the USI model as described above, and the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework (Table 2).³⁵ The SAMHSA framework was designed to promote mental health and prevent substance abuse, yet the derived classification is also applicable to suicide prevention programs.³⁵ The results of the logic model comparison form the basis of the best practice interventions for the learning collaborative and initial toolkit. In addition to the best practice interventions, the toolkit consists of documents describing how to develop a veteran suicide prevention learning collaborative, as well as tools for learning collaborative members. Current tool development includes workbooks to guide collaborative members through the implementation process, guides for community organizations in implementing suicide prevention screening and risk assessment, a standard operating procedure for suicide prevention in a veterans court, and peer support training for veteran suicide prevention.

Objective 3: High-Risk Veterans Not Receiving VHA Care

Although veterans not receiving VHA care account for a number of veteran deaths by suicide, we are not aware of any current VHA programs that provide temporary psychotherapy and intensive case management to at-risk veterans ineligible for VHA care who are in need of immediate care while an appropriate permanent community placement is identified. In the current system, veterans in the community can present to VHA suicide prevention services through several different systems, including referrals to VHA and the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL). However, a portion of VCL calls are from veterans whose VHA eligibility is unknown or who are ineligible for services. If veterans are at imminent risk for suicide, emergency care is coordinated for them. However, if veterans are not at imminent suicide risk they are referred to the local suicide prevention coordinator and instructed to independently work toward determining their VHA eligibility.

It is currently unknown how many veterans follow through with these instructions. Nonetheless, if veterans are deemed eligible, they may present to VHA to obtain a same-day appointment. If not eligible, a suicide prevention coordinator may give them the phone number of a community referral. However, this practice is not standardized across VA medical centers, and the provided resources are up to the suicide prevention coordinator to research. Additionally, when a VHA suicide prevention coordinator leaves the position, knowledge of these community resources and rapport with community HCPs are often lost, leaving the next coordinator to develop these again, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources. It is also unknown how many veterans complete this contact and receive evidence-based treatment following referral. This is a complex system to navigate, particularly when at risk for suicide and in need of immediate but not emergency services.

Suicide prevention in such circumstances may be improved by adapting current suicide prevention practices, including evidence-based interventions, and the new VHA intensive case management program,^11,36 within a Zero Suicide framework. PSCI-SPC has developed a brief intervention to transition ineligible veterans to permanent community treatment and provide them with additional resources to meet their varied needs. The brief 1 to 3 session intervention combines practices from brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) for suicide prevention, crisis response planning (CRP), and intensive case management within a Zero Suicide framework. Both the 2019 VA/DoD suicide prevention clinical practice guidelines and Zero Suicide recommend using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for suicide prevention.^11,32 These interventions are packaged into a single intervention delivered by a PSCI-SPC therapist, typically a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed clinical psychologist, or an unlicensed psychologist under the supervision of a licensed clinical psychologist.

BCBT is one type of CBT that has shown initial efficacy in reducing suicide attempts.³⁷ BCBT reduces the risk for suicide attempts both at the conclusion of treatment and at 24-month follow-up.³⁷ BCBT is boiled down to its most essential components so it can be delivered in a distilled format. An essential element of BCBT that will remain is the CRP. A CRP^11,37,38 entails collaboratively identifying effective, appropriate coping strategies and specific individuals to contact during a crisis. CRPs demonstrated efficacy as a stand-alone intervention to existing suicide prevention methods in a randomized clinical trial, such that individuals who received CRP had faster reductions in suicidal ideation and were 76% less likely to make a suicide attempt during the 6-month follow-up period.³⁹ These results demonstrate that use of a CRP is connected to a decrease in suicidal behavior among suicidal patients.

The VHA has developed and is piloting a new initiative focused on restructuring its intensive case management services. RACETIME to Integrated Care (eg, Risk stratification, Assessment of complexity, Coordinator of lead assignment, Evaluate whole health needs, Trusting partnerships, Integrate care, Monitor progress, Experience of the veteran and employee) is a framework that assists VHA case managers in transitioning from a traditional case management mind-set to a more integrated and holistic method of care.³⁶ RACETIME intensive case management practices will be incorporated into the intervention. However, RACETIME focuses on case management internally to the VHA. A modification for this treatment will be to focus on intensive case management from a mental health perspective and connecting to external community resources. Community referrals are mapped within a structured process and stored on a shared drive. This improves continuity between suicide prevention coordinators when they leave for a new position.

This intervention is conducted within a Zero Suicide framework. Pertinent to PSCI-SPC innovation to enhance care for non-VHA veterans is the care transitions element within the Zero Suicide framework, which has developed comprehensive suicide prevention guidance, including a pathway to care.³² This pathway refers a process to conduct follow-up supportive contacts that are tracked and recorded.

The PSCI-SPC pilot program incorporates the elements of CRP and brief CBT within a Zero Suicide framework. The PSCI-SPC team is developing and testing a protocol for providing brief treatment and community referrals to ineligible veterans that integrates these programming elements (Figure 2). A PSCI-SPC social worker will coordinate with the eligibility office to determine VHA eligibility. Ineligible veterans are referred to community partners and nonenrolled, eligible veterans are linked to VHA HCPs if they desire. These transitions will be coordinated, closely monitored, and verified. The PSCI-SPC team receives referrals from the VCL and other VHA programs that are in contact with ineligible veterans. Other program eligibility criteria include meeting 1 of 3 criteria: (1) a lifetime suicide attempt; (2) suicidal ideation in the past 6 months; or (3) a current mental health disorder. At the outset of the program, it is explained that the purpose of the intervention is to provide short-term, transitional services to assist the veteran in attaining a permanent mental health placement.

Discussion

Improving suicide prevention for veterans who receive non-VHA health care is essential to significantly reduce veteran suicide rates. For the past decade, VHA suicide prevention initiatives have largely focused on veterans eligible for care, although the fastest increase in veteran suicide rates has occurred among veterans not connected to VHA services. Currently, if a veteran is deemed ineligible for care, it is up to the veteran to find other health care services in his or her community. There is not always a clear next step for the veteran to take, nor clear guidance provided to the VHA registration staff to assist with this care transition. This is particularly concerning for veterans at high risk for suicide as this could further thwart the veteran’s sense of belongingness and increase perceived burdensomeness, both suicide risk factors, and discourage them from attaining help.⁴⁰ Overall, while the VHA has successfully implemented diverse suicide prevention initiatives and services, the need for continued system improvement focused on non-VHA veterans remains. PSCI-SPC was developed for this purpose.

By creating a collaborative that will connect VHA and community organizations, there will be better utilization of resources and more appropriate referrals throughout systems that interact with veterans. Sharing suicide prevention best practices between VHA and community partners is expected to increase access to mental health treatment to all veterans. Finally, by allowing best practices for suicide prevention in the VHA to serve as a guide in the development of best practices for suicide prevention between the VHA and the local health and behavioral health care community, PSCI-SPC will create a new suicide prevention intervention for veterans with mental health needs. Through these initiatives, PSCI-SPC will support providers’ and concerned citizens’ efforts to ensure that fewer veterans fall through the cracks of disjointed systems and will promote healthier communities where, regardless of VHA enrollment status, veterans receive suicide prevention care.

Conclusions

PSCI-SPC is a novel center for the innovation and dissemination of the nation’s best practices in suicide prevention for veterans who are ineligible for or otherwise not engaged in VHA services and who turn to their community for health care. PSCI-SPC not only seeks to create, develop, and measure various solutions to reduce suicide among veterans who receive non-VHA care, but also seeks to facilitate the overall quality of existing practices for suicide prevention and care coordination for enrolled veterans who use community resources. By bridging the gap between the VHA, civilian health care systems, and other community partners striving to prevent veteran suicides, we can create better access to care and a more seamless path of communication among these important entities that impact the lives of our veterans daily

Wildfires burned millions of acres in California, Oregon, and Washington this year. Record numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes formed in the Atlantic. “Climate change is here. Disasters are here. They are going to be increasing, which is why we want to talk about this and talk about how pediatricians can help and respond to these events,” Scott Needle, MD, said at the annual meeting American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

SounderBruce/flickr.com/CC BY-SA 2.0

“We have seen from past disasters that people look to us ... as a trusted source of information,” said Dr. Needle, chief medical officer of Elica Health Centers in Sacramento, California. “We can be a positive influence in terms of getting out proactive messaging and keeping people informed.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2019 National Household Survey found that about half of households had an emergency plan. A theme across surveys is that, although households take some steps to get ready for disasters, the public generally “is not as prepared for these events as they really need to be,” Dr. Needle said.

The AAP, the Red Cross, and FEMA are among the organizations that offer planning guides, most of which emphasize three simple things: have a kit, have a plan, and be informed, he said.

To prepare for a disaster, parents might refill a child’s medications ahead of time if possible, Dr. Needle suggested. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, families should add masks, sanitizers, and wipes to their go-bags.

Physicians also can help families by asking how they are coping.
 

Wildfire smoke

“Smoke from wildfires can blanket large, large areas,” Mark Miller, MD, MPH, said during the presentation at the AAP meeting. “This year, we have seen wildfire smoke from the western states reach all the way to the East Coast. So this impacts your patients and your own families sometimes, regardless of wherever you live.”

Children may be more vulnerable to wildfire smoke because they often spend more time outdoors and tend to be more active. In addition, their ongoing development means exposure to air pollutants could have lifelong consequences, said Dr. Miller, who recently reviewed the effects of wildfire smoke on children.

“Children with asthma should have some information about wildfires built into their asthma management plan,” said Dr. Miller, who is affiliated with Western States Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) and University of California, San Francisco. Pollutants are associated with respiratory visits and admissions, asthma exacerbations, decreased lung function, and neurocognitive effects. They also may be carcinogenic.

A study in monkeys found that smoke exposure during California wildfires in 2008 was associated with immune dysregulation and compromised lung function in adolescence.

Another study of three cohorts of children in southern California found that air pollutant levels were associated with children’s lung function.

Organizations have provided resources on creating cleaner air spaces during wildfires, including guides to build DIY air filter fans. AirNow.gov provides air quality and fire maps that can inform decisions about school closures and outdoor activities. Communities should prioritize establishing schools as clean air shelters, Dr. Miller suggested.

Studies have found that respirators and medical masks may decrease children’s exposure to smoke. Children should not use face coverings, however, if they are younger than 2 years, if they are not able to remove the face covering on their own or tell an adult that they need help, or if they have difficulty breathing with a face covering. Younger children should be observed by an adult.

During the pandemic, families should be aware that some types of masks are sold only for health care use, many foreign respirators are counterfeit, and cloth masks used for COVID-19 are not suitable for reducing wildfire smoke exposure, Dr. Miller said.
 

Hazards may linger

Long-term mental health issues may be the disaster consequence that pediatricians encounter most often, Dr. Needle said.

Eighteen months after a major wildfire in Canada, more than one-third of middle and high school students in one community had probable posttraumatic stress disorder (that is, intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and increased arousal). In addition, 31% of students had probable depression. Rates were elevated relative to a control group of students in another community that was not affected by the fire.

Findings indicate that a patient’s degree of exposure to a disaster affects the likelihood of adverse outcomes. On the other hand, resiliency may help mitigate adverse effects. “The hope is that if we can find ways to encourage resiliency before or in the aftermath of an event, we may be able to, in a sense, reduce some of these mental health sequelae,” Dr. Needle said.

Posttraumatic reactions in kids are likely after a disaster. “They may not rise to the level of a diagnosable condition, but they are very common in kids,” he said. “It is important to at least be able to counsel parents to recognize some of the common reactions,” such as acting withdrawn or aggressive, somatic complaints, and having trouble sleeping.

The AAP has a policy statement that encourages talking to children about their concerns with honest and age-appropriate responses, he noted.

When returning to an area after a disaster, many hazards may remain, such as floodwaters, ash pits, mold, and carbon monoxide from generators. “Generally speaking, you don’t want to have kids return to these areas until it is safe,” Dr. Needle said.

Exacerbation of existing conditions – perhaps because of lost medications, smoke exposure, or stress – may be another common problem. Other problems after a disaster could include domestic violence (direct or witnessed) and substance abuse.

“We have a responsibility to take care of our own health as well,” Dr. Needle added. “You can’t take care of others if you’re not taking care of yourself. It’s not being selfish. As a matter of fact, it’s being prudent. It’s survival.”

Dr. Needle and Dr. Miller had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Miller’s presentation was supported by the AAP and funded in part by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides funding support for the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Wildfires burned millions of acres in California, Oregon, and Washington this year. Record numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes formed in the Atlantic. “Climate change is here. Disasters are here. They are going to be increasing, which is why we want to talk about this and talk about how pediatricians can help and respond to these events,” Scott Needle, MD, said at the annual meeting American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

SounderBruce/flickr.com/CC BY-SA 2.0

“We have seen from past disasters that people look to us ... as a trusted source of information,” said Dr. Needle, chief medical officer of Elica Health Centers in Sacramento, California. “We can be a positive influence in terms of getting out proactive messaging and keeping people informed.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2019 National Household Survey found that about half of households had an emergency plan. A theme across surveys is that, although households take some steps to get ready for disasters, the public generally “is not as prepared for these events as they really need to be,” Dr. Needle said.

The AAP, the Red Cross, and FEMA are among the organizations that offer planning guides, most of which emphasize three simple things: have a kit, have a plan, and be informed, he said.

To prepare for a disaster, parents might refill a child’s medications ahead of time if possible, Dr. Needle suggested. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, families should add masks, sanitizers, and wipes to their go-bags.

Physicians also can help families by asking how they are coping.
 

Wildfire smoke

“Smoke from wildfires can blanket large, large areas,” Mark Miller, MD, MPH, said during the presentation at the AAP meeting. “This year, we have seen wildfire smoke from the western states reach all the way to the East Coast. So this impacts your patients and your own families sometimes, regardless of wherever you live.”

Children may be more vulnerable to wildfire smoke because they often spend more time outdoors and tend to be more active. In addition, their ongoing development means exposure to air pollutants could have lifelong consequences, said Dr. Miller, who recently reviewed the effects of wildfire smoke on children.

“Children with asthma should have some information about wildfires built into their asthma management plan,” said Dr. Miller, who is affiliated with Western States Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) and University of California, San Francisco. Pollutants are associated with respiratory visits and admissions, asthma exacerbations, decreased lung function, and neurocognitive effects. They also may be carcinogenic.

A study in monkeys found that smoke exposure during California wildfires in 2008 was associated with immune dysregulation and compromised lung function in adolescence.

Another study of three cohorts of children in southern California found that air pollutant levels were associated with children’s lung function.

Organizations have provided resources on creating cleaner air spaces during wildfires, including guides to build DIY air filter fans. AirNow.gov provides air quality and fire maps that can inform decisions about school closures and outdoor activities. Communities should prioritize establishing schools as clean air shelters, Dr. Miller suggested.

Studies have found that respirators and medical masks may decrease children’s exposure to smoke. Children should not use face coverings, however, if they are younger than 2 years, if they are not able to remove the face covering on their own or tell an adult that they need help, or if they have difficulty breathing with a face covering. Younger children should be observed by an adult.

During the pandemic, families should be aware that some types of masks are sold only for health care use, many foreign respirators are counterfeit, and cloth masks used for COVID-19 are not suitable for reducing wildfire smoke exposure, Dr. Miller said.
 

Hazards may linger

Long-term mental health issues may be the disaster consequence that pediatricians encounter most often, Dr. Needle said.

Eighteen months after a major wildfire in Canada, more than one-third of middle and high school students in one community had probable posttraumatic stress disorder (that is, intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and increased arousal). In addition, 31% of students had probable depression. Rates were elevated relative to a control group of students in another community that was not affected by the fire.

Findings indicate that a patient’s degree of exposure to a disaster affects the likelihood of adverse outcomes. On the other hand, resiliency may help mitigate adverse effects. “The hope is that if we can find ways to encourage resiliency before or in the aftermath of an event, we may be able to, in a sense, reduce some of these mental health sequelae,” Dr. Needle said.

Posttraumatic reactions in kids are likely after a disaster. “They may not rise to the level of a diagnosable condition, but they are very common in kids,” he said. “It is important to at least be able to counsel parents to recognize some of the common reactions,” such as acting withdrawn or aggressive, somatic complaints, and having trouble sleeping.

The AAP has a policy statement that encourages talking to children about their concerns with honest and age-appropriate responses, he noted.

When returning to an area after a disaster, many hazards may remain, such as floodwaters, ash pits, mold, and carbon monoxide from generators. “Generally speaking, you don’t want to have kids return to these areas until it is safe,” Dr. Needle said.

Exacerbation of existing conditions – perhaps because of lost medications, smoke exposure, or stress – may be another common problem. Other problems after a disaster could include domestic violence (direct or witnessed) and substance abuse.

“We have a responsibility to take care of our own health as well,” Dr. Needle added. “You can’t take care of others if you’re not taking care of yourself. It’s not being selfish. As a matter of fact, it’s being prudent. It’s survival.”

Dr. Needle and Dr. Miller had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Miller’s presentation was supported by the AAP and funded in part by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides funding support for the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Wildfires burned millions of acres in California, Oregon, and Washington this year. Record numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes formed in the Atlantic. “Climate change is here. Disasters are here. They are going to be increasing, which is why we want to talk about this and talk about how pediatricians can help and respond to these events,” Scott Needle, MD, said at the annual meeting American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

SounderBruce/flickr.com/CC BY-SA 2.0

“We have seen from past disasters that people look to us ... as a trusted source of information,” said Dr. Needle, chief medical officer of Elica Health Centers in Sacramento, California. “We can be a positive influence in terms of getting out proactive messaging and keeping people informed.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2019 National Household Survey found that about half of households had an emergency plan. A theme across surveys is that, although households take some steps to get ready for disasters, the public generally “is not as prepared for these events as they really need to be,” Dr. Needle said.

The AAP, the Red Cross, and FEMA are among the organizations that offer planning guides, most of which emphasize three simple things: have a kit, have a plan, and be informed, he said.

To prepare for a disaster, parents might refill a child’s medications ahead of time if possible, Dr. Needle suggested. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, families should add masks, sanitizers, and wipes to their go-bags.

Physicians also can help families by asking how they are coping.
 

Wildfire smoke

“Smoke from wildfires can blanket large, large areas,” Mark Miller, MD, MPH, said during the presentation at the AAP meeting. “This year, we have seen wildfire smoke from the western states reach all the way to the East Coast. So this impacts your patients and your own families sometimes, regardless of wherever you live.”

Children may be more vulnerable to wildfire smoke because they often spend more time outdoors and tend to be more active. In addition, their ongoing development means exposure to air pollutants could have lifelong consequences, said Dr. Miller, who recently reviewed the effects of wildfire smoke on children.

“Children with asthma should have some information about wildfires built into their asthma management plan,” said Dr. Miller, who is affiliated with Western States Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) and University of California, San Francisco. Pollutants are associated with respiratory visits and admissions, asthma exacerbations, decreased lung function, and neurocognitive effects. They also may be carcinogenic.

A study in monkeys found that smoke exposure during California wildfires in 2008 was associated with immune dysregulation and compromised lung function in adolescence.

Another study of three cohorts of children in southern California found that air pollutant levels were associated with children’s lung function.

Organizations have provided resources on creating cleaner air spaces during wildfires, including guides to build DIY air filter fans. AirNow.gov provides air quality and fire maps that can inform decisions about school closures and outdoor activities. Communities should prioritize establishing schools as clean air shelters, Dr. Miller suggested.

Studies have found that respirators and medical masks may decrease children’s exposure to smoke. Children should not use face coverings, however, if they are younger than 2 years, if they are not able to remove the face covering on their own or tell an adult that they need help, or if they have difficulty breathing with a face covering. Younger children should be observed by an adult.

During the pandemic, families should be aware that some types of masks are sold only for health care use, many foreign respirators are counterfeit, and cloth masks used for COVID-19 are not suitable for reducing wildfire smoke exposure, Dr. Miller said.
 

Hazards may linger

Long-term mental health issues may be the disaster consequence that pediatricians encounter most often, Dr. Needle said.

Eighteen months after a major wildfire in Canada, more than one-third of middle and high school students in one community had probable posttraumatic stress disorder (that is, intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and increased arousal). In addition, 31% of students had probable depression. Rates were elevated relative to a control group of students in another community that was not affected by the fire.

Findings indicate that a patient’s degree of exposure to a disaster affects the likelihood of adverse outcomes. On the other hand, resiliency may help mitigate adverse effects. “The hope is that if we can find ways to encourage resiliency before or in the aftermath of an event, we may be able to, in a sense, reduce some of these mental health sequelae,” Dr. Needle said.

Posttraumatic reactions in kids are likely after a disaster. “They may not rise to the level of a diagnosable condition, but they are very common in kids,” he said. “It is important to at least be able to counsel parents to recognize some of the common reactions,” such as acting withdrawn or aggressive, somatic complaints, and having trouble sleeping.

The AAP has a policy statement that encourages talking to children about their concerns with honest and age-appropriate responses, he noted.

When returning to an area after a disaster, many hazards may remain, such as floodwaters, ash pits, mold, and carbon monoxide from generators. “Generally speaking, you don’t want to have kids return to these areas until it is safe,” Dr. Needle said.

Exacerbation of existing conditions – perhaps because of lost medications, smoke exposure, or stress – may be another common problem. Other problems after a disaster could include domestic violence (direct or witnessed) and substance abuse.

“We have a responsibility to take care of our own health as well,” Dr. Needle added. “You can’t take care of others if you’re not taking care of yourself. It’s not being selfish. As a matter of fact, it’s being prudent. It’s survival.”

Dr. Needle and Dr. Miller had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Miller’s presentation was supported by the AAP and funded in part by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides funding support for the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit.

jremaly@mdedge.com