Commentary

It used to be difficult to conceive of writing about climate change in light of the illnesses we psychiatrists treat. But talking about climate change has become unavoidable. Sometimes, it seems that things weigh heavy on my heart, and I have to write about them – especially when it is serious.

David Alan Pollack, MD, has been talking about climate change for some years now, and while I understood his concern, I had yet to see the psychological effects up close and personal. After all, I live in Chicago, and we are surrounded by concrete and asphalt.

Thankfully, I also travel, and I get a chance to get into nature. While in Hawaii at the American College of Psychiatrists annual meeting in February, I went snorkeling in Hanauma Bay. I saw coral and fish. The problem is I have a very vivid memories of snorkeling in that exact same nature preserve, which also was a Marine Life Conservation District in 1972 while I was attending the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

The contrast between the two experiences leaves me with a glum, sad, disappointed, heart-broken feeling because it was an intimate and personal experience with climate change. In 1972, I saw every type of coral imaginable: brain coral, club finger coral, elk coral, great star coral, pillar coral, staghorn coral, table coral, and tube coral. If I remember correctly, there were corky sea fingers and sea fans, but not sea turtles. In 1972, I saw bigeyefish, damselfish, doctorfish, filefish, goatfish, gobies, hogfish, lemon butterflyfish, lizardfish, parrottfish, porcupinefish, pufferfish, queen angelfish, rock beauties, sergeant majors, soldierfish, spot-tail spot-tail butterflyfish, Spanish hogfish, squirrelfish, tangs, trunkfish, or any bluehead or yellowhead wrasses.

In 2019, I saw two pieces of coral less that 9 inches in diameter and not a single sea urchin. There were maybe three types of tropical fish that I was unfamiliar with seeing. The difference between what I saw in 1972 and what I saw in 2019 was like the difference between the rain forest in Puerto Rico and the dunes of the Sahara Desert.

Sure, I have heard David talk about the mental health effects of climate change on stress, anxiety, and depression, and I have always thought that he was right. But to see climate change up close and personal is a sobering experience. Lately, I have found myself apologizing to children I know. I apologize to them for being part of the system and process that is destroying the planet – and leaving them with a hot mess.

At this point, it seems to me that we cannot just try to save the planet by being better stewards of our garbage and pointing out measurable indicators of climate change. We need to actively rather than passively try to save the planet. Of course, the question is who will pay for the active efforts to depollute Earth. From what I saw for myself in Hanauma Bay, I don’t think we have much time. So I am hoping that more people will take the issue of climate change seriously.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. Check out Dr. Bell’s new book, “Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community,” at https://thirdworldpressfoundation.org/product/pre-order-fetal-alcohol-exposure-in-the-african-american-community/.
 

It used to be difficult to conceive of writing about climate change in light of the illnesses we psychiatrists treat. But talking about climate change has become unavoidable. Sometimes, it seems that things weigh heavy on my heart, and I have to write about them – especially when it is serious.

David Alan Pollack, MD, has been talking about climate change for some years now, and while I understood his concern, I had yet to see the psychological effects up close and personal. After all, I live in Chicago, and we are surrounded by concrete and asphalt.

Thankfully, I also travel, and I get a chance to get into nature. While in Hawaii at the American College of Psychiatrists annual meeting in February, I went snorkeling in Hanauma Bay. I saw coral and fish. The problem is I have a very vivid memories of snorkeling in that exact same nature preserve, which also was a Marine Life Conservation District in 1972 while I was attending the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

The contrast between the two experiences leaves me with a glum, sad, disappointed, heart-broken feeling because it was an intimate and personal experience with climate change. In 1972, I saw every type of coral imaginable: brain coral, club finger coral, elk coral, great star coral, pillar coral, staghorn coral, table coral, and tube coral. If I remember correctly, there were corky sea fingers and sea fans, but not sea turtles. In 1972, I saw bigeyefish, damselfish, doctorfish, filefish, goatfish, gobies, hogfish, lemon butterflyfish, lizardfish, parrottfish, porcupinefish, pufferfish, queen angelfish, rock beauties, sergeant majors, soldierfish, spot-tail spot-tail butterflyfish, Spanish hogfish, squirrelfish, tangs, trunkfish, or any bluehead or yellowhead wrasses.

In 2019, I saw two pieces of coral less that 9 inches in diameter and not a single sea urchin. There were maybe three types of tropical fish that I was unfamiliar with seeing. The difference between what I saw in 1972 and what I saw in 2019 was like the difference between the rain forest in Puerto Rico and the dunes of the Sahara Desert.

Sure, I have heard David talk about the mental health effects of climate change on stress, anxiety, and depression, and I have always thought that he was right. But to see climate change up close and personal is a sobering experience. Lately, I have found myself apologizing to children I know. I apologize to them for being part of the system and process that is destroying the planet – and leaving them with a hot mess.

At this point, it seems to me that we cannot just try to save the planet by being better stewards of our garbage and pointing out measurable indicators of climate change. We need to actively rather than passively try to save the planet. Of course, the question is who will pay for the active efforts to depollute Earth. From what I saw for myself in Hanauma Bay, I don’t think we have much time. So I am hoping that more people will take the issue of climate change seriously.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. Check out Dr. Bell’s new book, “Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community,” at https://thirdworldpressfoundation.org/product/pre-order-fetal-alcohol-exposure-in-the-african-american-community/.
 

It used to be difficult to conceive of writing about climate change in light of the illnesses we psychiatrists treat. But talking about climate change has become unavoidable. Sometimes, it seems that things weigh heavy on my heart, and I have to write about them – especially when it is serious.

David Alan Pollack, MD, has been talking about climate change for some years now, and while I understood his concern, I had yet to see the psychological effects up close and personal. After all, I live in Chicago, and we are surrounded by concrete and asphalt.

Thankfully, I also travel, and I get a chance to get into nature. While in Hawaii at the American College of Psychiatrists annual meeting in February, I went snorkeling in Hanauma Bay. I saw coral and fish. The problem is I have a very vivid memories of snorkeling in that exact same nature preserve, which also was a Marine Life Conservation District in 1972 while I was attending the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

The contrast between the two experiences leaves me with a glum, sad, disappointed, heart-broken feeling because it was an intimate and personal experience with climate change. In 1972, I saw every type of coral imaginable: brain coral, club finger coral, elk coral, great star coral, pillar coral, staghorn coral, table coral, and tube coral. If I remember correctly, there were corky sea fingers and sea fans, but not sea turtles. In 1972, I saw bigeyefish, damselfish, doctorfish, filefish, goatfish, gobies, hogfish, lemon butterflyfish, lizardfish, parrottfish, porcupinefish, pufferfish, queen angelfish, rock beauties, sergeant majors, soldierfish, spot-tail spot-tail butterflyfish, Spanish hogfish, squirrelfish, tangs, trunkfish, or any bluehead or yellowhead wrasses.

In 2019, I saw two pieces of coral less that 9 inches in diameter and not a single sea urchin. There were maybe three types of tropical fish that I was unfamiliar with seeing. The difference between what I saw in 1972 and what I saw in 2019 was like the difference between the rain forest in Puerto Rico and the dunes of the Sahara Desert.

Sure, I have heard David talk about the mental health effects of climate change on stress, anxiety, and depression, and I have always thought that he was right. But to see climate change up close and personal is a sobering experience. Lately, I have found myself apologizing to children I know. I apologize to them for being part of the system and process that is destroying the planet – and leaving them with a hot mess.

At this point, it seems to me that we cannot just try to save the planet by being better stewards of our garbage and pointing out measurable indicators of climate change. We need to actively rather than passively try to save the planet. Of course, the question is who will pay for the active efforts to depollute Earth. From what I saw for myself in Hanauma Bay, I don’t think we have much time. So I am hoping that more people will take the issue of climate change seriously.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. Check out Dr. Bell’s new book, “Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community,” at https://thirdworldpressfoundation.org/product/pre-order-fetal-alcohol-exposure-in-the-african-american-community/.
 

Editor’s Note: Alison M. Heru, MD, the Families in Psychiatry columnist, invited Dr. Reinstein to address this topic.

“But this was not what I expected!” That’s a statement I have heard from countless new mothers.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Women often envision pregnancy and the postpartum period as a time of pure joy. The glow of an expectant woman and the excitement of the arrival of a new baby masks the reality that many women struggle emotionally when transitioning to motherhood. Like the birth of a child, the birth of a mother is a complex process. Upholding the myth that all women seamlessly transform into mothers can have devastating effects and hinder access to mental health care.

As a psychiatrist working on a women’s inpatient unit with a perinatal program, I treat women at times of crisis. What may have begun as mild anxiety or depression sometimes quickly spirals into severe psychiatric illness. The sheer force of these severe perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders often leaves women and families shocked and confused, wondering what happened to their crumbled dreams of early motherhood.

What must general psychiatrists know about perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders? Why is maternal mental health so important? What are the barriers to treatment for these women? How can general psychiatrists best support and treat these new mothers and their families?

What data show

Maternal depression is now known to be one of the most common complications of pregnancy. Studies have suggested that about 11% of women experience depression during pregnancy¹ and approximately 17% of women are depressed in the postpartum period.² Perinatal generalized anxiety disorder has been shown to have a prevalence of 8.5%-10.5% during pregnancy with a wider variance post partum.³ Approximately 3% of women in the general community develop PTSD symptoms following childbirth.⁴ Research suggests that about 2% of women develop obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms in the postpartum period.⁵ Postpartum psychosis, a rare but potentially devastating illness, occurs after 0.1%-0.2% of births.⁶

Importance of maternal mental health

There is a growing body of literature supporting both obstetric and pediatric adverse outcomes related to untreated psychiatric illness. Untreated maternal depression has been associated with obstetric complications, such as preterm delivery, preeclampsia, low birth weight, as well as the child’s developing cognitive function.⁷ Anxiety during pregnancy has been associated with both a shorter gestational period and adverse implications for fetal neurodevelopment.

These adverse effects were found to be even more potent in “pregnancy anxiety,” or anxiety specifically focused on the pregnancy, the birth experience, and the transition to motherhood.⁸ The psychotic symptoms occurring during postpartum psychosis can jeopardize the lives of both a woman and her child and carries a 4% risk of infanticide.⁹ Although there are limited data about the long-term effects of postpartum obsessive-compulsive disorders and PTSD, it is reasonable to assume that they might carry negative long-term implications for the mother and possibly her child.

Barriers to treatment

Despite the significant rates of mental illness, pregnant and new mothers often face barriers to receiving treatment. Many psychiatrists are hesitant to prescribe psychiatric medication to pregnant women because of concerns about teratogenic potential of psychiatric medications; similar concerns exist for newborn babies when prescribing medications to lactating mothers. In addition, the field of reproductive psychiatry is evolving at a rapid pace, making it difficult for busy psychiatrists to keep up with the ever-growing literature.

Also, it is hard to imagine a population that has more barriers to attending outpatient appointments. For many new mothers, the exhaustion and all-consuming work involved with taking care of a newborn are insurmountable barriers to obtaining mental health care. In addition, despite the awareness that new mothers often are more emotional, families can be slow to recognize the developing severity of a psychiatric illness during the peripartum and postpartum periods.

Supporting and treating new mothers

As general psychiatrists, there are several ways to directly help these women.

1. Expect the expected. Even in women with no prior psychiatric history, a significant percentage of expectant and postpartum women will develop acute psychiatric symptoms. Learn about the different presentations and treatments of perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders. For example, a woman might have thoughts of harming her baby in both postpartum psychosis and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, the acuity and treatment of these two conditions drastically differ.

2. Learn more about psychiatric medications. Several apps and websites are available to psychiatrists to learn about the safety profile of psychiatric medications, such as Reprotox.org, mothertobaby.org, lactmed, and womensmentalhealth.org. Many medications are considered to be relatively safe during pregnancy and breastfeeding. It is important for psychiatrists to appreciate the risks when choosing not to prescribe to pregnant and postpartum women. Sometimes a known risk of a specific medication may be preferable to the unknown risk of leaving a woman susceptible to a severe psychiatric decompensation.

3. Involve all members of the family. A mother’s mental health has significant implications for the entire family. Psychoeducation for the family as well as frequent family sessions are key tools when treating this population. In addition, prescribing to pregnant women provides the opportunity for a psychiatrist to refine skills in joint decision making; it is crucial to involve both a patient and her spouse when discussing psychiatric medications.

4. Provide ready access and collaborate care. It is important to understand the potential rapid onset of psychiatric symptoms during the pregnancy and postpartum period. Expectant and postpartum women should be granted priority for scheduling appointments with expedited appointments when possible. Psychiatrists should be prepared to collaborate care with other specialties. It is important to establish relationships with community psychotherapists specializing in maternal mental health, pediatricians, as well as obstetricians.

5. Learn when to seek a higher level of care. Although many women with perinatal and postpartum psychiatric symptoms can be managed as outpatients, women at times need a higher level of care. Similar to general psychiatry, women who are acutely suicidal or homicidal or have a sudden onset of psychotic and manic symptoms all should be evaluated immediately for inpatient hospitalization. Women with less severe symptoms but who require a higher level of care than typically offered in standard outpatient treatment should be candidates for partial hospitalization programs.

General intensive programs usually can accommodate these women, but it is ideal to refer this population to perinatal intensive programs. Postpartum Support International (postpartum.net) lists the nationwide inpatient and partial perinatal programs as well as regional and local services. An example of inpatient perinatal care is the women’s unit at Zucker Hillside Hospital (Northwell Health System, Glen Oaks, N.Y.), which houses an inpatient perinatal program. As a psychiatrist on the unit, I treat acute symptoms such as depression, anxiety, psychosis, mania, and catatonia that occur during the perinatal and postpartum periods. Given the severity of symptoms, I use a wide range of psychiatric medications with the possibility of electroconvulsive therapy when indicated. Psychotherapy staff on the unit offer specialized perinatal, mothers, and dialectical behavioral therapy groups. Breast pumps are available for women who wish to breastfeed. Accommodations are made for babies and children to visit their mother when clinically appropriate. Once discharged, women often are referred to Zucker Hillside’s own perinatal outpatient clinic for continued treatment. Similar models exist in select inpatient units as well as an increasing number of partial programs across the United States.

Conclusion

Psychiatric care for pregnant and new mothers can be challenging, but it is also immensely rewarding. Restoring a mother’s mental health usually leads to increased emotional stability for her entire family. Given the prevalence of maternal mental health disorders, psychiatrists in nearly every setting will encounter this population of women. With dedicated time devoted to reviewing the literature and learning about local resources, psychiatrists can feel comfortable treating women throughout the childbearing experience.

References

1. J Affect Disord. 2017 Sep;219:86-92.

2. J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Sep;104:235-48.

3. J Womens Health. (Larchmt). 2015 Sep;24(9):762-70.

4. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jul;34(5):389-401.

5. Compr Psychiatry. 2009 Nov-Dec;50(6):503-9.

6. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;15(3):231-42.

7. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;61(3):533-43.

8. Curr Opinion Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;25(2):141-8.

9. Am J Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;166(4):405-8.

Dr. Reinstein is a psychiatry attending at Zucker Hillside Hospital. Her clinical interests include reproductive psychiatry and family therapy, with a specific focus on maternal mental health. Dr. Reinstein completed her adult psychiatry residency training at Montefiore Hospital/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, after graduating from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Yeshiva University, New York, with a BA in biology. She is one of the recipients of the 4th Annual Resident Recognition Award for Excellence in Family Oriented Care.

Editor’s Note: Alison M. Heru, MD, the Families in Psychiatry columnist, invited Dr. Reinstein to address this topic.

“But this was not what I expected!” That’s a statement I have heard from countless new mothers.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Women often envision pregnancy and the postpartum period as a time of pure joy. The glow of an expectant woman and the excitement of the arrival of a new baby masks the reality that many women struggle emotionally when transitioning to motherhood. Like the birth of a child, the birth of a mother is a complex process. Upholding the myth that all women seamlessly transform into mothers can have devastating effects and hinder access to mental health care.

As a psychiatrist working on a women’s inpatient unit with a perinatal program, I treat women at times of crisis. What may have begun as mild anxiety or depression sometimes quickly spirals into severe psychiatric illness. The sheer force of these severe perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders often leaves women and families shocked and confused, wondering what happened to their crumbled dreams of early motherhood.

What must general psychiatrists know about perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders? Why is maternal mental health so important? What are the barriers to treatment for these women? How can general psychiatrists best support and treat these new mothers and their families?

What data show

Maternal depression is now known to be one of the most common complications of pregnancy. Studies have suggested that about 11% of women experience depression during pregnancy¹ and approximately 17% of women are depressed in the postpartum period.² Perinatal generalized anxiety disorder has been shown to have a prevalence of 8.5%-10.5% during pregnancy with a wider variance post partum.³ Approximately 3% of women in the general community develop PTSD symptoms following childbirth.⁴ Research suggests that about 2% of women develop obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms in the postpartum period.⁵ Postpartum psychosis, a rare but potentially devastating illness, occurs after 0.1%-0.2% of births.⁶

Importance of maternal mental health

There is a growing body of literature supporting both obstetric and pediatric adverse outcomes related to untreated psychiatric illness. Untreated maternal depression has been associated with obstetric complications, such as preterm delivery, preeclampsia, low birth weight, as well as the child’s developing cognitive function.⁷ Anxiety during pregnancy has been associated with both a shorter gestational period and adverse implications for fetal neurodevelopment.

These adverse effects were found to be even more potent in “pregnancy anxiety,” or anxiety specifically focused on the pregnancy, the birth experience, and the transition to motherhood.⁸ The psychotic symptoms occurring during postpartum psychosis can jeopardize the lives of both a woman and her child and carries a 4% risk of infanticide.⁹ Although there are limited data about the long-term effects of postpartum obsessive-compulsive disorders and PTSD, it is reasonable to assume that they might carry negative long-term implications for the mother and possibly her child.

Barriers to treatment

Despite the significant rates of mental illness, pregnant and new mothers often face barriers to receiving treatment. Many psychiatrists are hesitant to prescribe psychiatric medication to pregnant women because of concerns about teratogenic potential of psychiatric medications; similar concerns exist for newborn babies when prescribing medications to lactating mothers. In addition, the field of reproductive psychiatry is evolving at a rapid pace, making it difficult for busy psychiatrists to keep up with the ever-growing literature.

Also, it is hard to imagine a population that has more barriers to attending outpatient appointments. For many new mothers, the exhaustion and all-consuming work involved with taking care of a newborn are insurmountable barriers to obtaining mental health care. In addition, despite the awareness that new mothers often are more emotional, families can be slow to recognize the developing severity of a psychiatric illness during the peripartum and postpartum periods.

Supporting and treating new mothers

As general psychiatrists, there are several ways to directly help these women.

1. Expect the expected. Even in women with no prior psychiatric history, a significant percentage of expectant and postpartum women will develop acute psychiatric symptoms. Learn about the different presentations and treatments of perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders. For example, a woman might have thoughts of harming her baby in both postpartum psychosis and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, the acuity and treatment of these two conditions drastically differ.

2. Learn more about psychiatric medications. Several apps and websites are available to psychiatrists to learn about the safety profile of psychiatric medications, such as Reprotox.org, mothertobaby.org, lactmed, and womensmentalhealth.org. Many medications are considered to be relatively safe during pregnancy and breastfeeding. It is important for psychiatrists to appreciate the risks when choosing not to prescribe to pregnant and postpartum women. Sometimes a known risk of a specific medication may be preferable to the unknown risk of leaving a woman susceptible to a severe psychiatric decompensation.

3. Involve all members of the family. A mother’s mental health has significant implications for the entire family. Psychoeducation for the family as well as frequent family sessions are key tools when treating this population. In addition, prescribing to pregnant women provides the opportunity for a psychiatrist to refine skills in joint decision making; it is crucial to involve both a patient and her spouse when discussing psychiatric medications.

4. Provide ready access and collaborate care. It is important to understand the potential rapid onset of psychiatric symptoms during the pregnancy and postpartum period. Expectant and postpartum women should be granted priority for scheduling appointments with expedited appointments when possible. Psychiatrists should be prepared to collaborate care with other specialties. It is important to establish relationships with community psychotherapists specializing in maternal mental health, pediatricians, as well as obstetricians.

5. Learn when to seek a higher level of care. Although many women with perinatal and postpartum psychiatric symptoms can be managed as outpatients, women at times need a higher level of care. Similar to general psychiatry, women who are acutely suicidal or homicidal or have a sudden onset of psychotic and manic symptoms all should be evaluated immediately for inpatient hospitalization. Women with less severe symptoms but who require a higher level of care than typically offered in standard outpatient treatment should be candidates for partial hospitalization programs.

General intensive programs usually can accommodate these women, but it is ideal to refer this population to perinatal intensive programs. Postpartum Support International (postpartum.net) lists the nationwide inpatient and partial perinatal programs as well as regional and local services. An example of inpatient perinatal care is the women’s unit at Zucker Hillside Hospital (Northwell Health System, Glen Oaks, N.Y.), which houses an inpatient perinatal program. As a psychiatrist on the unit, I treat acute symptoms such as depression, anxiety, psychosis, mania, and catatonia that occur during the perinatal and postpartum periods. Given the severity of symptoms, I use a wide range of psychiatric medications with the possibility of electroconvulsive therapy when indicated. Psychotherapy staff on the unit offer specialized perinatal, mothers, and dialectical behavioral therapy groups. Breast pumps are available for women who wish to breastfeed. Accommodations are made for babies and children to visit their mother when clinically appropriate. Once discharged, women often are referred to Zucker Hillside’s own perinatal outpatient clinic for continued treatment. Similar models exist in select inpatient units as well as an increasing number of partial programs across the United States.

Conclusion

Psychiatric care for pregnant and new mothers can be challenging, but it is also immensely rewarding. Restoring a mother’s mental health usually leads to increased emotional stability for her entire family. Given the prevalence of maternal mental health disorders, psychiatrists in nearly every setting will encounter this population of women. With dedicated time devoted to reviewing the literature and learning about local resources, psychiatrists can feel comfortable treating women throughout the childbearing experience.

References

1. J Affect Disord. 2017 Sep;219:86-92.

2. J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Sep;104:235-48.

3. J Womens Health. (Larchmt). 2015 Sep;24(9):762-70.

4. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jul;34(5):389-401.

5. Compr Psychiatry. 2009 Nov-Dec;50(6):503-9.

6. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;15(3):231-42.

7. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;61(3):533-43.

8. Curr Opinion Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;25(2):141-8.

9. Am J Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;166(4):405-8.

Dr. Reinstein is a psychiatry attending at Zucker Hillside Hospital. Her clinical interests include reproductive psychiatry and family therapy, with a specific focus on maternal mental health. Dr. Reinstein completed her adult psychiatry residency training at Montefiore Hospital/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, after graduating from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Yeshiva University, New York, with a BA in biology. She is one of the recipients of the 4th Annual Resident Recognition Award for Excellence in Family Oriented Care.

Editor’s Note: Alison M. Heru, MD, the Families in Psychiatry columnist, invited Dr. Reinstein to address this topic.

“But this was not what I expected!” That’s a statement I have heard from countless new mothers.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Women often envision pregnancy and the postpartum period as a time of pure joy. The glow of an expectant woman and the excitement of the arrival of a new baby masks the reality that many women struggle emotionally when transitioning to motherhood. Like the birth of a child, the birth of a mother is a complex process. Upholding the myth that all women seamlessly transform into mothers can have devastating effects and hinder access to mental health care.

As a psychiatrist working on a women’s inpatient unit with a perinatal program, I treat women at times of crisis. What may have begun as mild anxiety or depression sometimes quickly spirals into severe psychiatric illness. The sheer force of these severe perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders often leaves women and families shocked and confused, wondering what happened to their crumbled dreams of early motherhood.

What must general psychiatrists know about perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders? Why is maternal mental health so important? What are the barriers to treatment for these women? How can general psychiatrists best support and treat these new mothers and their families?

What data show

Maternal depression is now known to be one of the most common complications of pregnancy. Studies have suggested that about 11% of women experience depression during pregnancy¹ and approximately 17% of women are depressed in the postpartum period.² Perinatal generalized anxiety disorder has been shown to have a prevalence of 8.5%-10.5% during pregnancy with a wider variance post partum.³ Approximately 3% of women in the general community develop PTSD symptoms following childbirth.⁴ Research suggests that about 2% of women develop obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms in the postpartum period.⁵ Postpartum psychosis, a rare but potentially devastating illness, occurs after 0.1%-0.2% of births.⁶

Importance of maternal mental health

There is a growing body of literature supporting both obstetric and pediatric adverse outcomes related to untreated psychiatric illness. Untreated maternal depression has been associated with obstetric complications, such as preterm delivery, preeclampsia, low birth weight, as well as the child’s developing cognitive function.⁷ Anxiety during pregnancy has been associated with both a shorter gestational period and adverse implications for fetal neurodevelopment.

These adverse effects were found to be even more potent in “pregnancy anxiety,” or anxiety specifically focused on the pregnancy, the birth experience, and the transition to motherhood.⁸ The psychotic symptoms occurring during postpartum psychosis can jeopardize the lives of both a woman and her child and carries a 4% risk of infanticide.⁹ Although there are limited data about the long-term effects of postpartum obsessive-compulsive disorders and PTSD, it is reasonable to assume that they might carry negative long-term implications for the mother and possibly her child.

Barriers to treatment

Despite the significant rates of mental illness, pregnant and new mothers often face barriers to receiving treatment. Many psychiatrists are hesitant to prescribe psychiatric medication to pregnant women because of concerns about teratogenic potential of psychiatric medications; similar concerns exist for newborn babies when prescribing medications to lactating mothers. In addition, the field of reproductive psychiatry is evolving at a rapid pace, making it difficult for busy psychiatrists to keep up with the ever-growing literature.

Also, it is hard to imagine a population that has more barriers to attending outpatient appointments. For many new mothers, the exhaustion and all-consuming work involved with taking care of a newborn are insurmountable barriers to obtaining mental health care. In addition, despite the awareness that new mothers often are more emotional, families can be slow to recognize the developing severity of a psychiatric illness during the peripartum and postpartum periods.

Supporting and treating new mothers

As general psychiatrists, there are several ways to directly help these women.

1. Expect the expected. Even in women with no prior psychiatric history, a significant percentage of expectant and postpartum women will develop acute psychiatric symptoms. Learn about the different presentations and treatments of perinatal and postpartum psychiatric disorders. For example, a woman might have thoughts of harming her baby in both postpartum psychosis and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, the acuity and treatment of these two conditions drastically differ.

2. Learn more about psychiatric medications. Several apps and websites are available to psychiatrists to learn about the safety profile of psychiatric medications, such as Reprotox.org, mothertobaby.org, lactmed, and womensmentalhealth.org. Many medications are considered to be relatively safe during pregnancy and breastfeeding. It is important for psychiatrists to appreciate the risks when choosing not to prescribe to pregnant and postpartum women. Sometimes a known risk of a specific medication may be preferable to the unknown risk of leaving a woman susceptible to a severe psychiatric decompensation.

3. Involve all members of the family. A mother’s mental health has significant implications for the entire family. Psychoeducation for the family as well as frequent family sessions are key tools when treating this population. In addition, prescribing to pregnant women provides the opportunity for a psychiatrist to refine skills in joint decision making; it is crucial to involve both a patient and her spouse when discussing psychiatric medications.

4. Provide ready access and collaborate care. It is important to understand the potential rapid onset of psychiatric symptoms during the pregnancy and postpartum period. Expectant and postpartum women should be granted priority for scheduling appointments with expedited appointments when possible. Psychiatrists should be prepared to collaborate care with other specialties. It is important to establish relationships with community psychotherapists specializing in maternal mental health, pediatricians, as well as obstetricians.

5. Learn when to seek a higher level of care. Although many women with perinatal and postpartum psychiatric symptoms can be managed as outpatients, women at times need a higher level of care. Similar to general psychiatry, women who are acutely suicidal or homicidal or have a sudden onset of psychotic and manic symptoms all should be evaluated immediately for inpatient hospitalization. Women with less severe symptoms but who require a higher level of care than typically offered in standard outpatient treatment should be candidates for partial hospitalization programs.

General intensive programs usually can accommodate these women, but it is ideal to refer this population to perinatal intensive programs. Postpartum Support International (postpartum.net) lists the nationwide inpatient and partial perinatal programs as well as regional and local services. An example of inpatient perinatal care is the women’s unit at Zucker Hillside Hospital (Northwell Health System, Glen Oaks, N.Y.), which houses an inpatient perinatal program. As a psychiatrist on the unit, I treat acute symptoms such as depression, anxiety, psychosis, mania, and catatonia that occur during the perinatal and postpartum periods. Given the severity of symptoms, I use a wide range of psychiatric medications with the possibility of electroconvulsive therapy when indicated. Psychotherapy staff on the unit offer specialized perinatal, mothers, and dialectical behavioral therapy groups. Breast pumps are available for women who wish to breastfeed. Accommodations are made for babies and children to visit their mother when clinically appropriate. Once discharged, women often are referred to Zucker Hillside’s own perinatal outpatient clinic for continued treatment. Similar models exist in select inpatient units as well as an increasing number of partial programs across the United States.

Conclusion

Psychiatric care for pregnant and new mothers can be challenging, but it is also immensely rewarding. Restoring a mother’s mental health usually leads to increased emotional stability for her entire family. Given the prevalence of maternal mental health disorders, psychiatrists in nearly every setting will encounter this population of women. With dedicated time devoted to reviewing the literature and learning about local resources, psychiatrists can feel comfortable treating women throughout the childbearing experience.

References

1. J Affect Disord. 2017 Sep;219:86-92.

2. J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Sep;104:235-48.

3. J Womens Health. (Larchmt). 2015 Sep;24(9):762-70.

4. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jul;34(5):389-401.

5. Compr Psychiatry. 2009 Nov-Dec;50(6):503-9.

6. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;15(3):231-42.

7. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;61(3):533-43.

8. Curr Opinion Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;25(2):141-8.

9. Am J Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;166(4):405-8.

Dr. Reinstein is a psychiatry attending at Zucker Hillside Hospital. Her clinical interests include reproductive psychiatry and family therapy, with a specific focus on maternal mental health. Dr. Reinstein completed her adult psychiatry residency training at Montefiore Hospital/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, after graduating from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Yeshiva University, New York, with a BA in biology. She is one of the recipients of the 4th Annual Resident Recognition Award for Excellence in Family Oriented Care.

After last month’s column about the difficulty of firing employees, several readers raised the equally dicey issue of dismissing patients from your practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to choose or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; and to a certain extent, that’s true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, and so on. However, our ethical obligations to “do no harm” and to place our patients’ welfare above our own self-interests dictate that dismissing a patient should be the absolute last resort, after all other options have been exhausted.

First, to avoid charges of arbitrary termination, you should draw up a specific list of situations that could merit a dismissal from your office, and add it to your office manual. Every list will probably differ in some respects, but for the sake of example, here is mine:

• Threats or violence toward physicians or staff.
• Inappropriate sexual advances toward physicians or staff.
• Providing false or misleading medical history.
• Repeated rude or disruptive behavior.
• Demands for unapproved, unindicated, or inappropriate treatments or medications (particularly controlled substances).
• Refusal to adhere to agreed-upon treatment plans.
• Repeated failure to keep scheduled appointments.
• Repeated failure to pay medical bills.

As with pretty much everything in a private practice, accurate and written documentation of dismissible behavior is essential. Record all incidents and assemble as much material evidence as possible from all available sources.

In most cases (except the first two infractions on our list, for which we have zero tolerance), we make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. We communicate with the patients in question, explain our concerns, and discuss options for resolution. I also may send a letter, repeating my concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of our efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings are, of course, documented as well. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating these could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There also is the risk of civil litigation, which typically is not covered by malpractice policies and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Patients who feel that termination was unjustified also may respond with negative reviews on social media, which I’ve discussed in recent columns, and will again, soon.

If something untrue is posted about you on a doctor-rating site, take action. Reputable sites have their own reputations to protect and can usually be persuaded to remove anything that is demonstrably false, although you may need a lawyer’s letter to get their attention. Try to get the error removed entirely or corrected within the original posting. An erratum on some distant page of the website is likely to be ignored, and will leave the false information online, intact.

Unfair comments are unlikely to be removed unless they are blatantly libelous; but many sites allow you to post a response, giving your side of the story. (More on that in the near future.) Also, there is nothing wrong with encouraging happy patients to write favorable reviews on those same sites. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

After last month’s column about the difficulty of firing employees, several readers raised the equally dicey issue of dismissing patients from your practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to choose or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; and to a certain extent, that’s true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, and so on. However, our ethical obligations to “do no harm” and to place our patients’ welfare above our own self-interests dictate that dismissing a patient should be the absolute last resort, after all other options have been exhausted.

First, to avoid charges of arbitrary termination, you should draw up a specific list of situations that could merit a dismissal from your office, and add it to your office manual. Every list will probably differ in some respects, but for the sake of example, here is mine:

• Threats or violence toward physicians or staff.
• Inappropriate sexual advances toward physicians or staff.
• Providing false or misleading medical history.
• Repeated rude or disruptive behavior.
• Demands for unapproved, unindicated, or inappropriate treatments or medications (particularly controlled substances).
• Refusal to adhere to agreed-upon treatment plans.
• Repeated failure to keep scheduled appointments.
• Repeated failure to pay medical bills.

As with pretty much everything in a private practice, accurate and written documentation of dismissible behavior is essential. Record all incidents and assemble as much material evidence as possible from all available sources.

In most cases (except the first two infractions on our list, for which we have zero tolerance), we make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. We communicate with the patients in question, explain our concerns, and discuss options for resolution. I also may send a letter, repeating my concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of our efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings are, of course, documented as well. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating these could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There also is the risk of civil litigation, which typically is not covered by malpractice policies and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Patients who feel that termination was unjustified also may respond with negative reviews on social media, which I’ve discussed in recent columns, and will again, soon.

If something untrue is posted about you on a doctor-rating site, take action. Reputable sites have their own reputations to protect and can usually be persuaded to remove anything that is demonstrably false, although you may need a lawyer’s letter to get their attention. Try to get the error removed entirely or corrected within the original posting. An erratum on some distant page of the website is likely to be ignored, and will leave the false information online, intact.

Unfair comments are unlikely to be removed unless they are blatantly libelous; but many sites allow you to post a response, giving your side of the story. (More on that in the near future.) Also, there is nothing wrong with encouraging happy patients to write favorable reviews on those same sites. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

After last month’s column about the difficulty of firing employees, several readers raised the equally dicey issue of dismissing patients from your practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to choose or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; and to a certain extent, that’s true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, and so on. However, our ethical obligations to “do no harm” and to place our patients’ welfare above our own self-interests dictate that dismissing a patient should be the absolute last resort, after all other options have been exhausted.

First, to avoid charges of arbitrary termination, you should draw up a specific list of situations that could merit a dismissal from your office, and add it to your office manual. Every list will probably differ in some respects, but for the sake of example, here is mine:

• Threats or violence toward physicians or staff.
• Inappropriate sexual advances toward physicians or staff.
• Providing false or misleading medical history.
• Repeated rude or disruptive behavior.
• Demands for unapproved, unindicated, or inappropriate treatments or medications (particularly controlled substances).
• Refusal to adhere to agreed-upon treatment plans.
• Repeated failure to keep scheduled appointments.
• Repeated failure to pay medical bills.

As with pretty much everything in a private practice, accurate and written documentation of dismissible behavior is essential. Record all incidents and assemble as much material evidence as possible from all available sources.

In most cases (except the first two infractions on our list, for which we have zero tolerance), we make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. We communicate with the patients in question, explain our concerns, and discuss options for resolution. I also may send a letter, repeating my concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of our efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings are, of course, documented as well. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating these could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There also is the risk of civil litigation, which typically is not covered by malpractice policies and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Patients who feel that termination was unjustified also may respond with negative reviews on social media, which I’ve discussed in recent columns, and will again, soon.

If something untrue is posted about you on a doctor-rating site, take action. Reputable sites have their own reputations to protect and can usually be persuaded to remove anything that is demonstrably false, although you may need a lawyer’s letter to get their attention. Try to get the error removed entirely or corrected within the original posting. An erratum on some distant page of the website is likely to be ignored, and will leave the false information online, intact.

Unfair comments are unlikely to be removed unless they are blatantly libelous; but many sites allow you to post a response, giving your side of the story. (More on that in the near future.) Also, there is nothing wrong with encouraging happy patients to write favorable reviews on those same sites. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

We read with interest the review article by Keber and Fiebert, “Diabetes in the elderly: Matching meds to needs” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:408-410,412-415). The authors have provided a timely overview of antidiabetes medications for elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and their relative risks for hypoglycemia.

We’d like to add to this important conversation.

Aging, per se, modifies the glycemic thresholds for autonomic symptoms and cognitive impairment; in older nondiabetic men (mean + SD: age 65 ± 3 years), autonomic symptoms and cognitive dysfunction commence at identical glycemic thresholds (3 ± 0.2 mmol/L [54 ± 4 mg/dL]). By contrast, in younger men (age 23 ± 2 years), a significant gap is observed between the glycemic threshold for symptom generation (3.6 mmol/L [65 mg/dL]) and the onset of cognitive dysfunction (2.6 mmol/L [47 mg/dL]).^1,2 The simultaneous occurrence of symptoms and cognitive impairment in older people may adversely affect their ability to recognize and treat hypoglycemia promptly.

In addition, hypoglycemia in older T2DM patients often presents with atypical neurologic symptoms, including incoordination and ataxia, slurring of speech, and visual disturbances, which either are not identified as hypoglycemia or are misdiagnosed as other medical disorders (eg, transient ischemic attack).³ Knowledge about hypoglycemia symptoms is poor, in both elderly people with diabetes and their relatives and caregivers, which compromises the ability to identify hypoglycemia and provide effective treatment.⁴ Education about the possible presentations of hypoglycemia and its effective treatment is essential for older patients and their relatives.

Jan Brož, MD
Prague, Czech Republic

We read with interest the review article by Keber and Fiebert, “Diabetes in the elderly: Matching meds to needs” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:408-410,412-415). The authors have provided a timely overview of antidiabetes medications for elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and their relative risks for hypoglycemia.

We’d like to add to this important conversation.

Aging, per se, modifies the glycemic thresholds for autonomic symptoms and cognitive impairment; in older nondiabetic men (mean + SD: age 65 ± 3 years), autonomic symptoms and cognitive dysfunction commence at identical glycemic thresholds (3 ± 0.2 mmol/L [54 ± 4 mg/dL]). By contrast, in younger men (age 23 ± 2 years), a significant gap is observed between the glycemic threshold for symptom generation (3.6 mmol/L [65 mg/dL]) and the onset of cognitive dysfunction (2.6 mmol/L [47 mg/dL]).^1,2 The simultaneous occurrence of symptoms and cognitive impairment in older people may adversely affect their ability to recognize and treat hypoglycemia promptly.

In addition, hypoglycemia in older T2DM patients often presents with atypical neurologic symptoms, including incoordination and ataxia, slurring of speech, and visual disturbances, which either are not identified as hypoglycemia or are misdiagnosed as other medical disorders (eg, transient ischemic attack).³ Knowledge about hypoglycemia symptoms is poor, in both elderly people with diabetes and their relatives and caregivers, which compromises the ability to identify hypoglycemia and provide effective treatment.⁴ Education about the possible presentations of hypoglycemia and its effective treatment is essential for older patients and their relatives.

Jan Brož, MD
Prague, Czech Republic

We read with interest the review article by Keber and Fiebert, “Diabetes in the elderly: Matching meds to needs” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:408-410,412-415). The authors have provided a timely overview of antidiabetes medications for elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and their relative risks for hypoglycemia.

We’d like to add to this important conversation.

Aging, per se, modifies the glycemic thresholds for autonomic symptoms and cognitive impairment; in older nondiabetic men (mean + SD: age 65 ± 3 years), autonomic symptoms and cognitive dysfunction commence at identical glycemic thresholds (3 ± 0.2 mmol/L [54 ± 4 mg/dL]). By contrast, in younger men (age 23 ± 2 years), a significant gap is observed between the glycemic threshold for symptom generation (3.6 mmol/L [65 mg/dL]) and the onset of cognitive dysfunction (2.6 mmol/L [47 mg/dL]).^1,2 The simultaneous occurrence of symptoms and cognitive impairment in older people may adversely affect their ability to recognize and treat hypoglycemia promptly.

In addition, hypoglycemia in older T2DM patients often presents with atypical neurologic symptoms, including incoordination and ataxia, slurring of speech, and visual disturbances, which either are not identified as hypoglycemia or are misdiagnosed as other medical disorders (eg, transient ischemic attack).³ Knowledge about hypoglycemia symptoms is poor, in both elderly people with diabetes and their relatives and caregivers, which compromises the ability to identify hypoglycemia and provide effective treatment.⁴ Education about the possible presentations of hypoglycemia and its effective treatment is essential for older patients and their relatives.

Jan Brož, MD
Prague, Czech Republic

It is with much enthusiasm that we read the article “Dialing back opioids for chronic pain one conversation at a time” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:753-757) about the author’s approach to opioid tapering. We have implemented a similar process in our own medical home practice, based on the continuity relationship and the Ecological Systems Theory.

The use of the human resources within the medical home—care coordinator, pharmacist, community health worker, etc— distributes the responsibility and lessens the burden of care for the family physician. The Ecological Systems Theory provides a structure for understanding the interaction between proximal influencers (eg, the team) and more distal influences (eg, national guidelines and institutional mandates).

Recently, we presented our findings at the 2018 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Our results showed a 50% decline in per capita medication use over an almost 14-month period.

We feel that opioid tapering provides both a counterpoint and a complementary method to medication-assisted therapies (MAT). A counterpoint, because MAT involves the diagnosis and treatment of opioid misuse disorder. At the core of that diagnosis is the question of whether all chronic opioid use should be labelled as “misuse.” Tapering involves no such diagnosis and focuses on the safety of minimal opioid use, which, when MAT is used appropriately, is also a primary concern.

We appreciate the approach that the authors took in their project and look forward to seeing further iterations.

Bharat Gopal, MD
Cristina Capannolo, DO
Corvallis, Ore

It is with much enthusiasm that we read the article “Dialing back opioids for chronic pain one conversation at a time” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:753-757) about the author’s approach to opioid tapering. We have implemented a similar process in our own medical home practice, based on the continuity relationship and the Ecological Systems Theory.

The use of the human resources within the medical home—care coordinator, pharmacist, community health worker, etc— distributes the responsibility and lessens the burden of care for the family physician. The Ecological Systems Theory provides a structure for understanding the interaction between proximal influencers (eg, the team) and more distal influences (eg, national guidelines and institutional mandates).

Recently, we presented our findings at the 2018 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Our results showed a 50% decline in per capita medication use over an almost 14-month period.

We feel that opioid tapering provides both a counterpoint and a complementary method to medication-assisted therapies (MAT). A counterpoint, because MAT involves the diagnosis and treatment of opioid misuse disorder. At the core of that diagnosis is the question of whether all chronic opioid use should be labelled as “misuse.” Tapering involves no such diagnosis and focuses on the safety of minimal opioid use, which, when MAT is used appropriately, is also a primary concern.

We appreciate the approach that the authors took in their project and look forward to seeing further iterations.

Bharat Gopal, MD
Cristina Capannolo, DO
Corvallis, Ore

It is with much enthusiasm that we read the article “Dialing back opioids for chronic pain one conversation at a time” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:753-757) about the author’s approach to opioid tapering. We have implemented a similar process in our own medical home practice, based on the continuity relationship and the Ecological Systems Theory.

The use of the human resources within the medical home—care coordinator, pharmacist, community health worker, etc— distributes the responsibility and lessens the burden of care for the family physician. The Ecological Systems Theory provides a structure for understanding the interaction between proximal influencers (eg, the team) and more distal influences (eg, national guidelines and institutional mandates).

Recently, we presented our findings at the 2018 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Our results showed a 50% decline in per capita medication use over an almost 14-month period.

We feel that opioid tapering provides both a counterpoint and a complementary method to medication-assisted therapies (MAT). A counterpoint, because MAT involves the diagnosis and treatment of opioid misuse disorder. At the core of that diagnosis is the question of whether all chronic opioid use should be labelled as “misuse.” Tapering involves no such diagnosis and focuses on the safety of minimal opioid use, which, when MAT is used appropriately, is also a primary concern.

We appreciate the approach that the authors took in their project and look forward to seeing further iterations.

Bharat Gopal, MD
Cristina Capannolo, DO
Corvallis, Ore

In his guest editorial, “Upending this country’s approach to health care” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:744-745), T. R. Reid makes a number of good points. However, I disagree with his opinion that “This disgraceful state of affairs is not the fault of the nation’s physicians. Rather, the problems with health care in the United States stem from the system that American providers have to work in.”

Through our choices, we have helped create this current system. I started as a family practice attending physician in 1994 and worked in 2 community hospitals. One of these hospitals closed its doors in 2012 and the other merged with a large health care system in 2015. During my 25 years of practice, I watched all of my outstanding primary care colleagues (family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics; 25 to 30 in total) stop their practice of combined outpatient and inpatient work. I currently do not see any primary care physicians (who do outpatient work) during my hospital patient care. Yes, it’s lonely.

I believe this significant change in practice across the United States has led to unintended consequences. First, the administrative burdens (and likely costs) for hospitals and health care systems have risen. Newborn, pediatric, and adult hospitalist services had to be built or bolstered, and then maintained, and the growing number of employed physicians had to be managed. Second, primary care’s attractiveness to some medical students has declined. Should students want a practice where they will likely never take care of their patients in the office and the hospital?

I agree we have a “disgraceful state of affairs,” and we need to work together for the tough solutions. However, as health care leaders, we must take responsibility for our roles in creating the current system. We must acknowledge these roles and learn from them.  

Chris Noah, MD
Middleville, Mich

As a longtime family medicine practitioner, I can’t agree more with Mr. Reid’s assessments of the state of our health care system. I have experienced health care from my practice as part of an HMO in Wisconsin, and in a hospital system in Raleigh, NC. Our “system” has done such a poor job of allocating its resources and has sacrificed so much to generate profit for the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. The question is: How do we develop the political will to overcome these deep pockets to change the system? Victor Fuch’s article in the November issue of JAMA makes a very compelling case for a national health plan.¹

Jeff Keil, MD
Cary, NC

In his guest editorial, “Upending this country’s approach to health care” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:744-745), T. R. Reid makes a number of good points. However, I disagree with his opinion that “This disgraceful state of affairs is not the fault of the nation’s physicians. Rather, the problems with health care in the United States stem from the system that American providers have to work in.”

Through our choices, we have helped create this current system. I started as a family practice attending physician in 1994 and worked in 2 community hospitals. One of these hospitals closed its doors in 2012 and the other merged with a large health care system in 2015. During my 25 years of practice, I watched all of my outstanding primary care colleagues (family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics; 25 to 30 in total) stop their practice of combined outpatient and inpatient work. I currently do not see any primary care physicians (who do outpatient work) during my hospital patient care. Yes, it’s lonely.

I believe this significant change in practice across the United States has led to unintended consequences. First, the administrative burdens (and likely costs) for hospitals and health care systems have risen. Newborn, pediatric, and adult hospitalist services had to be built or bolstered, and then maintained, and the growing number of employed physicians had to be managed. Second, primary care’s attractiveness to some medical students has declined. Should students want a practice where they will likely never take care of their patients in the office and the hospital?

I agree we have a “disgraceful state of affairs,” and we need to work together for the tough solutions. However, as health care leaders, we must take responsibility for our roles in creating the current system. We must acknowledge these roles and learn from them.  

Chris Noah, MD
Middleville, Mich

As a longtime family medicine practitioner, I can’t agree more with Mr. Reid’s assessments of the state of our health care system. I have experienced health care from my practice as part of an HMO in Wisconsin, and in a hospital system in Raleigh, NC. Our “system” has done such a poor job of allocating its resources and has sacrificed so much to generate profit for the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. The question is: How do we develop the political will to overcome these deep pockets to change the system? Victor Fuch’s article in the November issue of JAMA makes a very compelling case for a national health plan.¹

Jeff Keil, MD
Cary, NC

In his guest editorial, “Upending this country’s approach to health care” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:744-745), T. R. Reid makes a number of good points. However, I disagree with his opinion that “This disgraceful state of affairs is not the fault of the nation’s physicians. Rather, the problems with health care in the United States stem from the system that American providers have to work in.”

Through our choices, we have helped create this current system. I started as a family practice attending physician in 1994 and worked in 2 community hospitals. One of these hospitals closed its doors in 2012 and the other merged with a large health care system in 2015. During my 25 years of practice, I watched all of my outstanding primary care colleagues (family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics; 25 to 30 in total) stop their practice of combined outpatient and inpatient work. I currently do not see any primary care physicians (who do outpatient work) during my hospital patient care. Yes, it’s lonely.

I believe this significant change in practice across the United States has led to unintended consequences. First, the administrative burdens (and likely costs) for hospitals and health care systems have risen. Newborn, pediatric, and adult hospitalist services had to be built or bolstered, and then maintained, and the growing number of employed physicians had to be managed. Second, primary care’s attractiveness to some medical students has declined. Should students want a practice where they will likely never take care of their patients in the office and the hospital?

I agree we have a “disgraceful state of affairs,” and we need to work together for the tough solutions. However, as health care leaders, we must take responsibility for our roles in creating the current system. We must acknowledge these roles and learn from them.  

Chris Noah, MD
Middleville, Mich

As a longtime family medicine practitioner, I can’t agree more with Mr. Reid’s assessments of the state of our health care system. I have experienced health care from my practice as part of an HMO in Wisconsin, and in a hospital system in Raleigh, NC. Our “system” has done such a poor job of allocating its resources and has sacrificed so much to generate profit for the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. The question is: How do we develop the political will to overcome these deep pockets to change the system? Victor Fuch’s article in the November issue of JAMA makes a very compelling case for a national health plan.¹

Jeff Keil, MD
Cary, NC

Paul is 13-year-old male in seventh grade with a history of inattentive ADHD and a positive family history of depression and anxiety in his mother. He always has had a few friends, but recently they have not wanted to hang out with him; he feels like people are ignoring him. For the past 2 months, Paul’s mood has gotten very low. He feels sad and also bored because he is not enjoying anything anymore. He feels as though he is “a loser,” and as though nothing will ever get better. His grades have dropped. He has thoughts of wishing he were dead, although he has no specific plan and says he wouldn’t do it because he doesn’t want to hurt his parents. He is looking at his phone at night and gets to bed late, then doesn’t want to get up in the morning. He sleeps until noon on weekends. Appetite is increased. He doesn’t have energy to do things on the weekends.

Discussion

Paul clearly meets diagnostic criteria for depression. He feels sad and has lost pleasure in activities he used to enjoy. He has negative, hopeless thoughts, and vague thoughts of death although no specific plans. He has vegetative signs of depression with increased appetite and sleep; he likely has worse concentration than usual, given that his grades have dropped. Energy is low.

Both medications and specific types of psychotherapy are effective for treating depression in adolescents.

Meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of SSRIs (fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram) as well as venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and nefazodone with small to very small effect sizes.¹ A large placebo effect is seen in many of these studies, correlating with the number of study sites – a feature of many industry-sponsored studies.

John Walkup, MD, a leading researcher on both medication and psychotherapeutic interventions in children’s mood disorders, has pointed out that the quality of industry-sponsored studies (vs. National Institute of Mental Health–sponsored studies) is likely lower, with more pressure to get in large numbers of patients in a short period of time, less trained investigators leading to less clear-cut diagnoses, and other sources of bias.² This raises the question of whether we should weight NIMH-sponsored studies more heavily in meta-analyses.

A second factor to consider is the risk of harm, and a significant issue here is the question of whether suicidal ideation is increased among those patients taking SSRIs. Meta-analyses from the late 2000s, which balanced the number needed to treat vs. the number needed to harm, judged that for children under age 13 years, fluoxetine was the only antidepressant that was worth the cost-benefit ratio. However, in the past several years there has been a major improvement in the assessment of suicidal ideation in the form of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, a standardized method of assessing the presence and significance of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Studies that have used this assessment have found no significant increase in suicidal ideation with SSRIs vs. placebo.

The takeaway here is that the SSRIs can work, with fluoxetine, sertraline, and escitalopram leading the evidence, and that with refinements of the assessment they do not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation.³ Of course, it remains important to discuss this issue with families.

Flamingo_Photography/Getty Images

Psychotherapy is the other major treatment for depression. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and Interpersonal therapy (IPT) for adolescents show effectiveness in teens.⁴ Recent meta-analyses have gotten stronger through the use of stringent quality criteria and the inclusion of negative studies; these therapies continue to be considered well established. It is worthwhile to talk to therapists in your community to understand what type of treatment they offer. If you are hiring therapists to be embedded in your practice, look for people who have been trained in CBT or IPT. It is particularly helpful to know whether therapists have seen patients using CBT or IPT while getting supervision in these modalities.

CBT and IPT are different. CBT puts an emphasis on the thought-feeling-behavior triangle while IPT focuses more on relationships. Someone who has tried one and has not benefited nevertheless may benefit from the other.

Working with your patients to choose what type of psychotherapy modality for depression they would like is particularly effective.

Finally, be aware of how the environment may be affecting your patient. School issues related to peers, learning style or disabilities, and organization have a major effect on teens. In this case, Paul is looking at his phone nightly, which may be affecting both his sleep and self-esteem. Family issues continue to play a key role.

Dr. Hall is assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. JAMA. 2007 Apr 18;297(15):1683-96.

2. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 May 1;174(5):430-7.

3. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2018. doi: 10.1089/cap.2017.0174.

4. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2017 Jan-Feb;46(1):11-43.

Paul is 13-year-old male in seventh grade with a history of inattentive ADHD and a positive family history of depression and anxiety in his mother. He always has had a few friends, but recently they have not wanted to hang out with him; he feels like people are ignoring him. For the past 2 months, Paul’s mood has gotten very low. He feels sad and also bored because he is not enjoying anything anymore. He feels as though he is “a loser,” and as though nothing will ever get better. His grades have dropped. He has thoughts of wishing he were dead, although he has no specific plan and says he wouldn’t do it because he doesn’t want to hurt his parents. He is looking at his phone at night and gets to bed late, then doesn’t want to get up in the morning. He sleeps until noon on weekends. Appetite is increased. He doesn’t have energy to do things on the weekends.

Discussion

Paul clearly meets diagnostic criteria for depression. He feels sad and has lost pleasure in activities he used to enjoy. He has negative, hopeless thoughts, and vague thoughts of death although no specific plans. He has vegetative signs of depression with increased appetite and sleep; he likely has worse concentration than usual, given that his grades have dropped. Energy is low.

Both medications and specific types of psychotherapy are effective for treating depression in adolescents.

Meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of SSRIs (fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram) as well as venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and nefazodone with small to very small effect sizes.¹ A large placebo effect is seen in many of these studies, correlating with the number of study sites – a feature of many industry-sponsored studies.

John Walkup, MD, a leading researcher on both medication and psychotherapeutic interventions in children’s mood disorders, has pointed out that the quality of industry-sponsored studies (vs. National Institute of Mental Health–sponsored studies) is likely lower, with more pressure to get in large numbers of patients in a short period of time, less trained investigators leading to less clear-cut diagnoses, and other sources of bias.² This raises the question of whether we should weight NIMH-sponsored studies more heavily in meta-analyses.

A second factor to consider is the risk of harm, and a significant issue here is the question of whether suicidal ideation is increased among those patients taking SSRIs. Meta-analyses from the late 2000s, which balanced the number needed to treat vs. the number needed to harm, judged that for children under age 13 years, fluoxetine was the only antidepressant that was worth the cost-benefit ratio. However, in the past several years there has been a major improvement in the assessment of suicidal ideation in the form of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, a standardized method of assessing the presence and significance of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Studies that have used this assessment have found no significant increase in suicidal ideation with SSRIs vs. placebo.

The takeaway here is that the SSRIs can work, with fluoxetine, sertraline, and escitalopram leading the evidence, and that with refinements of the assessment they do not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation.³ Of course, it remains important to discuss this issue with families.

Flamingo_Photography/Getty Images

Psychotherapy is the other major treatment for depression. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and Interpersonal therapy (IPT) for adolescents show effectiveness in teens.⁴ Recent meta-analyses have gotten stronger through the use of stringent quality criteria and the inclusion of negative studies; these therapies continue to be considered well established. It is worthwhile to talk to therapists in your community to understand what type of treatment they offer. If you are hiring therapists to be embedded in your practice, look for people who have been trained in CBT or IPT. It is particularly helpful to know whether therapists have seen patients using CBT or IPT while getting supervision in these modalities.

CBT and IPT are different. CBT puts an emphasis on the thought-feeling-behavior triangle while IPT focuses more on relationships. Someone who has tried one and has not benefited nevertheless may benefit from the other.

Working with your patients to choose what type of psychotherapy modality for depression they would like is particularly effective.

Finally, be aware of how the environment may be affecting your patient. School issues related to peers, learning style or disabilities, and organization have a major effect on teens. In this case, Paul is looking at his phone nightly, which may be affecting both his sleep and self-esteem. Family issues continue to play a key role.

Dr. Hall is assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. JAMA. 2007 Apr 18;297(15):1683-96.

2. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 May 1;174(5):430-7.

3. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2018. doi: 10.1089/cap.2017.0174.

4. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2017 Jan-Feb;46(1):11-43.

Paul is 13-year-old male in seventh grade with a history of inattentive ADHD and a positive family history of depression and anxiety in his mother. He always has had a few friends, but recently they have not wanted to hang out with him; he feels like people are ignoring him. For the past 2 months, Paul’s mood has gotten very low. He feels sad and also bored because he is not enjoying anything anymore. He feels as though he is “a loser,” and as though nothing will ever get better. His grades have dropped. He has thoughts of wishing he were dead, although he has no specific plan and says he wouldn’t do it because he doesn’t want to hurt his parents. He is looking at his phone at night and gets to bed late, then doesn’t want to get up in the morning. He sleeps until noon on weekends. Appetite is increased. He doesn’t have energy to do things on the weekends.

Discussion

Paul clearly meets diagnostic criteria for depression. He feels sad and has lost pleasure in activities he used to enjoy. He has negative, hopeless thoughts, and vague thoughts of death although no specific plans. He has vegetative signs of depression with increased appetite and sleep; he likely has worse concentration than usual, given that his grades have dropped. Energy is low.

Both medications and specific types of psychotherapy are effective for treating depression in adolescents.

Meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of SSRIs (fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram) as well as venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and nefazodone with small to very small effect sizes.¹ A large placebo effect is seen in many of these studies, correlating with the number of study sites – a feature of many industry-sponsored studies.

John Walkup, MD, a leading researcher on both medication and psychotherapeutic interventions in children’s mood disorders, has pointed out that the quality of industry-sponsored studies (vs. National Institute of Mental Health–sponsored studies) is likely lower, with more pressure to get in large numbers of patients in a short period of time, less trained investigators leading to less clear-cut diagnoses, and other sources of bias.² This raises the question of whether we should weight NIMH-sponsored studies more heavily in meta-analyses.

A second factor to consider is the risk of harm, and a significant issue here is the question of whether suicidal ideation is increased among those patients taking SSRIs. Meta-analyses from the late 2000s, which balanced the number needed to treat vs. the number needed to harm, judged that for children under age 13 years, fluoxetine was the only antidepressant that was worth the cost-benefit ratio. However, in the past several years there has been a major improvement in the assessment of suicidal ideation in the form of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, a standardized method of assessing the presence and significance of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Studies that have used this assessment have found no significant increase in suicidal ideation with SSRIs vs. placebo.

The takeaway here is that the SSRIs can work, with fluoxetine, sertraline, and escitalopram leading the evidence, and that with refinements of the assessment they do not appear to increase the risk of suicidal ideation.³ Of course, it remains important to discuss this issue with families.

Flamingo_Photography/Getty Images

Psychotherapy is the other major treatment for depression. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and Interpersonal therapy (IPT) for adolescents show effectiveness in teens.⁴ Recent meta-analyses have gotten stronger through the use of stringent quality criteria and the inclusion of negative studies; these therapies continue to be considered well established. It is worthwhile to talk to therapists in your community to understand what type of treatment they offer. If you are hiring therapists to be embedded in your practice, look for people who have been trained in CBT or IPT. It is particularly helpful to know whether therapists have seen patients using CBT or IPT while getting supervision in these modalities.

CBT and IPT are different. CBT puts an emphasis on the thought-feeling-behavior triangle while IPT focuses more on relationships. Someone who has tried one and has not benefited nevertheless may benefit from the other.

Working with your patients to choose what type of psychotherapy modality for depression they would like is particularly effective.

Finally, be aware of how the environment may be affecting your patient. School issues related to peers, learning style or disabilities, and organization have a major effect on teens. In this case, Paul is looking at his phone nightly, which may be affecting both his sleep and self-esteem. Family issues continue to play a key role.

Dr. Hall is assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. JAMA. 2007 Apr 18;297(15):1683-96.

2. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 May 1;174(5):430-7.

3. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2018. doi: 10.1089/cap.2017.0174.

4. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2017 Jan-Feb;46(1):11-43.

Even the best physicians make mistakes.

Each of us can recall a patient for whom our initial diagnosis was incorrect, or conversely, where we uncovered the correct diagnosis. My memorable mistake was missing an obvious case of hypothyroidism, and my happier encounter was correcting an incorrect diagnosis of asthma when the patient actually had primary pulmonary fibrosis. These patients came to mind as I read this month’s cover story, “COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry.”

In a previous editorial, “When our biases derail the diagnosis,”¹ I discussed types of cognitive bias that can lead us to the wrong conclusion. Today, I want to address diagnostic errors in medicine as a patient safety issue.

Listening closely to the patient's and family's concerns can lead in a direction other than my initial impression.

The patient safety movement gained traction in 1999 with the publication of the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now National Academy of Medicine) report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. That report focused on health care system issues and had little to offer regarding improving diagnoses. It was not until 2015, with the publication of the IOM report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, that serious national attention was directed to accurate diagnosis. It is worth reading the summary of this report, which includes 8 goals and is available at nas.edu/improvingdiagnosis.

The recommendations most pertinent to family physicians are to: 1) facilitate more effective teamwork among health care professionals, patients, and families, 2) teach health care professionals about the diagnostic process, 3) ensure that technology supports proper diagnosis, 4) establish a work culture that supports diagnostic processes, and 5) identify diagnostic errors and learn from them.

Teamwork. The first recommendation is intriguing because the focus on teamwork includes patients and their families. I have found that listening closely to the patient’s and family’s concerns can lead me in a direction other than my initial impression—especially when they are insistent about a particular diagnosis.

Technology. Despite all of their “warts,” electronic health records are gradually incorporating clinical decision support tools that really do help steer us in the right direction. I have found that electronic point-of-care references can be very helpful in establishing an accurate diagnosis in the exam room—and can help convince patients that my diagnosis is correct when they read it for themselves!

Continue to: Finally, discussing our mistakes...

Finally, discussing our mistakes openly with our colleagues helps us—and them—to avoid that mistake in the future. Let’s be sure to keep that dialogue open. And let’s continue to refine our diagnostic skills so that we can continue to keep our patients safe.

Even the best physicians make mistakes.

Each of us can recall a patient for whom our initial diagnosis was incorrect, or conversely, where we uncovered the correct diagnosis. My memorable mistake was missing an obvious case of hypothyroidism, and my happier encounter was correcting an incorrect diagnosis of asthma when the patient actually had primary pulmonary fibrosis. These patients came to mind as I read this month’s cover story, “COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry.”

In a previous editorial, “When our biases derail the diagnosis,”¹ I discussed types of cognitive bias that can lead us to the wrong conclusion. Today, I want to address diagnostic errors in medicine as a patient safety issue.

Listening closely to the patient's and family's concerns can lead in a direction other than my initial impression.

The patient safety movement gained traction in 1999 with the publication of the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now National Academy of Medicine) report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. That report focused on health care system issues and had little to offer regarding improving diagnoses. It was not until 2015, with the publication of the IOM report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, that serious national attention was directed to accurate diagnosis. It is worth reading the summary of this report, which includes 8 goals and is available at nas.edu/improvingdiagnosis.

The recommendations most pertinent to family physicians are to: 1) facilitate more effective teamwork among health care professionals, patients, and families, 2) teach health care professionals about the diagnostic process, 3) ensure that technology supports proper diagnosis, 4) establish a work culture that supports diagnostic processes, and 5) identify diagnostic errors and learn from them.

Teamwork. The first recommendation is intriguing because the focus on teamwork includes patients and their families. I have found that listening closely to the patient’s and family’s concerns can lead me in a direction other than my initial impression—especially when they are insistent about a particular diagnosis.

Technology. Despite all of their “warts,” electronic health records are gradually incorporating clinical decision support tools that really do help steer us in the right direction. I have found that electronic point-of-care references can be very helpful in establishing an accurate diagnosis in the exam room—and can help convince patients that my diagnosis is correct when they read it for themselves!

Continue to: Finally, discussing our mistakes...

Finally, discussing our mistakes openly with our colleagues helps us—and them—to avoid that mistake in the future. Let’s be sure to keep that dialogue open. And let’s continue to refine our diagnostic skills so that we can continue to keep our patients safe.

Even the best physicians make mistakes.

Each of us can recall a patient for whom our initial diagnosis was incorrect, or conversely, where we uncovered the correct diagnosis. My memorable mistake was missing an obvious case of hypothyroidism, and my happier encounter was correcting an incorrect diagnosis of asthma when the patient actually had primary pulmonary fibrosis. These patients came to mind as I read this month’s cover story, “COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry.”

In a previous editorial, “When our biases derail the diagnosis,”¹ I discussed types of cognitive bias that can lead us to the wrong conclusion. Today, I want to address diagnostic errors in medicine as a patient safety issue.

Listening closely to the patient's and family's concerns can lead in a direction other than my initial impression.

The patient safety movement gained traction in 1999 with the publication of the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now National Academy of Medicine) report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. That report focused on health care system issues and had little to offer regarding improving diagnoses. It was not until 2015, with the publication of the IOM report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, that serious national attention was directed to accurate diagnosis. It is worth reading the summary of this report, which includes 8 goals and is available at nas.edu/improvingdiagnosis.

The recommendations most pertinent to family physicians are to: 1) facilitate more effective teamwork among health care professionals, patients, and families, 2) teach health care professionals about the diagnostic process, 3) ensure that technology supports proper diagnosis, 4) establish a work culture that supports diagnostic processes, and 5) identify diagnostic errors and learn from them.

Teamwork. The first recommendation is intriguing because the focus on teamwork includes patients and their families. I have found that listening closely to the patient’s and family’s concerns can lead me in a direction other than my initial impression—especially when they are insistent about a particular diagnosis.

Technology. Despite all of their “warts,” electronic health records are gradually incorporating clinical decision support tools that really do help steer us in the right direction. I have found that electronic point-of-care references can be very helpful in establishing an accurate diagnosis in the exam room—and can help convince patients that my diagnosis is correct when they read it for themselves!

Continue to: Finally, discussing our mistakes...

Finally, discussing our mistakes openly with our colleagues helps us—and them—to avoid that mistake in the future. Let’s be sure to keep that dialogue open. And let’s continue to refine our diagnostic skills so that we can continue to keep our patients safe.

You may have noticed that one of topics I like to write about in this column is the assault on the practice of medicine: the obligations that steal our time from patients without either the value or outcomes our patients see. It is these extraneous demands on our time and on our psyches that dehumanize medical practice as experienced by our patients and contribute to physician burnout. High on my list is the requirement for prior authorization for medications.

In 2015, I wrote a column, “Prior Authorization for Medications: Who oversees placement of the hoops?” The article followed my unsuccessful 6-week-long endeavor to get modafinil authorized for a patient. My efforts included interactions with the insurance company’s chief medical officer, the insurance commissioners in three states, my U.S. senator, and finally, the American Psychiatric Association’s attorney, Colleen Coyle, who has been working on this issue along with the American Medical Association and other medical specialty organizations for years now. The irony of the article is that, after it came out, a reader informed me that modafinil could be obtained from Costco for $34 for 30 pills, while every pharmacy I had checked was selling the generic medication for nearly $1,000 for the same number of pills!

One might make the case that prior authorization saves money by rationing the most expensive medications. And I might counter that physicians should be willing to try less expensive medications first – if we only knew the price of the medications we are prescribing. There is, however, no clear logic to the tremendous variability in price across pharmacies, which can amount to hundreds of dollars a month in the cost to an uninsured patient, and none of which reflects what might be a negotiated cost for those using health insurance. The newest medications are expensive from any retailer, but when it comes to older generics, it’s a crapshoot.

Years have passed since my prior authorization fiasco. Today, I keep a GoodRx app on my phone and often reference it when prescribing medications that might be expensive at one pharmacy but not at another. The app tells me that I can now buy 30 pills of the modafinil for $40.34 at grocery store pharmacy that is 2.7 miles from my office or for $305.50 at Walgreens, 3.6 miles away. A quick call to Costco shows that the price there has gone up to $40.89. For the prescriptions that I have written since that article, I have told patients that their insurance providers may not authorize the medication and if that is the case, they should price shop, as I don’t have the tenacity to go through the prior authorization process I endured in 2015.

So what progress has the APA made over the past 4 years? I wrote back to the APA’s attorney, Ms. Coyle, to ask for an update. Ms. Coyle was kind enough to respond in some detail. It was heartening to hear that in many states, my own state of Maryland included, prior authorization is no longer allowed for medications used to treat opiate addictions, and there is one less obstacle to obtaining care for a growing number of patients during our overdose epidemic.

Other news, however, is not all good. Medicare plans to increase the use of prior authorization.

Ms. Coyle provided data that confirmed what most physicians suspected. “The AMA did a survey¹ and found 92% of physicians report that ‘prior authorizations programs have a negative impact on patient clinical outcomes.’ The AMA study revealed that ‘every week a medical practice completes an average of 29.1 prior authorization requirements per physician, which takes an average of 14.6 hours to process – the equivalent of nearly two business days.’ ”

She recounted the efforts the APA has made on behalf of psychiatrists. “We are working with the AMA and other physician groups to address the issue and recommended [Health and Human Services] address the burden of prior authorization as part of its Patients over Paperwork Initiative.² Through our website and the helpline, we collected stories from our members about the burden it causes and the negative impact it has on patient care. We’ve shared the stories with the American Medical Association to use in joint advocacy efforts with the administration and private insurers.”

Finally, the APA has written a letter to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in opposition to a proposal for increased utilization review of Medicare Part D protected classes medications, which include antipsychotics and antidepressants. “We strongly oppose the proposal,” Ms. Coyle noted, “and asked our district branches to also submit letters in opposition.”

What can individual psychiatrists do to advocate? I noted that many of my efforts were futile. My U.S. senator responded with a letter that said my problem was not in his domain.

“As for the best way to approach the issue in the state, we recommend working with the state medical society to push for legislation. The AMA has draft legislation that may be used. It would also be helpful to collect the stories from the members about their challenges with prior authorization and impact on patient care/outcomes to share with state legislatures. It may also be beneficial to share these concerns with the state insurance commissioner and Department of Health and Human Services,” Ms. Coyle wrote. She noted it would be helpful for members to work directly with the district branches of the APA.

I am still left with some sense of futility. In 2014, Danielle Ofri, MD, PhD, a physician and writer, wrote an op-ed³ for the New York Times, “Adventures in ‘Prior Authorization,’ ” where she detailed the egregious practice. In the past 5 years, not much has changed, and insurers have not taken to the idea that preserving physician time for clinical care and face-to-face interactions with patients is the priority that we all might like it to be.

Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice in Baltimore.

References

1. AMA Prior Authorization Physician Survey, 2017.

2. CMS Patients Over Paperwork Initiative, CMS.gov.

3. New York Times, Aug. 3, 2014.

You may have noticed that one of topics I like to write about in this column is the assault on the practice of medicine: the obligations that steal our time from patients without either the value or outcomes our patients see. It is these extraneous demands on our time and on our psyches that dehumanize medical practice as experienced by our patients and contribute to physician burnout. High on my list is the requirement for prior authorization for medications.

In 2015, I wrote a column, “Prior Authorization for Medications: Who oversees placement of the hoops?” The article followed my unsuccessful 6-week-long endeavor to get modafinil authorized for a patient. My efforts included interactions with the insurance company’s chief medical officer, the insurance commissioners in three states, my U.S. senator, and finally, the American Psychiatric Association’s attorney, Colleen Coyle, who has been working on this issue along with the American Medical Association and other medical specialty organizations for years now. The irony of the article is that, after it came out, a reader informed me that modafinil could be obtained from Costco for $34 for 30 pills, while every pharmacy I had checked was selling the generic medication for nearly $1,000 for the same number of pills!

One might make the case that prior authorization saves money by rationing the most expensive medications. And I might counter that physicians should be willing to try less expensive medications first – if we only knew the price of the medications we are prescribing. There is, however, no clear logic to the tremendous variability in price across pharmacies, which can amount to hundreds of dollars a month in the cost to an uninsured patient, and none of which reflects what might be a negotiated cost for those using health insurance. The newest medications are expensive from any retailer, but when it comes to older generics, it’s a crapshoot.

Years have passed since my prior authorization fiasco. Today, I keep a GoodRx app on my phone and often reference it when prescribing medications that might be expensive at one pharmacy but not at another. The app tells me that I can now buy 30 pills of the modafinil for $40.34 at grocery store pharmacy that is 2.7 miles from my office or for $305.50 at Walgreens, 3.6 miles away. A quick call to Costco shows that the price there has gone up to $40.89. For the prescriptions that I have written since that article, I have told patients that their insurance providers may not authorize the medication and if that is the case, they should price shop, as I don’t have the tenacity to go through the prior authorization process I endured in 2015.

So what progress has the APA made over the past 4 years? I wrote back to the APA’s attorney, Ms. Coyle, to ask for an update. Ms. Coyle was kind enough to respond in some detail. It was heartening to hear that in many states, my own state of Maryland included, prior authorization is no longer allowed for medications used to treat opiate addictions, and there is one less obstacle to obtaining care for a growing number of patients during our overdose epidemic.

Other news, however, is not all good. Medicare plans to increase the use of prior authorization.

Ms. Coyle provided data that confirmed what most physicians suspected. “The AMA did a survey¹ and found 92% of physicians report that ‘prior authorizations programs have a negative impact on patient clinical outcomes.’ The AMA study revealed that ‘every week a medical practice completes an average of 29.1 prior authorization requirements per physician, which takes an average of 14.6 hours to process – the equivalent of nearly two business days.’ ”

She recounted the efforts the APA has made on behalf of psychiatrists. “We are working with the AMA and other physician groups to address the issue and recommended [Health and Human Services] address the burden of prior authorization as part of its Patients over Paperwork Initiative.² Through our website and the helpline, we collected stories from our members about the burden it causes and the negative impact it has on patient care. We’ve shared the stories with the American Medical Association to use in joint advocacy efforts with the administration and private insurers.”

Finally, the APA has written a letter to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in opposition to a proposal for increased utilization review of Medicare Part D protected classes medications, which include antipsychotics and antidepressants. “We strongly oppose the proposal,” Ms. Coyle noted, “and asked our district branches to also submit letters in opposition.”

What can individual psychiatrists do to advocate? I noted that many of my efforts were futile. My U.S. senator responded with a letter that said my problem was not in his domain.

“As for the best way to approach the issue in the state, we recommend working with the state medical society to push for legislation. The AMA has draft legislation that may be used. It would also be helpful to collect the stories from the members about their challenges with prior authorization and impact on patient care/outcomes to share with state legislatures. It may also be beneficial to share these concerns with the state insurance commissioner and Department of Health and Human Services,” Ms. Coyle wrote. She noted it would be helpful for members to work directly with the district branches of the APA.

I am still left with some sense of futility. In 2014, Danielle Ofri, MD, PhD, a physician and writer, wrote an op-ed³ for the New York Times, “Adventures in ‘Prior Authorization,’ ” where she detailed the egregious practice. In the past 5 years, not much has changed, and insurers have not taken to the idea that preserving physician time for clinical care and face-to-face interactions with patients is the priority that we all might like it to be.

Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice in Baltimore.

References

1. AMA Prior Authorization Physician Survey, 2017.

2. CMS Patients Over Paperwork Initiative, CMS.gov.

3. New York Times, Aug. 3, 2014.

You may have noticed that one of topics I like to write about in this column is the assault on the practice of medicine: the obligations that steal our time from patients without either the value or outcomes our patients see. It is these extraneous demands on our time and on our psyches that dehumanize medical practice as experienced by our patients and contribute to physician burnout. High on my list is the requirement for prior authorization for medications.

In 2015, I wrote a column, “Prior Authorization for Medications: Who oversees placement of the hoops?” The article followed my unsuccessful 6-week-long endeavor to get modafinil authorized for a patient. My efforts included interactions with the insurance company’s chief medical officer, the insurance commissioners in three states, my U.S. senator, and finally, the American Psychiatric Association’s attorney, Colleen Coyle, who has been working on this issue along with the American Medical Association and other medical specialty organizations for years now. The irony of the article is that, after it came out, a reader informed me that modafinil could be obtained from Costco for $34 for 30 pills, while every pharmacy I had checked was selling the generic medication for nearly $1,000 for the same number of pills!

One might make the case that prior authorization saves money by rationing the most expensive medications. And I might counter that physicians should be willing to try less expensive medications first – if we only knew the price of the medications we are prescribing. There is, however, no clear logic to the tremendous variability in price across pharmacies, which can amount to hundreds of dollars a month in the cost to an uninsured patient, and none of which reflects what might be a negotiated cost for those using health insurance. The newest medications are expensive from any retailer, but when it comes to older generics, it’s a crapshoot.

Years have passed since my prior authorization fiasco. Today, I keep a GoodRx app on my phone and often reference it when prescribing medications that might be expensive at one pharmacy but not at another. The app tells me that I can now buy 30 pills of the modafinil for $40.34 at grocery store pharmacy that is 2.7 miles from my office or for $305.50 at Walgreens, 3.6 miles away. A quick call to Costco shows that the price there has gone up to $40.89. For the prescriptions that I have written since that article, I have told patients that their insurance providers may not authorize the medication and if that is the case, they should price shop, as I don’t have the tenacity to go through the prior authorization process I endured in 2015.

So what progress has the APA made over the past 4 years? I wrote back to the APA’s attorney, Ms. Coyle, to ask for an update. Ms. Coyle was kind enough to respond in some detail. It was heartening to hear that in many states, my own state of Maryland included, prior authorization is no longer allowed for medications used to treat opiate addictions, and there is one less obstacle to obtaining care for a growing number of patients during our overdose epidemic.

Other news, however, is not all good. Medicare plans to increase the use of prior authorization.

Ms. Coyle provided data that confirmed what most physicians suspected. “The AMA did a survey¹ and found 92% of physicians report that ‘prior authorizations programs have a negative impact on patient clinical outcomes.’ The AMA study revealed that ‘every week a medical practice completes an average of 29.1 prior authorization requirements per physician, which takes an average of 14.6 hours to process – the equivalent of nearly two business days.’ ”

She recounted the efforts the APA has made on behalf of psychiatrists. “We are working with the AMA and other physician groups to address the issue and recommended [Health and Human Services] address the burden of prior authorization as part of its Patients over Paperwork Initiative.² Through our website and the helpline, we collected stories from our members about the burden it causes and the negative impact it has on patient care. We’ve shared the stories with the American Medical Association to use in joint advocacy efforts with the administration and private insurers.”

Finally, the APA has written a letter to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in opposition to a proposal for increased utilization review of Medicare Part D protected classes medications, which include antipsychotics and antidepressants. “We strongly oppose the proposal,” Ms. Coyle noted, “and asked our district branches to also submit letters in opposition.”

What can individual psychiatrists do to advocate? I noted that many of my efforts were futile. My U.S. senator responded with a letter that said my problem was not in his domain.

“As for the best way to approach the issue in the state, we recommend working with the state medical society to push for legislation. The AMA has draft legislation that may be used. It would also be helpful to collect the stories from the members about their challenges with prior authorization and impact on patient care/outcomes to share with state legislatures. It may also be beneficial to share these concerns with the state insurance commissioner and Department of Health and Human Services,” Ms. Coyle wrote. She noted it would be helpful for members to work directly with the district branches of the APA.

I am still left with some sense of futility. In 2014, Danielle Ofri, MD, PhD, a physician and writer, wrote an op-ed³ for the New York Times, “Adventures in ‘Prior Authorization,’ ” where she detailed the egregious practice. In the past 5 years, not much has changed, and insurers have not taken to the idea that preserving physician time for clinical care and face-to-face interactions with patients is the priority that we all might like it to be.

Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice in Baltimore.

References

1. AMA Prior Authorization Physician Survey, 2017.

2. CMS Patients Over Paperwork Initiative, CMS.gov.

3. New York Times, Aug. 3, 2014.

Federal health care providers live under a microscope, so it seems only fair that we at Fed Pract honor that reality and open ourselves up to scrutiny as well.¹ We hope that by shedding light on our peer-review process and manuscript acceptance rate, we will not only highlight our accomplishments, but identify areas for improvement.

Free access to Fed Pract content has always been our priority. While many journals charge authors or readers, Fed Pract has been and will remain free for readers and authors.² Advertising enables the journal to support this free model of publishing, but we take care to ensure that advertisements do not influence content in any way. Our advertising policy can be found at www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/advertising.

In January 2019, Fed Pract placed > 400 peer-reviewed articles published since January 2015 in the PubMed Central (PMC) database (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc). The full text of these and all future Fed Pract peer-reviewed articles will be available at PMC (no registration required), and the citations also will be included in PubMed. We hope that this process will make it even easier for anyone to access our authors’ works.

In 2018 about 36,000 federal health care providers (HCPs) received hard copies of this journal. The print journal is free, but circulation is limited to HCPs who work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS). The mdedge.com/fedprac website, which includes every article published since 2003, had 1.4 million page views in 2018. After reading 3 online articles, readers in the US are asked to complete a simple registration form to help us better customize the reader experience. In some cases, international readers may be asked to pay for access to articles online; however, any VA, DoD, or PHS officer stationed overseas can contact the editorial staff (fedprac@mdedge.com) to ensure that they can access the articles for free.

In 2018 the journal received 164 manuscripts and published 94 articles written by 357 different federal HCPs. The 164 manuscript submissions represented a 45% growth over previous years. Not surprisingly, the increased rate of submissions began shortly after the May 2018 announcement that journal articles would be included in PMC. Most of those articles (83%) were submitted unsolicited.

Fed Pract has always prided itself on being an early promoter of interdisciplinary health care professional publications. Nearly half of its listed authors were physicians (48%), while pharmacists made up the next largest cohort (18%). There were smaller numbers of PhDs, nurses, social workers, and physical therapists. The majority were written by HCPs affiliated with the VA (95% of articles and 93% of authors), and no articles in 2018 were written by PHS officers. Physicians comprise about two-thirds of the audience, while pharmacists make up 17% and nurses 9%. PHS and DoD HCPs make up 19% of the Fed Pract audience, suggesting that the journal needs to do more work to encourage these HCPs to contribute articles to the journal.³

Articles published in 2018 covered a broad range of topics from “Anesthesia Care Practice Models in the VHA” and “Army Behavioral Health System” to “Vitreous Hemorrhage in the Setting of a Vascular Loop” and “A Workforce Assessment of VA Home-Based Primary Care Pharmacists.” Categorizing the articles is a challenge. Few health care topics fit neatly into a single topic or specialty. This is especially true in federal health care where much of the care is delivered by multidisciplinary patient-centered medical homes or patient aligned care teams. Nevertheless, a few broad outlines can be discerned. Articles were roughly split between primary care and hospital-based and/or specialty care topics; one-quarter of the articles were case studies or case series articles, and about 20% were editorials or opinion columns. Nineteen articles dealt explicitly with chronic conditions, and 10 articles focused on mental health care.

Peer reviewers are an essential part of the process. Reviewers are blinded to the identityof the authors, ensuring fairness and reducing potential conflicts of interest. We are extremely grateful to each and every reviewer for the time and energy they contribute to the journal. Peer reviewers do not get nearly enough recognition for their important work. In 2018 Fed Pract invited 1,205 reviewers for 164 manuscript submissions and 94 manuscript revisions. More than 200 different reviewers submitted 487 reviews with a median (SD) of 2 reviews (1.8) and a range of 1 to 10. The top 20 reviewers completed 134 reviews with a median (SD) of 6 reviews (1.2). The results stand in contrast to some journals that must offer many invitations per review and depend on a small number of reviewers.^1,4-6

The reviewers recommended to reject 14% and to revise 26% of the articles, which is a much lower rejection rate than many other journals (Table).⁴ 

These data suggest that Fed Pract and its peer-review process is on a sound foundation but needs to make improvements. Moving into 2019, the journal expects that an increasing number of submissions will require a higher rejection rate. Moreover, we will need to do a better job reaching out to underrepresented portions of our audience. To decrease the time to publication for accepted manuscripts, in 2019 we will publish more articles online ahead of the print publication as we strive to improve the experience for authors, reviewers, readers, and the entire Fed Pract audience.

None of this work can be done without our small and dedicated staff. I would like to thank Managing Editor Joyce Brody who sent out each and every one of those reviewer invitations, Deputy Editor Robert Fee, who manages the special issues, Web Editor Teraya Smith, who runs our entire digital operation, and of course, Editor in Chief Cynthia Geppert, who oversees it all. Finally, it is important that you let us know how we are doing and whether we are meeting your needs. Visit mdedge.com/fedprac to take the readership survey or reach out to me at rpaul@mdedge.com.

Federal health care providers live under a microscope, so it seems only fair that we at Fed Pract honor that reality and open ourselves up to scrutiny as well.¹ We hope that by shedding light on our peer-review process and manuscript acceptance rate, we will not only highlight our accomplishments, but identify areas for improvement.

Free access to Fed Pract content has always been our priority. While many journals charge authors or readers, Fed Pract has been and will remain free for readers and authors.² Advertising enables the journal to support this free model of publishing, but we take care to ensure that advertisements do not influence content in any way. Our advertising policy can be found at www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/advertising.

In January 2019, Fed Pract placed > 400 peer-reviewed articles published since January 2015 in the PubMed Central (PMC) database (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc). The full text of these and all future Fed Pract peer-reviewed articles will be available at PMC (no registration required), and the citations also will be included in PubMed. We hope that this process will make it even easier for anyone to access our authors’ works.

In 2018 about 36,000 federal health care providers (HCPs) received hard copies of this journal. The print journal is free, but circulation is limited to HCPs who work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS). The mdedge.com/fedprac website, which includes every article published since 2003, had 1.4 million page views in 2018. After reading 3 online articles, readers in the US are asked to complete a simple registration form to help us better customize the reader experience. In some cases, international readers may be asked to pay for access to articles online; however, any VA, DoD, or PHS officer stationed overseas can contact the editorial staff (fedprac@mdedge.com) to ensure that they can access the articles for free.

In 2018 the journal received 164 manuscripts and published 94 articles written by 357 different federal HCPs. The 164 manuscript submissions represented a 45% growth over previous years. Not surprisingly, the increased rate of submissions began shortly after the May 2018 announcement that journal articles would be included in PMC. Most of those articles (83%) were submitted unsolicited.

Fed Pract has always prided itself on being an early promoter of interdisciplinary health care professional publications. Nearly half of its listed authors were physicians (48%), while pharmacists made up the next largest cohort (18%). There were smaller numbers of PhDs, nurses, social workers, and physical therapists. The majority were written by HCPs affiliated with the VA (95% of articles and 93% of authors), and no articles in 2018 were written by PHS officers. Physicians comprise about two-thirds of the audience, while pharmacists make up 17% and nurses 9%. PHS and DoD HCPs make up 19% of the Fed Pract audience, suggesting that the journal needs to do more work to encourage these HCPs to contribute articles to the journal.³

Articles published in 2018 covered a broad range of topics from “Anesthesia Care Practice Models in the VHA” and “Army Behavioral Health System” to “Vitreous Hemorrhage in the Setting of a Vascular Loop” and “A Workforce Assessment of VA Home-Based Primary Care Pharmacists.” Categorizing the articles is a challenge. Few health care topics fit neatly into a single topic or specialty. This is especially true in federal health care where much of the care is delivered by multidisciplinary patient-centered medical homes or patient aligned care teams. Nevertheless, a few broad outlines can be discerned. Articles were roughly split between primary care and hospital-based and/or specialty care topics; one-quarter of the articles were case studies or case series articles, and about 20% were editorials or opinion columns. Nineteen articles dealt explicitly with chronic conditions, and 10 articles focused on mental health care.

Peer reviewers are an essential part of the process. Reviewers are blinded to the identityof the authors, ensuring fairness and reducing potential conflicts of interest. We are extremely grateful to each and every reviewer for the time and energy they contribute to the journal. Peer reviewers do not get nearly enough recognition for their important work. In 2018 Fed Pract invited 1,205 reviewers for 164 manuscript submissions and 94 manuscript revisions. More than 200 different reviewers submitted 487 reviews with a median (SD) of 2 reviews (1.8) and a range of 1 to 10. The top 20 reviewers completed 134 reviews with a median (SD) of 6 reviews (1.2). The results stand in contrast to some journals that must offer many invitations per review and depend on a small number of reviewers.^1,4-6

The reviewers recommended to reject 14% and to revise 26% of the articles, which is a much lower rejection rate than many other journals (Table).⁴ 

These data suggest that Fed Pract and its peer-review process is on a sound foundation but needs to make improvements. Moving into 2019, the journal expects that an increasing number of submissions will require a higher rejection rate. Moreover, we will need to do a better job reaching out to underrepresented portions of our audience. To decrease the time to publication for accepted manuscripts, in 2019 we will publish more articles online ahead of the print publication as we strive to improve the experience for authors, reviewers, readers, and the entire Fed Pract audience.

None of this work can be done without our small and dedicated staff. I would like to thank Managing Editor Joyce Brody who sent out each and every one of those reviewer invitations, Deputy Editor Robert Fee, who manages the special issues, Web Editor Teraya Smith, who runs our entire digital operation, and of course, Editor in Chief Cynthia Geppert, who oversees it all. Finally, it is important that you let us know how we are doing and whether we are meeting your needs. Visit mdedge.com/fedprac to take the readership survey or reach out to me at rpaul@mdedge.com.

Federal health care providers live under a microscope, so it seems only fair that we at Fed Pract honor that reality and open ourselves up to scrutiny as well.¹ We hope that by shedding light on our peer-review process and manuscript acceptance rate, we will not only highlight our accomplishments, but identify areas for improvement.

Free access to Fed Pract content has always been our priority. While many journals charge authors or readers, Fed Pract has been and will remain free for readers and authors.² Advertising enables the journal to support this free model of publishing, but we take care to ensure that advertisements do not influence content in any way. Our advertising policy can be found at www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/advertising.

In January 2019, Fed Pract placed > 400 peer-reviewed articles published since January 2015 in the PubMed Central (PMC) database (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc). The full text of these and all future Fed Pract peer-reviewed articles will be available at PMC (no registration required), and the citations also will be included in PubMed. We hope that this process will make it even easier for anyone to access our authors’ works.

In 2018 about 36,000 federal health care providers (HCPs) received hard copies of this journal. The print journal is free, but circulation is limited to HCPs who work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS). The mdedge.com/fedprac website, which includes every article published since 2003, had 1.4 million page views in 2018. After reading 3 online articles, readers in the US are asked to complete a simple registration form to help us better customize the reader experience. In some cases, international readers may be asked to pay for access to articles online; however, any VA, DoD, or PHS officer stationed overseas can contact the editorial staff (fedprac@mdedge.com) to ensure that they can access the articles for free.

In 2018 the journal received 164 manuscripts and published 94 articles written by 357 different federal HCPs. The 164 manuscript submissions represented a 45% growth over previous years. Not surprisingly, the increased rate of submissions began shortly after the May 2018 announcement that journal articles would be included in PMC. Most of those articles (83%) were submitted unsolicited.

Fed Pract has always prided itself on being an early promoter of interdisciplinary health care professional publications. Nearly half of its listed authors were physicians (48%), while pharmacists made up the next largest cohort (18%). There were smaller numbers of PhDs, nurses, social workers, and physical therapists. The majority were written by HCPs affiliated with the VA (95% of articles and 93% of authors), and no articles in 2018 were written by PHS officers. Physicians comprise about two-thirds of the audience, while pharmacists make up 17% and nurses 9%. PHS and DoD HCPs make up 19% of the Fed Pract audience, suggesting that the journal needs to do more work to encourage these HCPs to contribute articles to the journal.³

Articles published in 2018 covered a broad range of topics from “Anesthesia Care Practice Models in the VHA” and “Army Behavioral Health System” to “Vitreous Hemorrhage in the Setting of a Vascular Loop” and “A Workforce Assessment of VA Home-Based Primary Care Pharmacists.” Categorizing the articles is a challenge. Few health care topics fit neatly into a single topic or specialty. This is especially true in federal health care where much of the care is delivered by multidisciplinary patient-centered medical homes or patient aligned care teams. Nevertheless, a few broad outlines can be discerned. Articles were roughly split between primary care and hospital-based and/or specialty care topics; one-quarter of the articles were case studies or case series articles, and about 20% were editorials or opinion columns. Nineteen articles dealt explicitly with chronic conditions, and 10 articles focused on mental health care.

Peer reviewers are an essential part of the process. Reviewers are blinded to the identityof the authors, ensuring fairness and reducing potential conflicts of interest. We are extremely grateful to each and every reviewer for the time and energy they contribute to the journal. Peer reviewers do not get nearly enough recognition for their important work. In 2018 Fed Pract invited 1,205 reviewers for 164 manuscript submissions and 94 manuscript revisions. More than 200 different reviewers submitted 487 reviews with a median (SD) of 2 reviews (1.8) and a range of 1 to 10. The top 20 reviewers completed 134 reviews with a median (SD) of 6 reviews (1.2). The results stand in contrast to some journals that must offer many invitations per review and depend on a small number of reviewers.^1,4-6

The reviewers recommended to reject 14% and to revise 26% of the articles, which is a much lower rejection rate than many other journals (Table).⁴ 

These data suggest that Fed Pract and its peer-review process is on a sound foundation but needs to make improvements. Moving into 2019, the journal expects that an increasing number of submissions will require a higher rejection rate. Moreover, we will need to do a better job reaching out to underrepresented portions of our audience. To decrease the time to publication for accepted manuscripts, in 2019 we will publish more articles online ahead of the print publication as we strive to improve the experience for authors, reviewers, readers, and the entire Fed Pract audience.

None of this work can be done without our small and dedicated staff. I would like to thank Managing Editor Joyce Brody who sent out each and every one of those reviewer invitations, Deputy Editor Robert Fee, who manages the special issues, Web Editor Teraya Smith, who runs our entire digital operation, and of course, Editor in Chief Cynthia Geppert, who oversees it all. Finally, it is important that you let us know how we are doing and whether we are meeting your needs. Visit mdedge.com/fedprac to take the readership survey or reach out to me at rpaul@mdedge.com.