Mixed Topics

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

The Barbie movie is generating a lot of feelings, ranging from praise to vitriol. However one feels about the movie, let’s all pause and reflect for a moment on the fact that the number-one grossing film of 2023 is about our childhood doll trying to treat her anxiety disorder.

Eva Ritvo

“Life imitates art more than art imitates life.” So said Oscar Wilde in 1889.

When my adult daughter, a childhood Barbie enthusiast, asked me to see the film, we put on pink and went. Twice. Little did I know that it would stir up so many thoughts and feelings. The one I want to share is how blessed I feel at this moment in time to be a mental health care provider! No longer is mental health something to be whispered about at the water cooler; instead, even Barbie is suffering. And with all the controversy in the press about the movie, no one seems at all surprised by this storyline.

I was raised by two child psychiatrists and have been practicing as an adult psychiatrist since 1991. The start of the pandemic was the most difficult time of my career, as almost every patient was struggling simultaneously, as was I. Three long years later, we are gradually emerging from our shared trauma. How ironic, now with the opportunity to go back to work, I have elected to maintain the majority of my practice online from home. It seems that most patients and providers prefer this mode of treatment, with a full 90 percent of practitioners saying they are using a hybrid model.

As mental health professionals, we know that anywhere from 3% to 49% of those experiencing trauma will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and we have been trained to treat them.

But what happens when an entire global population is exposed simultaneously to trauma? Historians and social scientists refer to such events by many different names, such as: Singularity, Black Swan Event, and Tipping Point. These events are incredibly rare, and afterwards everything is different. These global traumas always lead to massive change.

I think we are at that tipping point. This is the singularity. This is our Black Swan Event. Within a 3-year span, we have experienced the following:

• A global traumatic event (COVID-19).
• A sudden and seemingly permanent shift from office to remote video meetings mostly from home.
• Upending of traditional fundamentals of the stock market as the game literally stopped in January 2021.
• Rapid and widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence.
• The first generation to be fully raised on the Internet and social media (Gen Z) is now entering the workforce.
• Ongoing war in Ukraine.

That’s already an overwhelming list, and I could go on, but let’s get back to Barbie’s anxiety disorder.

The awareness about and acceptance of mental health issues has never been higher. The access to treatment never greater. There are now more online therapy options than ever. Treatment options have dramatically expanded in recent years, from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to ketamine centers and psychedelics, as well as more mainstream options such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and so many more.

What is particularly unique about this moment is the direct access to care. Self-help books abound with many making it to the New York Times bestseller list. YouTube is loaded with fantastic content on overcoming many mental health issues, although one should be careful with selecting reliable sources. Apps like HeadSpace and Calm are being downloaded by millions of people around the globe. Investors provided a record-breaking $1.5 billion to mental health startups in 2020 alone.

For most practitioners, our phones have been ringing off the hook since 2020. Applications to psychology, psychiatric residency, social work, and counseling degree programs are on the rise, with workforce shortages expected to continue for decades. Psychological expertise has been embraced by businesses especially for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Mental health experts are the most asked-for experts through media request services. Elite athletes are talking openly about bringing us on their teams.

In this unique moment, when everything seems set to transform into something else, it is time for mental health professionals to exert some agency and influence over where mental health will go from here. I think the next frontier for mental health specialists is to figure out how to speak collectively and help guide society.

Neil Howe, in his sweeping book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” says we have another 10 years in this “Millennial Crisis” phase. He calls this our “winter,” and it remains to be seen how we will emerge from our current challenges. I think we can make a difference.

If the Barbie movie is indeed a canary in the coal mine, I see positive trends ahead as we move past some of the societal and structural issues facing us, and work together to create a more open and egalitarian society. We must find creative solutions that will solve truly massive problems threatening our well-being and perhaps even our existence.

There has never been a better time to be (or become!) a mental health professional. I am so grateful to be able to continue to practice and share my thoughts with you here from my home office, and I hope you can take a break and see this movie, which is not only entertaining but also thought- and emotion-provoking.

Dr. Ritvo has almost 30 years’ experience in psychiatry and is currently practicing telemedicine. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

The Barbie movie is generating a lot of feelings, ranging from praise to vitriol. However one feels about the movie, let’s all pause and reflect for a moment on the fact that the number-one grossing film of 2023 is about our childhood doll trying to treat her anxiety disorder.

Eva Ritvo

“Life imitates art more than art imitates life.” So said Oscar Wilde in 1889.

When my adult daughter, a childhood Barbie enthusiast, asked me to see the film, we put on pink and went. Twice. Little did I know that it would stir up so many thoughts and feelings. The one I want to share is how blessed I feel at this moment in time to be a mental health care provider! No longer is mental health something to be whispered about at the water cooler; instead, even Barbie is suffering. And with all the controversy in the press about the movie, no one seems at all surprised by this storyline.

I was raised by two child psychiatrists and have been practicing as an adult psychiatrist since 1991. The start of the pandemic was the most difficult time of my career, as almost every patient was struggling simultaneously, as was I. Three long years later, we are gradually emerging from our shared trauma. How ironic, now with the opportunity to go back to work, I have elected to maintain the majority of my practice online from home. It seems that most patients and providers prefer this mode of treatment, with a full 90 percent of practitioners saying they are using a hybrid model.

As mental health professionals, we know that anywhere from 3% to 49% of those experiencing trauma will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and we have been trained to treat them.

But what happens when an entire global population is exposed simultaneously to trauma? Historians and social scientists refer to such events by many different names, such as: Singularity, Black Swan Event, and Tipping Point. These events are incredibly rare, and afterwards everything is different. These global traumas always lead to massive change.

I think we are at that tipping point. This is the singularity. This is our Black Swan Event. Within a 3-year span, we have experienced the following:

• A global traumatic event (COVID-19).
• A sudden and seemingly permanent shift from office to remote video meetings mostly from home.
• Upending of traditional fundamentals of the stock market as the game literally stopped in January 2021.
• Rapid and widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence.
• The first generation to be fully raised on the Internet and social media (Gen Z) is now entering the workforce.
• Ongoing war in Ukraine.

That’s already an overwhelming list, and I could go on, but let’s get back to Barbie’s anxiety disorder.

The awareness about and acceptance of mental health issues has never been higher. The access to treatment never greater. There are now more online therapy options than ever. Treatment options have dramatically expanded in recent years, from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to ketamine centers and psychedelics, as well as more mainstream options such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and so many more.

What is particularly unique about this moment is the direct access to care. Self-help books abound with many making it to the New York Times bestseller list. YouTube is loaded with fantastic content on overcoming many mental health issues, although one should be careful with selecting reliable sources. Apps like HeadSpace and Calm are being downloaded by millions of people around the globe. Investors provided a record-breaking $1.5 billion to mental health startups in 2020 alone.

For most practitioners, our phones have been ringing off the hook since 2020. Applications to psychology, psychiatric residency, social work, and counseling degree programs are on the rise, with workforce shortages expected to continue for decades. Psychological expertise has been embraced by businesses especially for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Mental health experts are the most asked-for experts through media request services. Elite athletes are talking openly about bringing us on their teams.

In this unique moment, when everything seems set to transform into something else, it is time for mental health professionals to exert some agency and influence over where mental health will go from here. I think the next frontier for mental health specialists is to figure out how to speak collectively and help guide society.

Neil Howe, in his sweeping book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” says we have another 10 years in this “Millennial Crisis” phase. He calls this our “winter,” and it remains to be seen how we will emerge from our current challenges. I think we can make a difference.

If the Barbie movie is indeed a canary in the coal mine, I see positive trends ahead as we move past some of the societal and structural issues facing us, and work together to create a more open and egalitarian society. We must find creative solutions that will solve truly massive problems threatening our well-being and perhaps even our existence.

There has never been a better time to be (or become!) a mental health professional. I am so grateful to be able to continue to practice and share my thoughts with you here from my home office, and I hope you can take a break and see this movie, which is not only entertaining but also thought- and emotion-provoking.

Dr. Ritvo has almost 30 years’ experience in psychiatry and is currently practicing telemedicine. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

The Barbie movie is generating a lot of feelings, ranging from praise to vitriol. However one feels about the movie, let’s all pause and reflect for a moment on the fact that the number-one grossing film of 2023 is about our childhood doll trying to treat her anxiety disorder.

Eva Ritvo

“Life imitates art more than art imitates life.” So said Oscar Wilde in 1889.

When my adult daughter, a childhood Barbie enthusiast, asked me to see the film, we put on pink and went. Twice. Little did I know that it would stir up so many thoughts and feelings. The one I want to share is how blessed I feel at this moment in time to be a mental health care provider! No longer is mental health something to be whispered about at the water cooler; instead, even Barbie is suffering. And with all the controversy in the press about the movie, no one seems at all surprised by this storyline.

I was raised by two child psychiatrists and have been practicing as an adult psychiatrist since 1991. The start of the pandemic was the most difficult time of my career, as almost every patient was struggling simultaneously, as was I. Three long years later, we are gradually emerging from our shared trauma. How ironic, now with the opportunity to go back to work, I have elected to maintain the majority of my practice online from home. It seems that most patients and providers prefer this mode of treatment, with a full 90 percent of practitioners saying they are using a hybrid model.

As mental health professionals, we know that anywhere from 3% to 49% of those experiencing trauma will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and we have been trained to treat them.

But what happens when an entire global population is exposed simultaneously to trauma? Historians and social scientists refer to such events by many different names, such as: Singularity, Black Swan Event, and Tipping Point. These events are incredibly rare, and afterwards everything is different. These global traumas always lead to massive change.

I think we are at that tipping point. This is the singularity. This is our Black Swan Event. Within a 3-year span, we have experienced the following:

• A global traumatic event (COVID-19).
• A sudden and seemingly permanent shift from office to remote video meetings mostly from home.
• Upending of traditional fundamentals of the stock market as the game literally stopped in January 2021.
• Rapid and widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence.
• The first generation to be fully raised on the Internet and social media (Gen Z) is now entering the workforce.
• Ongoing war in Ukraine.

That’s already an overwhelming list, and I could go on, but let’s get back to Barbie’s anxiety disorder.

The awareness about and acceptance of mental health issues has never been higher. The access to treatment never greater. There are now more online therapy options than ever. Treatment options have dramatically expanded in recent years, from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to ketamine centers and psychedelics, as well as more mainstream options such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and so many more.

What is particularly unique about this moment is the direct access to care. Self-help books abound with many making it to the New York Times bestseller list. YouTube is loaded with fantastic content on overcoming many mental health issues, although one should be careful with selecting reliable sources. Apps like HeadSpace and Calm are being downloaded by millions of people around the globe. Investors provided a record-breaking $1.5 billion to mental health startups in 2020 alone.

For most practitioners, our phones have been ringing off the hook since 2020. Applications to psychology, psychiatric residency, social work, and counseling degree programs are on the rise, with workforce shortages expected to continue for decades. Psychological expertise has been embraced by businesses especially for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Mental health experts are the most asked-for experts through media request services. Elite athletes are talking openly about bringing us on their teams.

In this unique moment, when everything seems set to transform into something else, it is time for mental health professionals to exert some agency and influence over where mental health will go from here. I think the next frontier for mental health specialists is to figure out how to speak collectively and help guide society.

Neil Howe, in his sweeping book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” says we have another 10 years in this “Millennial Crisis” phase. He calls this our “winter,” and it remains to be seen how we will emerge from our current challenges. I think we can make a difference.

If the Barbie movie is indeed a canary in the coal mine, I see positive trends ahead as we move past some of the societal and structural issues facing us, and work together to create a more open and egalitarian society. We must find creative solutions that will solve truly massive problems threatening our well-being and perhaps even our existence.

There has never been a better time to be (or become!) a mental health professional. I am so grateful to be able to continue to practice and share my thoughts with you here from my home office, and I hope you can take a break and see this movie, which is not only entertaining but also thought- and emotion-provoking.

Dr. Ritvo has almost 30 years’ experience in psychiatry and is currently practicing telemedicine. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

TOPLINE:

Patients with cancer who don’t speak English may have trouble accessing cancer care in the United States, especially at nonteaching hospitals, a new study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Language barriers between patients and physicians negatively affect the quality of care patients receive; however, less is known about how language barriers may affect patients’ access to cancer care.
• Researchers examined the impact of patients’ spoken language on their access to care for three types of cancer that disproportionately affect Hispanic and Asian populations (colon, lung, and thyroid cancer).
• Trained investigators who speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin called the general information line of 144 US hospitals in 12 states seeking an appointment.
• The primary outcome was whether the simulated patient caller was provided with next steps to access cancer care, defined as being given a clinic number or clinic transfer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 1,296 calls made (432 in each language), 53% resulted in the caller receiving next steps to access cancer care.
• Spanish- and Mandarin-speaking callers were significantly less likely to receive information on next steps (37.7% and 27.5%, respectively), compared with English-speaking callers (93.5%).
• In multivariable logistic regression, non–English-speaking callers had lower odds of being given next steps to access cancer care (odds ratio, 0.04 for Spanish speakers; OR, 0.02 for Mandarin speakers).
• Compared with calls to teaching hospitals, calls to nonteaching hospitals were associated with lower odds of simulated callers receiving this next-step information (OR, 0.43).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides actionable insights into existing linguistic disparities in cancer care access due to systems-level barriers present prior to evaluation by a physician,” the authors concluded. It is essential to “engage in efforts to mitigate these communication barriers that disproportionately impact the health of vulnerable patient populations with cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Debbie Chen, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was published online Sept. 5 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers only assessed responses from the hospital general information line, and the findings do not reflect the type or quality of cancer care a patient may have received once seen and treated. The study did not capture the complexities of hospital call center workflows, which limited the authors’ ability to discern the reasons behind the observed outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Michigan’s Rogel Cancer Center and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases . The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with cancer who don’t speak English may have trouble accessing cancer care in the United States, especially at nonteaching hospitals, a new study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Language barriers between patients and physicians negatively affect the quality of care patients receive; however, less is known about how language barriers may affect patients’ access to cancer care.
• Researchers examined the impact of patients’ spoken language on their access to care for three types of cancer that disproportionately affect Hispanic and Asian populations (colon, lung, and thyroid cancer).
• Trained investigators who speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin called the general information line of 144 US hospitals in 12 states seeking an appointment.
• The primary outcome was whether the simulated patient caller was provided with next steps to access cancer care, defined as being given a clinic number or clinic transfer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 1,296 calls made (432 in each language), 53% resulted in the caller receiving next steps to access cancer care.
• Spanish- and Mandarin-speaking callers were significantly less likely to receive information on next steps (37.7% and 27.5%, respectively), compared with English-speaking callers (93.5%).
• In multivariable logistic regression, non–English-speaking callers had lower odds of being given next steps to access cancer care (odds ratio, 0.04 for Spanish speakers; OR, 0.02 for Mandarin speakers).
• Compared with calls to teaching hospitals, calls to nonteaching hospitals were associated with lower odds of simulated callers receiving this next-step information (OR, 0.43).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides actionable insights into existing linguistic disparities in cancer care access due to systems-level barriers present prior to evaluation by a physician,” the authors concluded. It is essential to “engage in efforts to mitigate these communication barriers that disproportionately impact the health of vulnerable patient populations with cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Debbie Chen, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was published online Sept. 5 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers only assessed responses from the hospital general information line, and the findings do not reflect the type or quality of cancer care a patient may have received once seen and treated. The study did not capture the complexities of hospital call center workflows, which limited the authors’ ability to discern the reasons behind the observed outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Michigan’s Rogel Cancer Center and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases . The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with cancer who don’t speak English may have trouble accessing cancer care in the United States, especially at nonteaching hospitals, a new study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Language barriers between patients and physicians negatively affect the quality of care patients receive; however, less is known about how language barriers may affect patients’ access to cancer care.
• Researchers examined the impact of patients’ spoken language on their access to care for three types of cancer that disproportionately affect Hispanic and Asian populations (colon, lung, and thyroid cancer).
• Trained investigators who speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin called the general information line of 144 US hospitals in 12 states seeking an appointment.
• The primary outcome was whether the simulated patient caller was provided with next steps to access cancer care, defined as being given a clinic number or clinic transfer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 1,296 calls made (432 in each language), 53% resulted in the caller receiving next steps to access cancer care.
• Spanish- and Mandarin-speaking callers were significantly less likely to receive information on next steps (37.7% and 27.5%, respectively), compared with English-speaking callers (93.5%).
• In multivariable logistic regression, non–English-speaking callers had lower odds of being given next steps to access cancer care (odds ratio, 0.04 for Spanish speakers; OR, 0.02 for Mandarin speakers).
• Compared with calls to teaching hospitals, calls to nonteaching hospitals were associated with lower odds of simulated callers receiving this next-step information (OR, 0.43).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides actionable insights into existing linguistic disparities in cancer care access due to systems-level barriers present prior to evaluation by a physician,” the authors concluded. It is essential to “engage in efforts to mitigate these communication barriers that disproportionately impact the health of vulnerable patient populations with cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Debbie Chen, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was published online Sept. 5 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers only assessed responses from the hospital general information line, and the findings do not reflect the type or quality of cancer care a patient may have received once seen and treated. The study did not capture the complexities of hospital call center workflows, which limited the authors’ ability to discern the reasons behind the observed outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Michigan’s Rogel Cancer Center and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases . The authors have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Suicide is not a trivial matter – it upends families, robs partners of a loved one, prevents children from having a parent, and can destroy a parent’s most cherished being. It is not surprising that societies have repeatedly made it a goal to study and reduce suicide within their populations.

The suicide rate in the United States is trending upward, from about 10 per 100,000 in 2000 to about 15 per 100,000 in more recent reports. The increasing suicide rates have been accompanied by increasing distress among many strata of society. From a public health level, analysts are not just witnessing increasing suicide rates, but a shocking rise in all “deaths of despair,”¹ among which suicide can be considered the ultimate example.

On an individual level, many know someone who has died of suicide or suffered from a serious suicide attempt. From the public health level to the individual level, advocacy has called for various interventions in the field of psychiatry to remedy this tragic problem.

Psychiatrists have been firsthand witnesses to this increasing demand for suicide interventions. When in residency, the norm was to perform a suicide risk assessment at the time of admission to the hospital and again at the time of discharge. As the years passed, the new normal within psychiatric hospitals has shifted to asking about suicidality on a daily basis.

In what seems to us like an escalating arms race, the emerging standard of care at many facilities is now not only for daily suicide risk assessments by each psychiatrist, but also to require nurses to ask about suicidality during every 8-hour shift – in addition to documented inquiries about suicidality by other allied staff on the psychiatric unit. As a result, it is not uncommon for a patient hospitalized at an academic center to receive more than half a dozen suicide risk assessments in a day (first by the medical student, at least once – often more than once – by the resident, again by the attending psychiatrist, then the social worker and three nurses in 24 hours).

One of the concerns about such an approach is the lack of logic inherent to many risk assessment tools and symptom scales. Many of us are familiar with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess depression.² The PHQ-9 asks to consider “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you ...” in relation to nine symptoms associated with depression. It has always defied reason to perform a PHQ-9 every day and expect the answers to change from “nearly every day” to “not at all,” considering only 1 day has passed since the last time the patient has answered the questions. Yet daily, or near daily, PHQ-9 scores are a frequently used tool of tracking symptom improvement in response to treatments, such as electroconvulsive therapy, performed multiple times a week.

One can argue that the patient’s perspective on how symptomatic he or she has been over the past 2 weeks may change rapidly with alleviation of a depressed mood. However, the PHQ-9 is both reported to be, and often regarded as, an objective score. If one wishes to utilize it as such, the defense of its use should not be that it is a subjective report with just as much utility as “Rate your depression on a scale of 0-27.”

Similarly, many suicide scales were intended to assess thoughts of suicide in the past month³ or have been re-tooled to address this particular concern by asking “since the last contact.”⁴ It is baffling to see a chart with many dozens of suicide risk assessments with at times widely differing answers, yet all measuring thoughts of suicide in the past month. Is one to expect the answer to “How many times have you had these thoughts [of suicide ideation]? (1) Less than once a week (2) Once a week ...” to change between 8 a.m. and noon? Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing acute risk of suicidality in the immediate future, to only consider symptoms since the last contact – or past 2 weeks, past month, etc. – is of unclear significance.
 

Provider liability

Another concern is the liability placed on providers. A common problem encountered in the inpatient setting is insurance companies refusing to reimburse a hospital stay for depressed patients denying suicidality.

Any provider in the position of caring for such a patient must ask: What is the likelihood of someone providing a false negative – a false denial of suicidality? Is the likelihood of a suicidal person denying suicidality different if asked 5 or 10 or more times in a day? There are innumerable instances where a patient at a very high risk of self-harm has denied suicidality, been discharged from the hospital, and suffered terrible consequences. Ethically, the psychiatrist aware of this risk is no more at ease discharging these patients, whether it is one suicide risk scale or a dozen that suggests a patient is at low risk.

Alternatively, it may feel untenable from a medicolegal perspective for a psychiatrist to discharge a patient denying suicidality when the chart includes over a dozen previously documented elevated suicide risk assessments in the past 72 hours. By placing the job of suicide risk assessment in the hands of providers of varying levels of training and responsibility, a situation is created in which the seasoned psychiatrist who would otherwise be comfortable discharging a patient feels unable to do so because every other note-writer in the record – from the triage nurse to the medical assistant to the sitter in the emergency department – has recorded the patient as high risk for suicide. When put in such a position, the thought often occurs that systems of care, rather than individual providers, are protected most by ever escalating requirements for suicide risk documentation. To make a clinical decision contrary to the body of suicide risk documentation puts the provider at risk of being scapegoated by the system of care, which can point to its illogical and ineffective, though profusely documented, suicide prevention protocols.
 

Limitations of risk assessments

Considering the ongoing rise in the use of suicide risk assessments, one would expect that the evidence for their efficacy was robust and well established. Yet a thorough review of suicide risk assessments funded by the MacArthur Foundation, which examined decades of research, came to disheartening conclusions: “predictive ability has not improved over the past 50 years”; “no risk factor category or subcategory is substantially stronger than any other”; and “predicting solely according to base rates may be comparable to prediction with current risk factors.”⁵

Those findings were consistent with the conclusions of many other studies, which have summarized the utility of suicide risk assessments as follows: “occurrence of suicide is too low to identify those individuals who are likely to die by suicide”;⁶ “suicide prediction models produce accurate overall classification models, but their accuracy of predicting a future event is near zero”;⁷ “risk stratification is too inaccurate to be clinically useful and might even be harmful”;⁸ “suicide risk prediction [lacks] any items or information that to a useful degree permit the identification of persons who will complete suicide”;⁹ “existing suicide prediction tools have little current clinical value”;¹⁰ “our current preoccupation with risk assessment has ... created a mythology with no evidence to support it.”¹¹ And that’s to cite just a few.

Sadly, we have known about the limitations of suicide risk assessments for many decades. In 1983 a large VA prospective study, which aimed to identify veterans who will die by suicide, examined 4,800 patients with a wide range of instruments and measures.¹² This study concluded that “discriminant analysis was clearly inadequate in correctly classifying the subjects. For an event as rare as suicide, our predictive tools and guides are simply not equal to the task.” The authors described the feelings of many in stating “courts and public opinion expect physicians to be able to pick out the particular persons who will later commit suicide. Although we may reconstruct causal chains and motives, we do not possess the tools to predict suicides.”

Yet, even several decades prior, in 1954, Dr. Albert Rosen performed an elegant statistical analysis and predicted that, considering the low base rate of suicide, suicide risk assessments are “of no practical value, for it would be impossible to treat the prodigious number of false positives.”¹³ It seems that we continue to be unable to accept Dr. Rosen’s premonition despite decades of confirmatory evidence.
 

“Quantity over quality”

Regardless of those sobering reports, the field of psychiatry is seemingly doubling down on efforts to predict and prevent suicide deaths, and the way it is doing so has very questionable validity.

One can reasonably argue that the periodic performance of a suicide risk assessment may have clinical utility in reminding us of modifiable risk factors such as intoxication, social isolation, and access to lethal means. One can also reasonably argue that these risk assessments may provide useful education to patients and their families on epidemiological risk factors such as gender, age, and marital status. But our pursuit of serial suicide risk assessments throughout the day is encouraging providers to focus on a particular risk factor that changes from moment to moment and has particularly low validity, that being self-reported suicidality.

Reported suicidality is one of the few risk factors that can change from shift to shift. But 80% of people who die by suicide had not previously expressed suicidality, and 98.3% of people who have endorsed suicidality do not die by suicide.¹⁴ While the former statistic may improve with increased assessment, the later will likely worsen.

Suicide is not a trivial matter. We admire those that study it and advocate for better interventions. We have compassion for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide. Our patients have died as a result of the human limitations surrounding suicide prevention. Recognizing the weight of suicide and making an effort to avoid minimizing its immense consequences drive our desire to be honest with ourselves, our patients and their families, and society. That includes the unfortunate truth regarding the current state of the evidence and our ability to enact change.

It is our concern that the rising fascination with repeated suicide risk assessment is misguided in its current form and serves the purpose of appeasing administrators more than reflecting a scientific understanding of the literature. More sadly, we are concerned that this “quantity-over-quality” approach is yet another barrier to practicing what may be one of the few interventions with any hope of meaningfully impacting a patient’s risk of suicide in the clinical setting – spending time connecting with our patients.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a member of the psychiatry faculty at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Badre and Dr. Compton have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Joint Economic Committee. (2019). Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair. SCP Report 4-19.

2. Kroenke K and Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2013;32(9):509-15. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.

3. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Lifetime/Recent.

4. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Since Last Contact.

5. Franklin JC et al. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull. 2017 Feb;143(2):187-232. doi: 10.1037/bul0000084.

6. Beautrais AL. Further suicidal behavior among medically serious suicide attempters. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2004 Spring;34(1):1-11. doi: 10.1521/suli.34.1.1.27772.

7. Belsher BE. Prediction models for suicide attempts and deaths: A systematic review and simulation. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 1;76(6):642-651. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0174.

8. Carter G et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guideline for the management of deliberate self-harm. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;50(10):939-1000. doi: 10.1177/0004867416661039.

9. Fosse R et al. Predictors of suicide in the patient population admitted to a locked-door psychiatric acute ward. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0173958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173958.

10. Kessler RC et al. Suicide prediction models: A critical review of recent research with recommendations for the way forward. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Jan;25(1):168-79. doi: 10.1038/s41380-019-0531-0.

11. Mulder R. Problems with suicide risk assessment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;45(8):605-7. doi: 10.3109/00048674.2011.594786.

12. Pokorny AD. Prediction of suicide in psychiatric patients: Report of a prospective study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;40(3):249-57. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790030019002.

13. Rosen A. Detection of suicidal patients: An example of some limitations in the prediction of infrequent events. J Consult Psychol. 1954 Dec;18(6):397-403. doi: 10.1037/h0058579.

14. McHugh CM et al. (2019). Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2):e18. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.88.

Suicide is not a trivial matter – it upends families, robs partners of a loved one, prevents children from having a parent, and can destroy a parent’s most cherished being. It is not surprising that societies have repeatedly made it a goal to study and reduce suicide within their populations.

The suicide rate in the United States is trending upward, from about 10 per 100,000 in 2000 to about 15 per 100,000 in more recent reports. The increasing suicide rates have been accompanied by increasing distress among many strata of society. From a public health level, analysts are not just witnessing increasing suicide rates, but a shocking rise in all “deaths of despair,”¹ among which suicide can be considered the ultimate example.

On an individual level, many know someone who has died of suicide or suffered from a serious suicide attempt. From the public health level to the individual level, advocacy has called for various interventions in the field of psychiatry to remedy this tragic problem.

Psychiatrists have been firsthand witnesses to this increasing demand for suicide interventions. When in residency, the norm was to perform a suicide risk assessment at the time of admission to the hospital and again at the time of discharge. As the years passed, the new normal within psychiatric hospitals has shifted to asking about suicidality on a daily basis.

In what seems to us like an escalating arms race, the emerging standard of care at many facilities is now not only for daily suicide risk assessments by each psychiatrist, but also to require nurses to ask about suicidality during every 8-hour shift – in addition to documented inquiries about suicidality by other allied staff on the psychiatric unit. As a result, it is not uncommon for a patient hospitalized at an academic center to receive more than half a dozen suicide risk assessments in a day (first by the medical student, at least once – often more than once – by the resident, again by the attending psychiatrist, then the social worker and three nurses in 24 hours).

One of the concerns about such an approach is the lack of logic inherent to many risk assessment tools and symptom scales. Many of us are familiar with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess depression.² The PHQ-9 asks to consider “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you ...” in relation to nine symptoms associated with depression. It has always defied reason to perform a PHQ-9 every day and expect the answers to change from “nearly every day” to “not at all,” considering only 1 day has passed since the last time the patient has answered the questions. Yet daily, or near daily, PHQ-9 scores are a frequently used tool of tracking symptom improvement in response to treatments, such as electroconvulsive therapy, performed multiple times a week.

One can argue that the patient’s perspective on how symptomatic he or she has been over the past 2 weeks may change rapidly with alleviation of a depressed mood. However, the PHQ-9 is both reported to be, and often regarded as, an objective score. If one wishes to utilize it as such, the defense of its use should not be that it is a subjective report with just as much utility as “Rate your depression on a scale of 0-27.”

Similarly, many suicide scales were intended to assess thoughts of suicide in the past month³ or have been re-tooled to address this particular concern by asking “since the last contact.”⁴ It is baffling to see a chart with many dozens of suicide risk assessments with at times widely differing answers, yet all measuring thoughts of suicide in the past month. Is one to expect the answer to “How many times have you had these thoughts [of suicide ideation]? (1) Less than once a week (2) Once a week ...” to change between 8 a.m. and noon? Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing acute risk of suicidality in the immediate future, to only consider symptoms since the last contact – or past 2 weeks, past month, etc. – is of unclear significance.
 

Provider liability

Another concern is the liability placed on providers. A common problem encountered in the inpatient setting is insurance companies refusing to reimburse a hospital stay for depressed patients denying suicidality.

Any provider in the position of caring for such a patient must ask: What is the likelihood of someone providing a false negative – a false denial of suicidality? Is the likelihood of a suicidal person denying suicidality different if asked 5 or 10 or more times in a day? There are innumerable instances where a patient at a very high risk of self-harm has denied suicidality, been discharged from the hospital, and suffered terrible consequences. Ethically, the psychiatrist aware of this risk is no more at ease discharging these patients, whether it is one suicide risk scale or a dozen that suggests a patient is at low risk.

Alternatively, it may feel untenable from a medicolegal perspective for a psychiatrist to discharge a patient denying suicidality when the chart includes over a dozen previously documented elevated suicide risk assessments in the past 72 hours. By placing the job of suicide risk assessment in the hands of providers of varying levels of training and responsibility, a situation is created in which the seasoned psychiatrist who would otherwise be comfortable discharging a patient feels unable to do so because every other note-writer in the record – from the triage nurse to the medical assistant to the sitter in the emergency department – has recorded the patient as high risk for suicide. When put in such a position, the thought often occurs that systems of care, rather than individual providers, are protected most by ever escalating requirements for suicide risk documentation. To make a clinical decision contrary to the body of suicide risk documentation puts the provider at risk of being scapegoated by the system of care, which can point to its illogical and ineffective, though profusely documented, suicide prevention protocols.
 

Limitations of risk assessments

Considering the ongoing rise in the use of suicide risk assessments, one would expect that the evidence for their efficacy was robust and well established. Yet a thorough review of suicide risk assessments funded by the MacArthur Foundation, which examined decades of research, came to disheartening conclusions: “predictive ability has not improved over the past 50 years”; “no risk factor category or subcategory is substantially stronger than any other”; and “predicting solely according to base rates may be comparable to prediction with current risk factors.”⁵

Those findings were consistent with the conclusions of many other studies, which have summarized the utility of suicide risk assessments as follows: “occurrence of suicide is too low to identify those individuals who are likely to die by suicide”;⁶ “suicide prediction models produce accurate overall classification models, but their accuracy of predicting a future event is near zero”;⁷ “risk stratification is too inaccurate to be clinically useful and might even be harmful”;⁸ “suicide risk prediction [lacks] any items or information that to a useful degree permit the identification of persons who will complete suicide”;⁹ “existing suicide prediction tools have little current clinical value”;¹⁰ “our current preoccupation with risk assessment has ... created a mythology with no evidence to support it.”¹¹ And that’s to cite just a few.

Sadly, we have known about the limitations of suicide risk assessments for many decades. In 1983 a large VA prospective study, which aimed to identify veterans who will die by suicide, examined 4,800 patients with a wide range of instruments and measures.¹² This study concluded that “discriminant analysis was clearly inadequate in correctly classifying the subjects. For an event as rare as suicide, our predictive tools and guides are simply not equal to the task.” The authors described the feelings of many in stating “courts and public opinion expect physicians to be able to pick out the particular persons who will later commit suicide. Although we may reconstruct causal chains and motives, we do not possess the tools to predict suicides.”

Yet, even several decades prior, in 1954, Dr. Albert Rosen performed an elegant statistical analysis and predicted that, considering the low base rate of suicide, suicide risk assessments are “of no practical value, for it would be impossible to treat the prodigious number of false positives.”¹³ It seems that we continue to be unable to accept Dr. Rosen’s premonition despite decades of confirmatory evidence.
 

“Quantity over quality”

Regardless of those sobering reports, the field of psychiatry is seemingly doubling down on efforts to predict and prevent suicide deaths, and the way it is doing so has very questionable validity.

One can reasonably argue that the periodic performance of a suicide risk assessment may have clinical utility in reminding us of modifiable risk factors such as intoxication, social isolation, and access to lethal means. One can also reasonably argue that these risk assessments may provide useful education to patients and their families on epidemiological risk factors such as gender, age, and marital status. But our pursuit of serial suicide risk assessments throughout the day is encouraging providers to focus on a particular risk factor that changes from moment to moment and has particularly low validity, that being self-reported suicidality.

Reported suicidality is one of the few risk factors that can change from shift to shift. But 80% of people who die by suicide had not previously expressed suicidality, and 98.3% of people who have endorsed suicidality do not die by suicide.¹⁴ While the former statistic may improve with increased assessment, the later will likely worsen.

Suicide is not a trivial matter. We admire those that study it and advocate for better interventions. We have compassion for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide. Our patients have died as a result of the human limitations surrounding suicide prevention. Recognizing the weight of suicide and making an effort to avoid minimizing its immense consequences drive our desire to be honest with ourselves, our patients and their families, and society. That includes the unfortunate truth regarding the current state of the evidence and our ability to enact change.

It is our concern that the rising fascination with repeated suicide risk assessment is misguided in its current form and serves the purpose of appeasing administrators more than reflecting a scientific understanding of the literature. More sadly, we are concerned that this “quantity-over-quality” approach is yet another barrier to practicing what may be one of the few interventions with any hope of meaningfully impacting a patient’s risk of suicide in the clinical setting – spending time connecting with our patients.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a member of the psychiatry faculty at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Badre and Dr. Compton have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Joint Economic Committee. (2019). Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair. SCP Report 4-19.

2. Kroenke K and Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2013;32(9):509-15. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.

3. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Lifetime/Recent.

4. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Since Last Contact.

5. Franklin JC et al. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull. 2017 Feb;143(2):187-232. doi: 10.1037/bul0000084.

6. Beautrais AL. Further suicidal behavior among medically serious suicide attempters. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2004 Spring;34(1):1-11. doi: 10.1521/suli.34.1.1.27772.

7. Belsher BE. Prediction models for suicide attempts and deaths: A systematic review and simulation. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 1;76(6):642-651. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0174.

8. Carter G et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guideline for the management of deliberate self-harm. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;50(10):939-1000. doi: 10.1177/0004867416661039.

9. Fosse R et al. Predictors of suicide in the patient population admitted to a locked-door psychiatric acute ward. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0173958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173958.

10. Kessler RC et al. Suicide prediction models: A critical review of recent research with recommendations for the way forward. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Jan;25(1):168-79. doi: 10.1038/s41380-019-0531-0.

11. Mulder R. Problems with suicide risk assessment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;45(8):605-7. doi: 10.3109/00048674.2011.594786.

12. Pokorny AD. Prediction of suicide in psychiatric patients: Report of a prospective study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;40(3):249-57. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790030019002.

13. Rosen A. Detection of suicidal patients: An example of some limitations in the prediction of infrequent events. J Consult Psychol. 1954 Dec;18(6):397-403. doi: 10.1037/h0058579.

14. McHugh CM et al. (2019). Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2):e18. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.88.

Suicide is not a trivial matter – it upends families, robs partners of a loved one, prevents children from having a parent, and can destroy a parent’s most cherished being. It is not surprising that societies have repeatedly made it a goal to study and reduce suicide within their populations.

The suicide rate in the United States is trending upward, from about 10 per 100,000 in 2000 to about 15 per 100,000 in more recent reports. The increasing suicide rates have been accompanied by increasing distress among many strata of society. From a public health level, analysts are not just witnessing increasing suicide rates, but a shocking rise in all “deaths of despair,”¹ among which suicide can be considered the ultimate example.

On an individual level, many know someone who has died of suicide or suffered from a serious suicide attempt. From the public health level to the individual level, advocacy has called for various interventions in the field of psychiatry to remedy this tragic problem.

Psychiatrists have been firsthand witnesses to this increasing demand for suicide interventions. When in residency, the norm was to perform a suicide risk assessment at the time of admission to the hospital and again at the time of discharge. As the years passed, the new normal within psychiatric hospitals has shifted to asking about suicidality on a daily basis.

In what seems to us like an escalating arms race, the emerging standard of care at many facilities is now not only for daily suicide risk assessments by each psychiatrist, but also to require nurses to ask about suicidality during every 8-hour shift – in addition to documented inquiries about suicidality by other allied staff on the psychiatric unit. As a result, it is not uncommon for a patient hospitalized at an academic center to receive more than half a dozen suicide risk assessments in a day (first by the medical student, at least once – often more than once – by the resident, again by the attending psychiatrist, then the social worker and three nurses in 24 hours).

One of the concerns about such an approach is the lack of logic inherent to many risk assessment tools and symptom scales. Many of us are familiar with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess depression.² The PHQ-9 asks to consider “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you ...” in relation to nine symptoms associated with depression. It has always defied reason to perform a PHQ-9 every day and expect the answers to change from “nearly every day” to “not at all,” considering only 1 day has passed since the last time the patient has answered the questions. Yet daily, or near daily, PHQ-9 scores are a frequently used tool of tracking symptom improvement in response to treatments, such as electroconvulsive therapy, performed multiple times a week.

One can argue that the patient’s perspective on how symptomatic he or she has been over the past 2 weeks may change rapidly with alleviation of a depressed mood. However, the PHQ-9 is both reported to be, and often regarded as, an objective score. If one wishes to utilize it as such, the defense of its use should not be that it is a subjective report with just as much utility as “Rate your depression on a scale of 0-27.”

Similarly, many suicide scales were intended to assess thoughts of suicide in the past month³ or have been re-tooled to address this particular concern by asking “since the last contact.”⁴ It is baffling to see a chart with many dozens of suicide risk assessments with at times widely differing answers, yet all measuring thoughts of suicide in the past month. Is one to expect the answer to “How many times have you had these thoughts [of suicide ideation]? (1) Less than once a week (2) Once a week ...” to change between 8 a.m. and noon? Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing acute risk of suicidality in the immediate future, to only consider symptoms since the last contact – or past 2 weeks, past month, etc. – is of unclear significance.
 

Provider liability

Another concern is the liability placed on providers. A common problem encountered in the inpatient setting is insurance companies refusing to reimburse a hospital stay for depressed patients denying suicidality.

Any provider in the position of caring for such a patient must ask: What is the likelihood of someone providing a false negative – a false denial of suicidality? Is the likelihood of a suicidal person denying suicidality different if asked 5 or 10 or more times in a day? There are innumerable instances where a patient at a very high risk of self-harm has denied suicidality, been discharged from the hospital, and suffered terrible consequences. Ethically, the psychiatrist aware of this risk is no more at ease discharging these patients, whether it is one suicide risk scale or a dozen that suggests a patient is at low risk.

Alternatively, it may feel untenable from a medicolegal perspective for a psychiatrist to discharge a patient denying suicidality when the chart includes over a dozen previously documented elevated suicide risk assessments in the past 72 hours. By placing the job of suicide risk assessment in the hands of providers of varying levels of training and responsibility, a situation is created in which the seasoned psychiatrist who would otherwise be comfortable discharging a patient feels unable to do so because every other note-writer in the record – from the triage nurse to the medical assistant to the sitter in the emergency department – has recorded the patient as high risk for suicide. When put in such a position, the thought often occurs that systems of care, rather than individual providers, are protected most by ever escalating requirements for suicide risk documentation. To make a clinical decision contrary to the body of suicide risk documentation puts the provider at risk of being scapegoated by the system of care, which can point to its illogical and ineffective, though profusely documented, suicide prevention protocols.
 

Limitations of risk assessments

Considering the ongoing rise in the use of suicide risk assessments, one would expect that the evidence for their efficacy was robust and well established. Yet a thorough review of suicide risk assessments funded by the MacArthur Foundation, which examined decades of research, came to disheartening conclusions: “predictive ability has not improved over the past 50 years”; “no risk factor category or subcategory is substantially stronger than any other”; and “predicting solely according to base rates may be comparable to prediction with current risk factors.”⁵

Those findings were consistent with the conclusions of many other studies, which have summarized the utility of suicide risk assessments as follows: “occurrence of suicide is too low to identify those individuals who are likely to die by suicide”;⁶ “suicide prediction models produce accurate overall classification models, but their accuracy of predicting a future event is near zero”;⁷ “risk stratification is too inaccurate to be clinically useful and might even be harmful”;⁸ “suicide risk prediction [lacks] any items or information that to a useful degree permit the identification of persons who will complete suicide”;⁹ “existing suicide prediction tools have little current clinical value”;¹⁰ “our current preoccupation with risk assessment has ... created a mythology with no evidence to support it.”¹¹ And that’s to cite just a few.

Sadly, we have known about the limitations of suicide risk assessments for many decades. In 1983 a large VA prospective study, which aimed to identify veterans who will die by suicide, examined 4,800 patients with a wide range of instruments and measures.¹² This study concluded that “discriminant analysis was clearly inadequate in correctly classifying the subjects. For an event as rare as suicide, our predictive tools and guides are simply not equal to the task.” The authors described the feelings of many in stating “courts and public opinion expect physicians to be able to pick out the particular persons who will later commit suicide. Although we may reconstruct causal chains and motives, we do not possess the tools to predict suicides.”

Yet, even several decades prior, in 1954, Dr. Albert Rosen performed an elegant statistical analysis and predicted that, considering the low base rate of suicide, suicide risk assessments are “of no practical value, for it would be impossible to treat the prodigious number of false positives.”¹³ It seems that we continue to be unable to accept Dr. Rosen’s premonition despite decades of confirmatory evidence.
 

“Quantity over quality”

Regardless of those sobering reports, the field of psychiatry is seemingly doubling down on efforts to predict and prevent suicide deaths, and the way it is doing so has very questionable validity.

One can reasonably argue that the periodic performance of a suicide risk assessment may have clinical utility in reminding us of modifiable risk factors such as intoxication, social isolation, and access to lethal means. One can also reasonably argue that these risk assessments may provide useful education to patients and their families on epidemiological risk factors such as gender, age, and marital status. But our pursuit of serial suicide risk assessments throughout the day is encouraging providers to focus on a particular risk factor that changes from moment to moment and has particularly low validity, that being self-reported suicidality.

Reported suicidality is one of the few risk factors that can change from shift to shift. But 80% of people who die by suicide had not previously expressed suicidality, and 98.3% of people who have endorsed suicidality do not die by suicide.¹⁴ While the former statistic may improve with increased assessment, the later will likely worsen.

Suicide is not a trivial matter. We admire those that study it and advocate for better interventions. We have compassion for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide. Our patients have died as a result of the human limitations surrounding suicide prevention. Recognizing the weight of suicide and making an effort to avoid minimizing its immense consequences drive our desire to be honest with ourselves, our patients and their families, and society. That includes the unfortunate truth regarding the current state of the evidence and our ability to enact change.

It is our concern that the rising fascination with repeated suicide risk assessment is misguided in its current form and serves the purpose of appeasing administrators more than reflecting a scientific understanding of the literature. More sadly, we are concerned that this “quantity-over-quality” approach is yet another barrier to practicing what may be one of the few interventions with any hope of meaningfully impacting a patient’s risk of suicide in the clinical setting – spending time connecting with our patients.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a member of the psychiatry faculty at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Badre and Dr. Compton have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Joint Economic Committee. (2019). Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair. SCP Report 4-19.

2. Kroenke K and Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2013;32(9):509-15. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.

3. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Lifetime/Recent.

4. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Since Last Contact.

5. Franklin JC et al. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull. 2017 Feb;143(2):187-232. doi: 10.1037/bul0000084.

6. Beautrais AL. Further suicidal behavior among medically serious suicide attempters. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2004 Spring;34(1):1-11. doi: 10.1521/suli.34.1.1.27772.

7. Belsher BE. Prediction models for suicide attempts and deaths: A systematic review and simulation. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 1;76(6):642-651. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0174.

8. Carter G et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guideline for the management of deliberate self-harm. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;50(10):939-1000. doi: 10.1177/0004867416661039.

9. Fosse R et al. Predictors of suicide in the patient population admitted to a locked-door psychiatric acute ward. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0173958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173958.

10. Kessler RC et al. Suicide prediction models: A critical review of recent research with recommendations for the way forward. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Jan;25(1):168-79. doi: 10.1038/s41380-019-0531-0.

11. Mulder R. Problems with suicide risk assessment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;45(8):605-7. doi: 10.3109/00048674.2011.594786.

12. Pokorny AD. Prediction of suicide in psychiatric patients: Report of a prospective study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;40(3):249-57. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790030019002.

13. Rosen A. Detection of suicidal patients: An example of some limitations in the prediction of infrequent events. J Consult Psychol. 1954 Dec;18(6):397-403. doi: 10.1037/h0058579.

14. McHugh CM et al. (2019). Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2):e18. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.88.

Almonds and almond oil are known to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antihepatotoxicity, and immunity-boosting activity.¹ The seed from the deciduous almond tree (Oleum amygdalae), which is native to Iran and parts of the Levant, almonds contain copious amounts of phenols and polyphenols, fatty acids, and vitamin E, all of which are known to exert antioxidant activity.^2-5 These seeds have been found to have a substantial impact on serum lipids.⁴ Emollient and sclerosant characteristics have also been linked to almond oil, which has been found to ameliorate complexion and skin tone.⁵ Significantly, in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that UVB-induced photoaging can be attenuated through the use of almond oil and almond skin extract.² Further, in traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, and ancient Greco-Persian medicine, almond oil was used to treat cutaneous conditions, including eczema and psoriasis.¹ The focus of this column is to provide an update on the use of almonds and almond oil for skincare since covering the topic in July 2014.

Antiphotoaging activity

In 2019, Foolad and Vaughn conducted a prospective, investigator-blind, randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of almond consumption on facial sebum production and wrinkles. Participants (28 postmenopausal women with Fitzpatrick skin types I and II completed the study) consumed 20% of their daily energy intake in almonds or a calorie-matched snack over 16 weeks through the UC Davis Dermatology Clinic. Photographic analysis revealed that the almond group experienced significantly diminished wrinkle severity, compared with the control group. The investigators concluded that daily almond consumption has the potential to decrease wrinkle severity in postmenopausal women and that almonds may confer natural antiaging effects.⁴

In a similar investigation 2 years later, Rybak et al. reported on a prospective, randomized controlled study to ascertain the effects of almond consumption on photoaging in postmenopausal women with Fitzpatrick skin types I or II who obtained 20% of their daily energy consumption via almonds or a calorie-matched snack for 24 weeks. Results demonstrated significant effects conferred by almond consumption, with average wrinkle severity substantially diminished in the almond group at weeks 16 (by 15%) and 24 (by 16%), compared with baseline. In addition, facial pigment intensity was reduced by 20% in the almond group by week 16 and this was maintained through the end of the study. Further, sebum excretion was higher in the control group. The investigators concluded that the daily consumption of almonds may have the potential to enhance protection against photoaging, particularly in terms of facial wrinkles and pigment intensity, in postmenopausal women.³

Later in 2021, Li et al. conducted a study in 39 healthy Asian women (18-45 years old) with Fitzpatrick skin types II to IV to investigate the effects of almond consumption on UVB resistance. The researchers randomized participants to eat either 1.5 oz of almonds or 1.8 oz of pretzels daily for 12 weeks. Results showed that the minimal erythema dose was higher in the almond group as compared with the control group. No differences were observed in hydration, melanin, roughness, or sebum on facial skin. The authors concluded that daily oral almond intake may improve photoprotection by raising the minimal erythema dose.²

In a 2022 review on the cutaneous benefits of sweet almond, evening primrose, and jojoba oils, Blaak and Staib noted that all three have been used for hundreds if not thousands of years in traditional medicine to treat various conditions, including skin disorders. Further, they concluded that the longstanding uses of these oils has been borne out by contemporary data, which reveal cutaneous benefits for adult and young skin, particularly in bolstering stratum corneum integrity, recovery, and lipid ratio.⁶

Later that year, Sanju et al., reporting on the development and assessment of a broad-spectrum polyherbal sunscreen delivered through solid lipid nanoparticles, noted that almond oil was among the natural ingredients used because of its photoprotective characteristics. Overall, the sunscreen formulation, Safranal, was found to impart robust protection against UV radiation.⁷

Wound healing

In 2020, Borzou et al. conducted a single-blind randomized clinical trial to ascertain the impact of topical almond oil in preventing pressure injuries. Data collection occurred over 8 months in a hospital setting, with 108 patients randomly assigned to receive almond oil, placebo (liquid paraffin), or the control (standard of care). The researchers found that topically applied almond oil was linked to a lower incidence of pressure injuries, and they arose later in the study as compared with those injuries in the groups receiving paraffin or standard of care. Pressure injury incidence was 5.6% in the almond oil group, 13.9% in the placebo group, and 25.1% in the control group.⁸

That same year, Caglar et al. completed a randomized controlled trial in 90 preterm infants to assess the effects of sunflower seed oil and almond oil on the stratum corneum. Infants were randomly selected for treatment with either oil or control. A nurse researcher applied oils to the whole body except for the head and face four times daily for 5 days. Investigators determined that stratum corneum hydration was better in the oil groups as compared with control, with no difference found between sunflower seed and almond oils.⁹

Eczema, hand dermatitis, and striae

In 2018, Simon et al. performed a randomized, double-blind study to determine the short- and long-term effects of two emollients on pruritus and skin restoration in xerotic eczema. The emollients contained lactic acid and refined almond oil, with one also including polidocanol. Both emollients were effective in reducing the severity of itching, with skin moisture and lipid content found to have risen after the initial administration and yielding steady improvement over 2 weeks.¹⁰

Earlier that year, Zeichner et al. found that the use of an OTC sweet almond oil, rich in fatty acids and a standard-bearing treatment for eczema and psoriasis for centuries, was effective in treating hand dermatitis. Specifically, the moisturizer, which contained 7% sweet almond oil and 2% colloidal oatmeal, was identified as safe and effective in resolving moderate to severe hand dermatitis.¹¹

Some studies have also shown almond oil to be effective against striae gravidarum. Hajhashemi et al. conducted a double-blind clinical trial in 160 nulliparous women to compare the effects of aloe vera gel and sweet almond oil on striae gravidarum in 2018. Volunteers were randomly assigned to one of three case groups (Aloe vera, sweet almond oil, or base cream) who received topical treatment on the abdomen, or the fourth group, which received no treatment. Results showed that both treatment creams were effective in decreasing erythema and the pruritus associated with striae as well as in preventing their expansion.¹² Previously, Tashan and Kafkasli showed in a nonrandomized study that massage with bitter almond oil may diminish the visibility of present striae gravidarum and prevent the emergence of new striae.¹³

Conclusion

Almonds and almond oil have been used as food and in traditional medical practices dating back several centuries. In the last decade, intriguing results have emerged regarding the effects of almond consumption or topical almond oil administration on skin health. While much more research is necessary, the recent data seem to support the traditional uses of this tree seed for dermatologic purposes.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology” (New York: McGraw Hill), was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an e-commerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Ahmad Z. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;16(1):10-2.

2. Li JN et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Sep;20(9):2975-80.

3. Rybak I et al. Nutrients. 2021 Feb 27;13(3):785.

4. Foolad N et al. Phytother Res. 2019 Dec;33(12):3212-7.

5. Lin TK et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Dec 27;19(1):70.

6. Blaak J, Staib P. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2022 Feb;44(1):1-9.

7. Sanju N et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4433-46.

8. Borzou SR et al. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020 Jul/Aug;47(4):336-42.

9. Caglar S et al. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2020 Aug;33(8):1-6.

10. Simon D et al. Dermatol Ther. 2018 Nov;31(6):e12692.

11. Zeichner JA at al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;17(1):78-82.

12. Hajhashemi M et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Jul;31(13):1703-8.

13. Timur Tashan S and Kafkasli A. J Clin Nurs. 2012 Jun;21(11-12):1570-6.
 

Almonds and almond oil are known to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antihepatotoxicity, and immunity-boosting activity.¹ The seed from the deciduous almond tree (Oleum amygdalae), which is native to Iran and parts of the Levant, almonds contain copious amounts of phenols and polyphenols, fatty acids, and vitamin E, all of which are known to exert antioxidant activity.^2-5 These seeds have been found to have a substantial impact on serum lipids.⁴ Emollient and sclerosant characteristics have also been linked to almond oil, which has been found to ameliorate complexion and skin tone.⁵ Significantly, in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that UVB-induced photoaging can be attenuated through the use of almond oil and almond skin extract.² Further, in traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, and ancient Greco-Persian medicine, almond oil was used to treat cutaneous conditions, including eczema and psoriasis.¹ The focus of this column is to provide an update on the use of almonds and almond oil for skincare since covering the topic in July 2014.

Antiphotoaging activity

In 2019, Foolad and Vaughn conducted a prospective, investigator-blind, randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of almond consumption on facial sebum production and wrinkles. Participants (28 postmenopausal women with Fitzpatrick skin types I and II completed the study) consumed 20% of their daily energy intake in almonds or a calorie-matched snack over 16 weeks through the UC Davis Dermatology Clinic. Photographic analysis revealed that the almond group experienced significantly diminished wrinkle severity, compared with the control group. The investigators concluded that daily almond consumption has the potential to decrease wrinkle severity in postmenopausal women and that almonds may confer natural antiaging effects.⁴

In a similar investigation 2 years later, Rybak et al. reported on a prospective, randomized controlled study to ascertain the effects of almond consumption on photoaging in postmenopausal women with Fitzpatrick skin types I or II who obtained 20% of their daily energy consumption via almonds or a calorie-matched snack for 24 weeks. Results demonstrated significant effects conferred by almond consumption, with average wrinkle severity substantially diminished in the almond group at weeks 16 (by 15%) and 24 (by 16%), compared with baseline. In addition, facial pigment intensity was reduced by 20% in the almond group by week 16 and this was maintained through the end of the study. Further, sebum excretion was higher in the control group. The investigators concluded that the daily consumption of almonds may have the potential to enhance protection against photoaging, particularly in terms of facial wrinkles and pigment intensity, in postmenopausal women.³

Later in 2021, Li et al. conducted a study in 39 healthy Asian women (18-45 years old) with Fitzpatrick skin types II to IV to investigate the effects of almond consumption on UVB resistance. The researchers randomized participants to eat either 1.5 oz of almonds or 1.8 oz of pretzels daily for 12 weeks. Results showed that the minimal erythema dose was higher in the almond group as compared with the control group. No differences were observed in hydration, melanin, roughness, or sebum on facial skin. The authors concluded that daily oral almond intake may improve photoprotection by raising the minimal erythema dose.²

In a 2022 review on the cutaneous benefits of sweet almond, evening primrose, and jojoba oils, Blaak and Staib noted that all three have been used for hundreds if not thousands of years in traditional medicine to treat various conditions, including skin disorders. Further, they concluded that the longstanding uses of these oils has been borne out by contemporary data, which reveal cutaneous benefits for adult and young skin, particularly in bolstering stratum corneum integrity, recovery, and lipid ratio.⁶

Later that year, Sanju et al., reporting on the development and assessment of a broad-spectrum polyherbal sunscreen delivered through solid lipid nanoparticles, noted that almond oil was among the natural ingredients used because of its photoprotective characteristics. Overall, the sunscreen formulation, Safranal, was found to impart robust protection against UV radiation.⁷

Wound healing

In 2020, Borzou et al. conducted a single-blind randomized clinical trial to ascertain the impact of topical almond oil in preventing pressure injuries. Data collection occurred over 8 months in a hospital setting, with 108 patients randomly assigned to receive almond oil, placebo (liquid paraffin), or the control (standard of care). The researchers found that topically applied almond oil was linked to a lower incidence of pressure injuries, and they arose later in the study as compared with those injuries in the groups receiving paraffin or standard of care. Pressure injury incidence was 5.6% in the almond oil group, 13.9% in the placebo group, and 25.1% in the control group.⁸

That same year, Caglar et al. completed a randomized controlled trial in 90 preterm infants to assess the effects of sunflower seed oil and almond oil on the stratum corneum. Infants were randomly selected for treatment with either oil or control. A nurse researcher applied oils to the whole body except for the head and face four times daily for 5 days. Investigators determined that stratum corneum hydration was better in the oil groups as compared with control, with no difference found between sunflower seed and almond oils.⁹

Eczema, hand dermatitis, and striae

In 2018, Simon et al. performed a randomized, double-blind study to determine the short- and long-term effects of two emollients on pruritus and skin restoration in xerotic eczema. The emollients contained lactic acid and refined almond oil, with one also including polidocanol. Both emollients were effective in reducing the severity of itching, with skin moisture and lipid content found to have risen after the initial administration and yielding steady improvement over 2 weeks.¹⁰

Earlier that year, Zeichner et al. found that the use of an OTC sweet almond oil, rich in fatty acids and a standard-bearing treatment for eczema and psoriasis for centuries, was effective in treating hand dermatitis. Specifically, the moisturizer, which contained 7% sweet almond oil and 2% colloidal oatmeal, was identified as safe and effective in resolving moderate to severe hand dermatitis.¹¹

Some studies have also shown almond oil to be effective against striae gravidarum. Hajhashemi et al. conducted a double-blind clinical trial in 160 nulliparous women to compare the effects of aloe vera gel and sweet almond oil on striae gravidarum in 2018. Volunteers were randomly assigned to one of three case groups (Aloe vera, sweet almond oil, or base cream) who received topical treatment on the abdomen, or the fourth group, which received no treatment. Results showed that both treatment creams were effective in decreasing erythema and the pruritus associated with striae as well as in preventing their expansion.¹² Previously, Tashan and Kafkasli showed in a nonrandomized study that massage with bitter almond oil may diminish the visibility of present striae gravidarum and prevent the emergence of new striae.¹³

Conclusion

Almonds and almond oil have been used as food and in traditional medical practices dating back several centuries. In the last decade, intriguing results have emerged regarding the effects of almond consumption or topical almond oil administration on skin health. While much more research is necessary, the recent data seem to support the traditional uses of this tree seed for dermatologic purposes.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology” (New York: McGraw Hill), was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an e-commerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Ahmad Z. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;16(1):10-2.

2. Li JN et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Sep;20(9):2975-80.

3. Rybak I et al. Nutrients. 2021 Feb 27;13(3):785.

4. Foolad N et al. Phytother Res. 2019 Dec;33(12):3212-7.

5. Lin TK et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Dec 27;19(1):70.

6. Blaak J, Staib P. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2022 Feb;44(1):1-9.

7. Sanju N et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4433-46.

8. Borzou SR et al. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020 Jul/Aug;47(4):336-42.

9. Caglar S et al. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2020 Aug;33(8):1-6.

10. Simon D et al. Dermatol Ther. 2018 Nov;31(6):e12692.

11. Zeichner JA at al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;17(1):78-82.

12. Hajhashemi M et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Jul;31(13):1703-8.

13. Timur Tashan S and Kafkasli A. J Clin Nurs. 2012 Jun;21(11-12):1570-6.
 

Almonds and almond oil are known to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antihepatotoxicity, and immunity-boosting activity.¹ The seed from the deciduous almond tree (Oleum amygdalae), which is native to Iran and parts of the Levant, almonds contain copious amounts of phenols and polyphenols, fatty acids, and vitamin E, all of which are known to exert antioxidant activity.^2-5 These seeds have been found to have a substantial impact on serum lipids.⁴ Emollient and sclerosant characteristics have also been linked to almond oil, which has been found to ameliorate complexion and skin tone.⁵ Significantly, in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that UVB-induced photoaging can be attenuated through the use of almond oil and almond skin extract.² Further, in traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, and ancient Greco-Persian medicine, almond oil was used to treat cutaneous conditions, including eczema and psoriasis.¹ The focus of this column is to provide an update on the use of almonds and almond oil for skincare since covering the topic in July 2014.

Antiphotoaging activity

In 2019, Foolad and Vaughn conducted a prospective, investigator-blind, randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of almond consumption on facial sebum production and wrinkles. Participants (28 postmenopausal women with Fitzpatrick skin types I and II completed the study) consumed 20% of their daily energy intake in almonds or a calorie-matched snack over 16 weeks through the UC Davis Dermatology Clinic. Photographic analysis revealed that the almond group experienced significantly diminished wrinkle severity, compared with the control group. The investigators concluded that daily almond consumption has the potential to decrease wrinkle severity in postmenopausal women and that almonds may confer natural antiaging effects.⁴

In a similar investigation 2 years later, Rybak et al. reported on a prospective, randomized controlled study to ascertain the effects of almond consumption on photoaging in postmenopausal women with Fitzpatrick skin types I or II who obtained 20% of their daily energy consumption via almonds or a calorie-matched snack for 24 weeks. Results demonstrated significant effects conferred by almond consumption, with average wrinkle severity substantially diminished in the almond group at weeks 16 (by 15%) and 24 (by 16%), compared with baseline. In addition, facial pigment intensity was reduced by 20% in the almond group by week 16 and this was maintained through the end of the study. Further, sebum excretion was higher in the control group. The investigators concluded that the daily consumption of almonds may have the potential to enhance protection against photoaging, particularly in terms of facial wrinkles and pigment intensity, in postmenopausal women.³

Later in 2021, Li et al. conducted a study in 39 healthy Asian women (18-45 years old) with Fitzpatrick skin types II to IV to investigate the effects of almond consumption on UVB resistance. The researchers randomized participants to eat either 1.5 oz of almonds or 1.8 oz of pretzels daily for 12 weeks. Results showed that the minimal erythema dose was higher in the almond group as compared with the control group. No differences were observed in hydration, melanin, roughness, or sebum on facial skin. The authors concluded that daily oral almond intake may improve photoprotection by raising the minimal erythema dose.²

In a 2022 review on the cutaneous benefits of sweet almond, evening primrose, and jojoba oils, Blaak and Staib noted that all three have been used for hundreds if not thousands of years in traditional medicine to treat various conditions, including skin disorders. Further, they concluded that the longstanding uses of these oils has been borne out by contemporary data, which reveal cutaneous benefits for adult and young skin, particularly in bolstering stratum corneum integrity, recovery, and lipid ratio.⁶

Later that year, Sanju et al., reporting on the development and assessment of a broad-spectrum polyherbal sunscreen delivered through solid lipid nanoparticles, noted that almond oil was among the natural ingredients used because of its photoprotective characteristics. Overall, the sunscreen formulation, Safranal, was found to impart robust protection against UV radiation.⁷

Wound healing

In 2020, Borzou et al. conducted a single-blind randomized clinical trial to ascertain the impact of topical almond oil in preventing pressure injuries. Data collection occurred over 8 months in a hospital setting, with 108 patients randomly assigned to receive almond oil, placebo (liquid paraffin), or the control (standard of care). The researchers found that topically applied almond oil was linked to a lower incidence of pressure injuries, and they arose later in the study as compared with those injuries in the groups receiving paraffin or standard of care. Pressure injury incidence was 5.6% in the almond oil group, 13.9% in the placebo group, and 25.1% in the control group.⁸

That same year, Caglar et al. completed a randomized controlled trial in 90 preterm infants to assess the effects of sunflower seed oil and almond oil on the stratum corneum. Infants were randomly selected for treatment with either oil or control. A nurse researcher applied oils to the whole body except for the head and face four times daily for 5 days. Investigators determined that stratum corneum hydration was better in the oil groups as compared with control, with no difference found between sunflower seed and almond oils.⁹

Eczema, hand dermatitis, and striae

In 2018, Simon et al. performed a randomized, double-blind study to determine the short- and long-term effects of two emollients on pruritus and skin restoration in xerotic eczema. The emollients contained lactic acid and refined almond oil, with one also including polidocanol. Both emollients were effective in reducing the severity of itching, with skin moisture and lipid content found to have risen after the initial administration and yielding steady improvement over 2 weeks.¹⁰

Earlier that year, Zeichner et al. found that the use of an OTC sweet almond oil, rich in fatty acids and a standard-bearing treatment for eczema and psoriasis for centuries, was effective in treating hand dermatitis. Specifically, the moisturizer, which contained 7% sweet almond oil and 2% colloidal oatmeal, was identified as safe and effective in resolving moderate to severe hand dermatitis.¹¹

Some studies have also shown almond oil to be effective against striae gravidarum. Hajhashemi et al. conducted a double-blind clinical trial in 160 nulliparous women to compare the effects of aloe vera gel and sweet almond oil on striae gravidarum in 2018. Volunteers were randomly assigned to one of three case groups (Aloe vera, sweet almond oil, or base cream) who received topical treatment on the abdomen, or the fourth group, which received no treatment. Results showed that both treatment creams were effective in decreasing erythema and the pruritus associated with striae as well as in preventing their expansion.¹² Previously, Tashan and Kafkasli showed in a nonrandomized study that massage with bitter almond oil may diminish the visibility of present striae gravidarum and prevent the emergence of new striae.¹³

Conclusion

Almonds and almond oil have been used as food and in traditional medical practices dating back several centuries. In the last decade, intriguing results have emerged regarding the effects of almond consumption or topical almond oil administration on skin health. While much more research is necessary, the recent data seem to support the traditional uses of this tree seed for dermatologic purposes.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology” (New York: McGraw Hill), was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an e-commerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Ahmad Z. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;16(1):10-2.

2. Li JN et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Sep;20(9):2975-80.

3. Rybak I et al. Nutrients. 2021 Feb 27;13(3):785.

4. Foolad N et al. Phytother Res. 2019 Dec;33(12):3212-7.

5. Lin TK et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Dec 27;19(1):70.

6. Blaak J, Staib P. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2022 Feb;44(1):1-9.

7. Sanju N et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4433-46.

8. Borzou SR et al. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020 Jul/Aug;47(4):336-42.

9. Caglar S et al. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2020 Aug;33(8):1-6.

10. Simon D et al. Dermatol Ther. 2018 Nov;31(6):e12692.

11. Zeichner JA at al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;17(1):78-82.

12. Hajhashemi M et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Jul;31(13):1703-8.

13. Timur Tashan S and Kafkasli A. J Clin Nurs. 2012 Jun;21(11-12):1570-6.
 

The European Society of Cardiology has released new guidelines for cardiomyopathies, their first major comprehensive international guidelines to address diagnosis and treatment of the broad causes of heart muscle dysfunction.

The document was released in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and is also available online in the European Heart Journal.

“We have considered cardiomyopathies across the life course from pediatric to adult,” explained Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, coordinator of the cardiac genetic diseases and sudden arrhythmic death unit, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona. Dr. Arbelo is first author and one of two chairpersons of the ESC task force that brought the guidelines forward.

Not an update, the ESC guidelines are the first to “include all cardiomyopathy subtypes, and the first time that specific recommendations are made for cardiomyopathies other than hypertrophic cardiomyopathy” (HCM), Dr. Arbelo said.
 

Guidelines organize cardiomyopathy phenotypes

Cardiomyopathy can present at any age. It can have multiple complex etiologies, including genetic predisposition, heart muscle injury caused by disease, or a mix of participating factors. The ESC task force employed several strategies in taking a comprehensive approach to the condition, said Juan Kaski, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric inherited cardiovascular medicine at the University College of London.

“From my point of view, the key innovations include a diagnostic workup that starts with a detailed phenotypic description, including the new phenotype of nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, that then triggers a multiparametric, systematic evaluation,” said Dr. Kaski, cochair of the task force.

As explained in the introduction to the guideline and reiterated by both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, the guidelines have been organized around the patient pathway, meaning that focus should be placed on recognizing the presenting phenotype as a critical first step in discerning the underlying etiology and its treatments.

“Central to this approach is not only the individual patient but also the family as a whole,” Dr. Arbelo said. “Clinical findings in relatives are essential for understanding what happens to the patient and vice versa.”
 

Genetic testing in children described

The new guidelines include specific recommendations about genetic testing of children. They also emphasize the value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the “diagnosis, screening, monitoring, and prognostication” for patients of all ages, according to Dr. Kaski.

“CMR is recommended at the initial evaluation for every patient with cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Arbelo said. It should be “considered” during follow-up and for many other applications, including the evaluation of “genotype-positive but phenotype-negative relatives.”

Etiologic prediction models have been incorporated into the guidelines, including genotyping for dilated cardiomyopathies and nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, said both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, interviewed separately. They both indicated that the task force did their best to make the guidelines user friendly.

Each of the recommendations in the guidelines is provided with an evidence-based classification. In order, these are class I (recommended), class IIa (should be considered), class IIb (may be considered), and class III (not recommended).
 

Many symptoms are cardiomyopathy related

Dr. Kaski and Dr. Arbelo both emphasized that the guidelines draw attention to the relationship of cardiomyopathy to common cardiovascular conditions, such as heart failure, arrhythmia, and chest pain. Dr. Kaski pointed out that these are the types of problems commonly encountered by general cardiologists and well as primary care physicians.

In 2014, the ESC published guidelines specific to HCM. The new broader guidelines do not overlook this subtype. According to Dr. Kaski, there have been several innovations in HCM since the previous guidelines, such as when to consider cardiac myosin inhibitors for symptomatic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.

The ESC guidelines place an emphasis on a “coordinated, systematic, and individualized” care pathway based on a multidisciplinary approach, according to Dr. Arbelo. Although the composition of the interdisciplinary team depends on the individual case, the guidelines recognize a key role for general cardiologists in managing the majority of patients. Suggestions of when to refer challenging cases to expert centers are outlined.
 

32 key messages derived from guidelines

The guidelines include almost 90 pages of recommendations. The task force isolated 32 key messages from 13 sections ranging from descriptions of how the patient pathway is defined to what types of physical activity should be considered for different forms of cardiomyopathy. There is also a section devoted to important gaps in evidence and areas in which there is the most need for further studies.

The guidelines end with a comprehensive list of “what to do” and “what not to do” in the diagnosis and care of cardiomyopathy. These include most of the class I recommendations and summarize some important class III cautions.

“Most of the recommendations in the guideline are new,” the authors wrote in the introduction. Although they acknowledged that they did not attempt to provide detailed recommendations for every cardiomyopathy phenotype, they endeavored to cover general evaluation and management issues supported by relevant evidence.

Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The European Society of Cardiology has released new guidelines for cardiomyopathies, their first major comprehensive international guidelines to address diagnosis and treatment of the broad causes of heart muscle dysfunction.

The document was released in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and is also available online in the European Heart Journal.

“We have considered cardiomyopathies across the life course from pediatric to adult,” explained Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, coordinator of the cardiac genetic diseases and sudden arrhythmic death unit, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona. Dr. Arbelo is first author and one of two chairpersons of the ESC task force that brought the guidelines forward.

Not an update, the ESC guidelines are the first to “include all cardiomyopathy subtypes, and the first time that specific recommendations are made for cardiomyopathies other than hypertrophic cardiomyopathy” (HCM), Dr. Arbelo said.
 

Guidelines organize cardiomyopathy phenotypes

Cardiomyopathy can present at any age. It can have multiple complex etiologies, including genetic predisposition, heart muscle injury caused by disease, or a mix of participating factors. The ESC task force employed several strategies in taking a comprehensive approach to the condition, said Juan Kaski, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric inherited cardiovascular medicine at the University College of London.

“From my point of view, the key innovations include a diagnostic workup that starts with a detailed phenotypic description, including the new phenotype of nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, that then triggers a multiparametric, systematic evaluation,” said Dr. Kaski, cochair of the task force.

As explained in the introduction to the guideline and reiterated by both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, the guidelines have been organized around the patient pathway, meaning that focus should be placed on recognizing the presenting phenotype as a critical first step in discerning the underlying etiology and its treatments.

“Central to this approach is not only the individual patient but also the family as a whole,” Dr. Arbelo said. “Clinical findings in relatives are essential for understanding what happens to the patient and vice versa.”
 

Genetic testing in children described

The new guidelines include specific recommendations about genetic testing of children. They also emphasize the value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the “diagnosis, screening, monitoring, and prognostication” for patients of all ages, according to Dr. Kaski.

“CMR is recommended at the initial evaluation for every patient with cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Arbelo said. It should be “considered” during follow-up and for many other applications, including the evaluation of “genotype-positive but phenotype-negative relatives.”

Etiologic prediction models have been incorporated into the guidelines, including genotyping for dilated cardiomyopathies and nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, said both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, interviewed separately. They both indicated that the task force did their best to make the guidelines user friendly.

Each of the recommendations in the guidelines is provided with an evidence-based classification. In order, these are class I (recommended), class IIa (should be considered), class IIb (may be considered), and class III (not recommended).
 

Many symptoms are cardiomyopathy related

Dr. Kaski and Dr. Arbelo both emphasized that the guidelines draw attention to the relationship of cardiomyopathy to common cardiovascular conditions, such as heart failure, arrhythmia, and chest pain. Dr. Kaski pointed out that these are the types of problems commonly encountered by general cardiologists and well as primary care physicians.

In 2014, the ESC published guidelines specific to HCM. The new broader guidelines do not overlook this subtype. According to Dr. Kaski, there have been several innovations in HCM since the previous guidelines, such as when to consider cardiac myosin inhibitors for symptomatic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.

The ESC guidelines place an emphasis on a “coordinated, systematic, and individualized” care pathway based on a multidisciplinary approach, according to Dr. Arbelo. Although the composition of the interdisciplinary team depends on the individual case, the guidelines recognize a key role for general cardiologists in managing the majority of patients. Suggestions of when to refer challenging cases to expert centers are outlined.
 

32 key messages derived from guidelines

The guidelines include almost 90 pages of recommendations. The task force isolated 32 key messages from 13 sections ranging from descriptions of how the patient pathway is defined to what types of physical activity should be considered for different forms of cardiomyopathy. There is also a section devoted to important gaps in evidence and areas in which there is the most need for further studies.

The guidelines end with a comprehensive list of “what to do” and “what not to do” in the diagnosis and care of cardiomyopathy. These include most of the class I recommendations and summarize some important class III cautions.

“Most of the recommendations in the guideline are new,” the authors wrote in the introduction. Although they acknowledged that they did not attempt to provide detailed recommendations for every cardiomyopathy phenotype, they endeavored to cover general evaluation and management issues supported by relevant evidence.

Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The European Society of Cardiology has released new guidelines for cardiomyopathies, their first major comprehensive international guidelines to address diagnosis and treatment of the broad causes of heart muscle dysfunction.

The document was released in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and is also available online in the European Heart Journal.

“We have considered cardiomyopathies across the life course from pediatric to adult,” explained Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, coordinator of the cardiac genetic diseases and sudden arrhythmic death unit, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona. Dr. Arbelo is first author and one of two chairpersons of the ESC task force that brought the guidelines forward.

Not an update, the ESC guidelines are the first to “include all cardiomyopathy subtypes, and the first time that specific recommendations are made for cardiomyopathies other than hypertrophic cardiomyopathy” (HCM), Dr. Arbelo said.
 

Guidelines organize cardiomyopathy phenotypes

Cardiomyopathy can present at any age. It can have multiple complex etiologies, including genetic predisposition, heart muscle injury caused by disease, or a mix of participating factors. The ESC task force employed several strategies in taking a comprehensive approach to the condition, said Juan Kaski, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric inherited cardiovascular medicine at the University College of London.

“From my point of view, the key innovations include a diagnostic workup that starts with a detailed phenotypic description, including the new phenotype of nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, that then triggers a multiparametric, systematic evaluation,” said Dr. Kaski, cochair of the task force.

As explained in the introduction to the guideline and reiterated by both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, the guidelines have been organized around the patient pathway, meaning that focus should be placed on recognizing the presenting phenotype as a critical first step in discerning the underlying etiology and its treatments.

“Central to this approach is not only the individual patient but also the family as a whole,” Dr. Arbelo said. “Clinical findings in relatives are essential for understanding what happens to the patient and vice versa.”
 

Genetic testing in children described

The new guidelines include specific recommendations about genetic testing of children. They also emphasize the value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the “diagnosis, screening, monitoring, and prognostication” for patients of all ages, according to Dr. Kaski.

“CMR is recommended at the initial evaluation for every patient with cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Arbelo said. It should be “considered” during follow-up and for many other applications, including the evaluation of “genotype-positive but phenotype-negative relatives.”

Etiologic prediction models have been incorporated into the guidelines, including genotyping for dilated cardiomyopathies and nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, said both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, interviewed separately. They both indicated that the task force did their best to make the guidelines user friendly.

Each of the recommendations in the guidelines is provided with an evidence-based classification. In order, these are class I (recommended), class IIa (should be considered), class IIb (may be considered), and class III (not recommended).
 

Many symptoms are cardiomyopathy related

Dr. Kaski and Dr. Arbelo both emphasized that the guidelines draw attention to the relationship of cardiomyopathy to common cardiovascular conditions, such as heart failure, arrhythmia, and chest pain. Dr. Kaski pointed out that these are the types of problems commonly encountered by general cardiologists and well as primary care physicians.

In 2014, the ESC published guidelines specific to HCM. The new broader guidelines do not overlook this subtype. According to Dr. Kaski, there have been several innovations in HCM since the previous guidelines, such as when to consider cardiac myosin inhibitors for symptomatic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.

The ESC guidelines place an emphasis on a “coordinated, systematic, and individualized” care pathway based on a multidisciplinary approach, according to Dr. Arbelo. Although the composition of the interdisciplinary team depends on the individual case, the guidelines recognize a key role for general cardiologists in managing the majority of patients. Suggestions of when to refer challenging cases to expert centers are outlined.
 

32 key messages derived from guidelines

The guidelines include almost 90 pages of recommendations. The task force isolated 32 key messages from 13 sections ranging from descriptions of how the patient pathway is defined to what types of physical activity should be considered for different forms of cardiomyopathy. There is also a section devoted to important gaps in evidence and areas in which there is the most need for further studies.

The guidelines end with a comprehensive list of “what to do” and “what not to do” in the diagnosis and care of cardiomyopathy. These include most of the class I recommendations and summarize some important class III cautions.

“Most of the recommendations in the guideline are new,” the authors wrote in the introduction. Although they acknowledged that they did not attempt to provide detailed recommendations for every cardiomyopathy phenotype, they endeavored to cover general evaluation and management issues supported by relevant evidence.

Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

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

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

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

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

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

Educational organizations across several specialties, including internal medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, have formal surveys¹; however, the field of dermatology has been without one. This study aimed to establish a formal survey for dermatology program directors (PDs) and clinician-educators. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Dermatology surveys do not capture all metrics relevant to dermatology residency educators, an annual survey for our specialty may be helpful to compare dermatology-specific data among programs. Responses could provide context and perspective to faculty and residents who respond to the ACGME annual survey, as our Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) survey asks more in-depth questions, such as how often didactics occur and who leads them. Resident commute time and faculty demographics and training also are covered. Current ad hoc surveys disseminated through listserves of various medical associations contain overlapping questions and reflect relatively low response rates; dermatology PDs may benefit from a survey with a high response rate to which they can contribute future questions and topics that reflect recent trends and current needs in graduate medical education. As future surveys are administered, the results can be captured in a centralized database accessible by dermatology PDs.

Methods

A survey of PDs from 141 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs was conducted by the Residency Program Director Steering Committee of the APD from November 2022 to January 2023 using a prevalidated questionnaire. Personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each PD’s email listed in the ACGME accreditation data system. All survey responses were captured anonymously, with a number assigned to keep de-identified responses separate and organized. The survey consisted of 137 survey questions addressing topics that included program characteristics, PD demographics, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical rotation and educational conferences, available resident resources, quality improvement, clinical and didactic instruction, research content, diversity and inclusion, wellness, professionalism, evaluation systems, and graduate outcomes.

Data were collected using Qualtrics survey tools. After removing duplicate and incomplete surveys, data were analyzed using Qualtrics reports and Microsoft Excel for data plotting, averages, and range calculations.

Results

One hundred forty-one personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each program’s filed email obtained from the APD listserv. Fifty-three responses were recorded after removing duplicate or incomplete surveys (38% [53/141] response rate). As of May 2023, there were 144 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs due to 3 newly accredited programs in 2022-2023 academic year, which were not included in our survey population.

Program Characteristics—Forty-four respondents (83%) were from a university-based program. Fifty respondents (94%) were from programs that were ACGME accredited prior to 2020, while 3 programs (6%) were American Osteopathic Association accredited prior to singular accreditation. Seventy-one percent (38/53) of respondents had 1 or more associate PDs.

PD Demographics—Eighty-seven percent (45/52) of PDs who responded to the survey graduated from a US allopathic medical school (MD), 10% (5/52) graduated from a US osteopathic medical school (DO), and 4% (2/52) graduated from an international medical school. Seventy-four percent (35/47) of respondents were White, 17% (8/47) were Asian, and 2% (1/47) were Black or African American; this data was not provided for 4 respondents. Forty-eight percent (23/48) of PDs identified as cisgender man, 48% (23/48) identified as cisgender woman, and 4% (2/48) preferred not to answer. Eighty-one percent (38/47) of PDs identified as heterosexual or straight, 15% (7/47) identified as gay or lesbian, and 4% (2/47) preferred not to answer.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Residency Training—Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 88% (45/51) of respondents incorporated telemedicine into the resident clinical rotation schedule. Moving forward, 75% (38/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to continue to incorporate telemedicine into the rotation schedule. Based on 50 responses, the average of educational conferences that became virtual at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was 87%; based on 46 responses, the percentage of educational conferences that will remain virtual moving forward is 46%, while 90% (46/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to use virtual conferences in some capacity moving forward. Seventy-three percent (37/51) of respondents indicated that they plan to use virtual interviews as part of residency recruitment moving forward.

Available Resources—Twenty-four percent (11/46) of respondents indicated that residents in their program do not get protected time or time off for CORE examinations. Seventy-five percent (33/44) of PDs said their program provides funding for residents to participate in board review courses. The chief residents at 63% (31/49) of programs receive additional compensation, and 69% (34/49) provide additional administrative time to chief residents. Seventy-one percent (24/34) of PDs reported their programs have scribes for attendings, and 12% (4/34) have scribes for residents. Support staff help residents with callbacks and in-basket messages according to 76% (35/46) of respondents. The majority (98% [45/46]) of PDs indicated that residents follow-up on results and messages from patients seen in resident clinics, and 43% (20/46) of programs have residents follow-up with patients seen in faculty clinics. Only 15% (7/46) of PDs responded they have schedules with residents dedicated to handle these tasks. According to respondents, 33% (17/52) have residents who are required to travel more than 25 miles to distant clinical sites. Of them, 35% (6/17) provide accommodations.

Quality Improvement—Seventy-one percent (35/49) of respondents indicated their department has a quality improvement/patient safety team or committee, and 94% (33/35) of these teams include residents. A lecture series on quality improvement and patient safety is offered at 67% (33/49) of the respondents’ programs, while morbidity and mortality conferences are offered in 73% (36/49).

Clinical Instruction—Our survey asked PDs how many months each residency year spends on a certain rotational service. Based on 46 respondents, the average number of months dedicated to medical dermatology is 7, 5, and 6 months for postgraduate year (PGY) 2, PGY3, and PGY4, respectively. The average number of months spent in other subspecialties is provided in the Table. On average, PGY2 residents spend 8 half-days per week seeing patients in clinic, while PGY3 and PGY4 residents see patients for 7 half-days. The median and mean number of patients staffed by a single attending per hour in teaching clinics are 6 and 5.88, respectively. Respondents indicated that residents participate in the following specialty clinics: pediatric dermatology (96% [44/46]), laser/cosmetic (87% [40/44]), high-risk skin cancer (ie, immunosuppressed/transplant patient)(65% [30/44]), pigmented lesion/melanoma (52% [24/44]), connective tissue disease (52% [24/44]), teledermatology (50% [23/44]), free clinic for homeless and/or indigent populations (48% [22/44]), contact dermatitis (43% [20/44]), skin of color (43% [20/44]), oncodermatology (41% [19/44]), and bullous disease (33% [15/44]).

Additionally, in 87% (40/46) of programs, residents participate in a dedicated inpatient consultation service. Most respondents (98% [45/46]) responded that they utilize in-person consultations with a teledermatology supplement. Fifteen percent (7/46) utilize virtual teledermatology (live video-based consultations), and 57% (26/46) utilize asynchronous teledermatology (picture-based consultations). All respondents (n=46) indicated that 0% to 25% of patient encounters involving residents are teledermatology visits. Thirty-three percent (6/18) of programs have a global health special training track, 56% (10/18) have a Specialty Training and Advanced Research/Physician-Scientist Research Training track, 28% (5/18) have a diversity training track, and 50% (9/18) have a clinician educator training track.

Didactic Instruction—Five programs have a full day per week dedicated to didactics, while 36 programs have at least one half-day per week for didactics. On average, didactics in 57% (26/46) of programs are led by faculty alone, while 43% (20/46) are led at least in part by residents or fellows.

Research Content—Fifty percent (23/46) of programs have a specific research requirement for residents beyond general ACGME requirements, and 35% (16/46) require residents to participate in a longitudinal research project over the course of residency. There is a dedicated research coordinator for resident support at 63% (29/46) of programs. Dedicated biostatistics research support is available for resident projects at 42% (19/45) of programs. Additionally, at 42% (19/45) of programs, there is a dedicated faculty member for oversight of resident research.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—Seventy-three percent (29/40) of programs have special diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or meetings specific to residency, 60% (24/40) have residency initiatives, and 55% (22/40) have a residency diversity committee. Eighty-six percent (42/49) of respondents strongly agreed that their current residents represent diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds (ie, >15% are not White). eTable 1 shows PD responses to this statement, which were stratified based on self-identified race. eTable 2 shows PD responses to the statement, “Our current residents represent an inclusion of gender/sexual orientation,” which were stratified based on self-identified gender identity/sexual orientation. Lastly, eTable 3 highlights the percentage of residents with an MD and DO degree, stratified based on PD degree.

Wellness—Forty-eight percent (20/42) of respondents indicated they are under stress and do not always have as much energy as before becoming a PD but do not feel burned out. Thirty-one percent (13/42) indicated they have 1 or more symptoms of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion. Eighty-six percent (36/42) are satisfied with their jobs overall (43% agree and 43% strongly agree [18/42 each]).

Evaluation System—Seventy-five percent (33/44) of programs deliver evaluations of residents by faculty online, 86% (38/44) of programs have PDs discuss evaluations in-person, and 20% (9/44) of programs have faculty evaluators discuss evaluations in-person. Seventy-seven percent (34/44) of programs have formal faculty-resident mentor-mentee programs. Clinical competency committee chair positions are filled by PDs, assistant PDs, or core faculty members 47%, 38%, and 16% of the time, respectively.

Graduation Outcomes of PGY4 Residents—About 28% (55/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with the majority (15% [29/55]) matching into Mohs micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) fellowships. Approximately 5% (9/199) and 4% (7/199) of graduates matched into dermatopathology and pediatric dermatology, respectively. The remaining 5% (10/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship but did not match. The majority (45% [91/199]) of residency graduates entered private practice after graduation. Approximately 21% (42/199) of graduating residents chose an academic practice with 17% (33/199), 2% (4/199), and 2% (3/199) of those positions being full-time, part-time, and adjunct, respectively.

Comment

The first annual APD survey is a novel data source and provides opportunities for areas of discussion and investigation. Evaluating the similarities and differences among dermatology residency programs across the United States can strengthen individual programs through collaboration and provide areas of cohesion among programs.

Diversity of PDs—An important area of discussion is diversity and PD demographics. Although DO students make up 1 in 4 US graduating medical students, they are not interviewed or ranked as often as MD students.² Diversity in PD race and ethnicity may be worthy of investigation in future studies, as match rates and recruitment of diverse medical school applicants may be impacted by these demographics.

Continued Use of Telemedicine in Training—Since 2020, the benefits of virtual residency recruitment have been debated among PDs across all medical specialties. Points in favor of virtual interviews include cost savings for programs and especially for applicants, as well as time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. A problem posed by virtual interviews is that candidates are unable to fully learn institutional cultures and social environments of the programs.³ Likewise, telehealth was an important means of clinical teaching for residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with benefits that included cost-effectiveness and reduction of disparities in access to dermatologic care.⁴ Seventy-five percent (38/51) of PDs indicated that their program plans to include telemedicine in resident clinical rotation moving forward.

Resources Available—Our survey showed that resources available for residents, delivery of lectures and program time allocated to didactics, protected academic or study time for residents, and allocation of program time for CORE examinations are highly variable across programs. This could inspire future studies to be done to determine the differences in success of the resident on CORE examinations and in digesting material.

Postgraduate Career Plans and Fellowship Matches—Residents of programs that have a home MSDO fellowship are more likely to successfully match into a MSDO fellowship.⁵ Based on this survey, approximately 28% of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with 15%, 5%, and 3% matching into desired MSDO, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellowships, respectively. Additional studies are needed to determine advantages and disadvantages that lead to residents reaching their career goals.

Limitations—Limitations of this study include a small sample size that may not adequately represent all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs and selection bias toward respondents who are more likely to participate in survey-based research.

Conclusion

The APD plans to continue to administer this survey on an annual basis, with updates to the content and questions based on input from PDs. This survey will continue to provide valuable information to drive collaboration among residency programs and optimize the learning experience for residents. Our hope is that the response rate will increase in coming years, allowing us to draw more generalizable conclusions. Nonetheless, the survey data allow individual dermatology residency programs to compare their specific characteristics to other programs.

Educational organizations across several specialties, including internal medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, have formal surveys¹; however, the field of dermatology has been without one. This study aimed to establish a formal survey for dermatology program directors (PDs) and clinician-educators. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Dermatology surveys do not capture all metrics relevant to dermatology residency educators, an annual survey for our specialty may be helpful to compare dermatology-specific data among programs. Responses could provide context and perspective to faculty and residents who respond to the ACGME annual survey, as our Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) survey asks more in-depth questions, such as how often didactics occur and who leads them. Resident commute time and faculty demographics and training also are covered. Current ad hoc surveys disseminated through listserves of various medical associations contain overlapping questions and reflect relatively low response rates; dermatology PDs may benefit from a survey with a high response rate to which they can contribute future questions and topics that reflect recent trends and current needs in graduate medical education. As future surveys are administered, the results can be captured in a centralized database accessible by dermatology PDs.

Methods

A survey of PDs from 141 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs was conducted by the Residency Program Director Steering Committee of the APD from November 2022 to January 2023 using a prevalidated questionnaire. Personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each PD’s email listed in the ACGME accreditation data system. All survey responses were captured anonymously, with a number assigned to keep de-identified responses separate and organized. The survey consisted of 137 survey questions addressing topics that included program characteristics, PD demographics, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical rotation and educational conferences, available resident resources, quality improvement, clinical and didactic instruction, research content, diversity and inclusion, wellness, professionalism, evaluation systems, and graduate outcomes.

Data were collected using Qualtrics survey tools. After removing duplicate and incomplete surveys, data were analyzed using Qualtrics reports and Microsoft Excel for data plotting, averages, and range calculations.

Results

One hundred forty-one personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each program’s filed email obtained from the APD listserv. Fifty-three responses were recorded after removing duplicate or incomplete surveys (38% [53/141] response rate). As of May 2023, there were 144 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs due to 3 newly accredited programs in 2022-2023 academic year, which were not included in our survey population.

Program Characteristics—Forty-four respondents (83%) were from a university-based program. Fifty respondents (94%) were from programs that were ACGME accredited prior to 2020, while 3 programs (6%) were American Osteopathic Association accredited prior to singular accreditation. Seventy-one percent (38/53) of respondents had 1 or more associate PDs.

PD Demographics—Eighty-seven percent (45/52) of PDs who responded to the survey graduated from a US allopathic medical school (MD), 10% (5/52) graduated from a US osteopathic medical school (DO), and 4% (2/52) graduated from an international medical school. Seventy-four percent (35/47) of respondents were White, 17% (8/47) were Asian, and 2% (1/47) were Black or African American; this data was not provided for 4 respondents. Forty-eight percent (23/48) of PDs identified as cisgender man, 48% (23/48) identified as cisgender woman, and 4% (2/48) preferred not to answer. Eighty-one percent (38/47) of PDs identified as heterosexual or straight, 15% (7/47) identified as gay or lesbian, and 4% (2/47) preferred not to answer.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Residency Training—Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 88% (45/51) of respondents incorporated telemedicine into the resident clinical rotation schedule. Moving forward, 75% (38/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to continue to incorporate telemedicine into the rotation schedule. Based on 50 responses, the average of educational conferences that became virtual at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was 87%; based on 46 responses, the percentage of educational conferences that will remain virtual moving forward is 46%, while 90% (46/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to use virtual conferences in some capacity moving forward. Seventy-three percent (37/51) of respondents indicated that they plan to use virtual interviews as part of residency recruitment moving forward.

Available Resources—Twenty-four percent (11/46) of respondents indicated that residents in their program do not get protected time or time off for CORE examinations. Seventy-five percent (33/44) of PDs said their program provides funding for residents to participate in board review courses. The chief residents at 63% (31/49) of programs receive additional compensation, and 69% (34/49) provide additional administrative time to chief residents. Seventy-one percent (24/34) of PDs reported their programs have scribes for attendings, and 12% (4/34) have scribes for residents. Support staff help residents with callbacks and in-basket messages according to 76% (35/46) of respondents. The majority (98% [45/46]) of PDs indicated that residents follow-up on results and messages from patients seen in resident clinics, and 43% (20/46) of programs have residents follow-up with patients seen in faculty clinics. Only 15% (7/46) of PDs responded they have schedules with residents dedicated to handle these tasks. According to respondents, 33% (17/52) have residents who are required to travel more than 25 miles to distant clinical sites. Of them, 35% (6/17) provide accommodations.

Quality Improvement—Seventy-one percent (35/49) of respondents indicated their department has a quality improvement/patient safety team or committee, and 94% (33/35) of these teams include residents. A lecture series on quality improvement and patient safety is offered at 67% (33/49) of the respondents’ programs, while morbidity and mortality conferences are offered in 73% (36/49).

Clinical Instruction—Our survey asked PDs how many months each residency year spends on a certain rotational service. Based on 46 respondents, the average number of months dedicated to medical dermatology is 7, 5, and 6 months for postgraduate year (PGY) 2, PGY3, and PGY4, respectively. The average number of months spent in other subspecialties is provided in the Table. On average, PGY2 residents spend 8 half-days per week seeing patients in clinic, while PGY3 and PGY4 residents see patients for 7 half-days. The median and mean number of patients staffed by a single attending per hour in teaching clinics are 6 and 5.88, respectively. Respondents indicated that residents participate in the following specialty clinics: pediatric dermatology (96% [44/46]), laser/cosmetic (87% [40/44]), high-risk skin cancer (ie, immunosuppressed/transplant patient)(65% [30/44]), pigmented lesion/melanoma (52% [24/44]), connective tissue disease (52% [24/44]), teledermatology (50% [23/44]), free clinic for homeless and/or indigent populations (48% [22/44]), contact dermatitis (43% [20/44]), skin of color (43% [20/44]), oncodermatology (41% [19/44]), and bullous disease (33% [15/44]).

Additionally, in 87% (40/46) of programs, residents participate in a dedicated inpatient consultation service. Most respondents (98% [45/46]) responded that they utilize in-person consultations with a teledermatology supplement. Fifteen percent (7/46) utilize virtual teledermatology (live video-based consultations), and 57% (26/46) utilize asynchronous teledermatology (picture-based consultations). All respondents (n=46) indicated that 0% to 25% of patient encounters involving residents are teledermatology visits. Thirty-three percent (6/18) of programs have a global health special training track, 56% (10/18) have a Specialty Training and Advanced Research/Physician-Scientist Research Training track, 28% (5/18) have a diversity training track, and 50% (9/18) have a clinician educator training track.

Didactic Instruction—Five programs have a full day per week dedicated to didactics, while 36 programs have at least one half-day per week for didactics. On average, didactics in 57% (26/46) of programs are led by faculty alone, while 43% (20/46) are led at least in part by residents or fellows.

Research Content—Fifty percent (23/46) of programs have a specific research requirement for residents beyond general ACGME requirements, and 35% (16/46) require residents to participate in a longitudinal research project over the course of residency. There is a dedicated research coordinator for resident support at 63% (29/46) of programs. Dedicated biostatistics research support is available for resident projects at 42% (19/45) of programs. Additionally, at 42% (19/45) of programs, there is a dedicated faculty member for oversight of resident research.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—Seventy-three percent (29/40) of programs have special diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or meetings specific to residency, 60% (24/40) have residency initiatives, and 55% (22/40) have a residency diversity committee. Eighty-six percent (42/49) of respondents strongly agreed that their current residents represent diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds (ie, >15% are not White). eTable 1 shows PD responses to this statement, which were stratified based on self-identified race. eTable 2 shows PD responses to the statement, “Our current residents represent an inclusion of gender/sexual orientation,” which were stratified based on self-identified gender identity/sexual orientation. Lastly, eTable 3 highlights the percentage of residents with an MD and DO degree, stratified based on PD degree.

Wellness—Forty-eight percent (20/42) of respondents indicated they are under stress and do not always have as much energy as before becoming a PD but do not feel burned out. Thirty-one percent (13/42) indicated they have 1 or more symptoms of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion. Eighty-six percent (36/42) are satisfied with their jobs overall (43% agree and 43% strongly agree [18/42 each]).

Evaluation System—Seventy-five percent (33/44) of programs deliver evaluations of residents by faculty online, 86% (38/44) of programs have PDs discuss evaluations in-person, and 20% (9/44) of programs have faculty evaluators discuss evaluations in-person. Seventy-seven percent (34/44) of programs have formal faculty-resident mentor-mentee programs. Clinical competency committee chair positions are filled by PDs, assistant PDs, or core faculty members 47%, 38%, and 16% of the time, respectively.

Graduation Outcomes of PGY4 Residents—About 28% (55/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with the majority (15% [29/55]) matching into Mohs micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) fellowships. Approximately 5% (9/199) and 4% (7/199) of graduates matched into dermatopathology and pediatric dermatology, respectively. The remaining 5% (10/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship but did not match. The majority (45% [91/199]) of residency graduates entered private practice after graduation. Approximately 21% (42/199) of graduating residents chose an academic practice with 17% (33/199), 2% (4/199), and 2% (3/199) of those positions being full-time, part-time, and adjunct, respectively.

Comment

The first annual APD survey is a novel data source and provides opportunities for areas of discussion and investigation. Evaluating the similarities and differences among dermatology residency programs across the United States can strengthen individual programs through collaboration and provide areas of cohesion among programs.

Diversity of PDs—An important area of discussion is diversity and PD demographics. Although DO students make up 1 in 4 US graduating medical students, they are not interviewed or ranked as often as MD students.² Diversity in PD race and ethnicity may be worthy of investigation in future studies, as match rates and recruitment of diverse medical school applicants may be impacted by these demographics.

Continued Use of Telemedicine in Training—Since 2020, the benefits of virtual residency recruitment have been debated among PDs across all medical specialties. Points in favor of virtual interviews include cost savings for programs and especially for applicants, as well as time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. A problem posed by virtual interviews is that candidates are unable to fully learn institutional cultures and social environments of the programs.³ Likewise, telehealth was an important means of clinical teaching for residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with benefits that included cost-effectiveness and reduction of disparities in access to dermatologic care.⁴ Seventy-five percent (38/51) of PDs indicated that their program plans to include telemedicine in resident clinical rotation moving forward.

Resources Available—Our survey showed that resources available for residents, delivery of lectures and program time allocated to didactics, protected academic or study time for residents, and allocation of program time for CORE examinations are highly variable across programs. This could inspire future studies to be done to determine the differences in success of the resident on CORE examinations and in digesting material.

Postgraduate Career Plans and Fellowship Matches—Residents of programs that have a home MSDO fellowship are more likely to successfully match into a MSDO fellowship.⁵ Based on this survey, approximately 28% of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with 15%, 5%, and 3% matching into desired MSDO, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellowships, respectively. Additional studies are needed to determine advantages and disadvantages that lead to residents reaching their career goals.

Limitations—Limitations of this study include a small sample size that may not adequately represent all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs and selection bias toward respondents who are more likely to participate in survey-based research.

Conclusion

The APD plans to continue to administer this survey on an annual basis, with updates to the content and questions based on input from PDs. This survey will continue to provide valuable information to drive collaboration among residency programs and optimize the learning experience for residents. Our hope is that the response rate will increase in coming years, allowing us to draw more generalizable conclusions. Nonetheless, the survey data allow individual dermatology residency programs to compare their specific characteristics to other programs.

Educational organizations across several specialties, including internal medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, have formal surveys¹; however, the field of dermatology has been without one. This study aimed to establish a formal survey for dermatology program directors (PDs) and clinician-educators. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Dermatology surveys do not capture all metrics relevant to dermatology residency educators, an annual survey for our specialty may be helpful to compare dermatology-specific data among programs. Responses could provide context and perspective to faculty and residents who respond to the ACGME annual survey, as our Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) survey asks more in-depth questions, such as how often didactics occur and who leads them. Resident commute time and faculty demographics and training also are covered. Current ad hoc surveys disseminated through listserves of various medical associations contain overlapping questions and reflect relatively low response rates; dermatology PDs may benefit from a survey with a high response rate to which they can contribute future questions and topics that reflect recent trends and current needs in graduate medical education. As future surveys are administered, the results can be captured in a centralized database accessible by dermatology PDs.

Methods

A survey of PDs from 141 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs was conducted by the Residency Program Director Steering Committee of the APD from November 2022 to January 2023 using a prevalidated questionnaire. Personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each PD’s email listed in the ACGME accreditation data system. All survey responses were captured anonymously, with a number assigned to keep de-identified responses separate and organized. The survey consisted of 137 survey questions addressing topics that included program characteristics, PD demographics, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical rotation and educational conferences, available resident resources, quality improvement, clinical and didactic instruction, research content, diversity and inclusion, wellness, professionalism, evaluation systems, and graduate outcomes.

Data were collected using Qualtrics survey tools. After removing duplicate and incomplete surveys, data were analyzed using Qualtrics reports and Microsoft Excel for data plotting, averages, and range calculations.

Results

One hundred forty-one personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each program’s filed email obtained from the APD listserv. Fifty-three responses were recorded after removing duplicate or incomplete surveys (38% [53/141] response rate). As of May 2023, there were 144 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs due to 3 newly accredited programs in 2022-2023 academic year, which were not included in our survey population.

Program Characteristics—Forty-four respondents (83%) were from a university-based program. Fifty respondents (94%) were from programs that were ACGME accredited prior to 2020, while 3 programs (6%) were American Osteopathic Association accredited prior to singular accreditation. Seventy-one percent (38/53) of respondents had 1 or more associate PDs.

PD Demographics—Eighty-seven percent (45/52) of PDs who responded to the survey graduated from a US allopathic medical school (MD), 10% (5/52) graduated from a US osteopathic medical school (DO), and 4% (2/52) graduated from an international medical school. Seventy-four percent (35/47) of respondents were White, 17% (8/47) were Asian, and 2% (1/47) were Black or African American; this data was not provided for 4 respondents. Forty-eight percent (23/48) of PDs identified as cisgender man, 48% (23/48) identified as cisgender woman, and 4% (2/48) preferred not to answer. Eighty-one percent (38/47) of PDs identified as heterosexual or straight, 15% (7/47) identified as gay or lesbian, and 4% (2/47) preferred not to answer.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Residency Training—Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 88% (45/51) of respondents incorporated telemedicine into the resident clinical rotation schedule. Moving forward, 75% (38/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to continue to incorporate telemedicine into the rotation schedule. Based on 50 responses, the average of educational conferences that became virtual at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was 87%; based on 46 responses, the percentage of educational conferences that will remain virtual moving forward is 46%, while 90% (46/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to use virtual conferences in some capacity moving forward. Seventy-three percent (37/51) of respondents indicated that they plan to use virtual interviews as part of residency recruitment moving forward.

Available Resources—Twenty-four percent (11/46) of respondents indicated that residents in their program do not get protected time or time off for CORE examinations. Seventy-five percent (33/44) of PDs said their program provides funding for residents to participate in board review courses. The chief residents at 63% (31/49) of programs receive additional compensation, and 69% (34/49) provide additional administrative time to chief residents. Seventy-one percent (24/34) of PDs reported their programs have scribes for attendings, and 12% (4/34) have scribes for residents. Support staff help residents with callbacks and in-basket messages according to 76% (35/46) of respondents. The majority (98% [45/46]) of PDs indicated that residents follow-up on results and messages from patients seen in resident clinics, and 43% (20/46) of programs have residents follow-up with patients seen in faculty clinics. Only 15% (7/46) of PDs responded they have schedules with residents dedicated to handle these tasks. According to respondents, 33% (17/52) have residents who are required to travel more than 25 miles to distant clinical sites. Of them, 35% (6/17) provide accommodations.

Quality Improvement—Seventy-one percent (35/49) of respondents indicated their department has a quality improvement/patient safety team or committee, and 94% (33/35) of these teams include residents. A lecture series on quality improvement and patient safety is offered at 67% (33/49) of the respondents’ programs, while morbidity and mortality conferences are offered in 73% (36/49).

Clinical Instruction—Our survey asked PDs how many months each residency year spends on a certain rotational service. Based on 46 respondents, the average number of months dedicated to medical dermatology is 7, 5, and 6 months for postgraduate year (PGY) 2, PGY3, and PGY4, respectively. The average number of months spent in other subspecialties is provided in the Table. On average, PGY2 residents spend 8 half-days per week seeing patients in clinic, while PGY3 and PGY4 residents see patients for 7 half-days. The median and mean number of patients staffed by a single attending per hour in teaching clinics are 6 and 5.88, respectively. Respondents indicated that residents participate in the following specialty clinics: pediatric dermatology (96% [44/46]), laser/cosmetic (87% [40/44]), high-risk skin cancer (ie, immunosuppressed/transplant patient)(65% [30/44]), pigmented lesion/melanoma (52% [24/44]), connective tissue disease (52% [24/44]), teledermatology (50% [23/44]), free clinic for homeless and/or indigent populations (48% [22/44]), contact dermatitis (43% [20/44]), skin of color (43% [20/44]), oncodermatology (41% [19/44]), and bullous disease (33% [15/44]).

Additionally, in 87% (40/46) of programs, residents participate in a dedicated inpatient consultation service. Most respondents (98% [45/46]) responded that they utilize in-person consultations with a teledermatology supplement. Fifteen percent (7/46) utilize virtual teledermatology (live video-based consultations), and 57% (26/46) utilize asynchronous teledermatology (picture-based consultations). All respondents (n=46) indicated that 0% to 25% of patient encounters involving residents are teledermatology visits. Thirty-three percent (6/18) of programs have a global health special training track, 56% (10/18) have a Specialty Training and Advanced Research/Physician-Scientist Research Training track, 28% (5/18) have a diversity training track, and 50% (9/18) have a clinician educator training track.

Didactic Instruction—Five programs have a full day per week dedicated to didactics, while 36 programs have at least one half-day per week for didactics. On average, didactics in 57% (26/46) of programs are led by faculty alone, while 43% (20/46) are led at least in part by residents or fellows.

Research Content—Fifty percent (23/46) of programs have a specific research requirement for residents beyond general ACGME requirements, and 35% (16/46) require residents to participate in a longitudinal research project over the course of residency. There is a dedicated research coordinator for resident support at 63% (29/46) of programs. Dedicated biostatistics research support is available for resident projects at 42% (19/45) of programs. Additionally, at 42% (19/45) of programs, there is a dedicated faculty member for oversight of resident research.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—Seventy-three percent (29/40) of programs have special diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or meetings specific to residency, 60% (24/40) have residency initiatives, and 55% (22/40) have a residency diversity committee. Eighty-six percent (42/49) of respondents strongly agreed that their current residents represent diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds (ie, >15% are not White). eTable 1 shows PD responses to this statement, which were stratified based on self-identified race. eTable 2 shows PD responses to the statement, “Our current residents represent an inclusion of gender/sexual orientation,” which were stratified based on self-identified gender identity/sexual orientation. Lastly, eTable 3 highlights the percentage of residents with an MD and DO degree, stratified based on PD degree.

Wellness—Forty-eight percent (20/42) of respondents indicated they are under stress and do not always have as much energy as before becoming a PD but do not feel burned out. Thirty-one percent (13/42) indicated they have 1 or more symptoms of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion. Eighty-six percent (36/42) are satisfied with their jobs overall (43% agree and 43% strongly agree [18/42 each]).

Evaluation System—Seventy-five percent (33/44) of programs deliver evaluations of residents by faculty online, 86% (38/44) of programs have PDs discuss evaluations in-person, and 20% (9/44) of programs have faculty evaluators discuss evaluations in-person. Seventy-seven percent (34/44) of programs have formal faculty-resident mentor-mentee programs. Clinical competency committee chair positions are filled by PDs, assistant PDs, or core faculty members 47%, 38%, and 16% of the time, respectively.

Graduation Outcomes of PGY4 Residents—About 28% (55/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with the majority (15% [29/55]) matching into Mohs micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) fellowships. Approximately 5% (9/199) and 4% (7/199) of graduates matched into dermatopathology and pediatric dermatology, respectively. The remaining 5% (10/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship but did not match. The majority (45% [91/199]) of residency graduates entered private practice after graduation. Approximately 21% (42/199) of graduating residents chose an academic practice with 17% (33/199), 2% (4/199), and 2% (3/199) of those positions being full-time, part-time, and adjunct, respectively.

Comment

The first annual APD survey is a novel data source and provides opportunities for areas of discussion and investigation. Evaluating the similarities and differences among dermatology residency programs across the United States can strengthen individual programs through collaboration and provide areas of cohesion among programs.

Diversity of PDs—An important area of discussion is diversity and PD demographics. Although DO students make up 1 in 4 US graduating medical students, they are not interviewed or ranked as often as MD students.² Diversity in PD race and ethnicity may be worthy of investigation in future studies, as match rates and recruitment of diverse medical school applicants may be impacted by these demographics.

Continued Use of Telemedicine in Training—Since 2020, the benefits of virtual residency recruitment have been debated among PDs across all medical specialties. Points in favor of virtual interviews include cost savings for programs and especially for applicants, as well as time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. A problem posed by virtual interviews is that candidates are unable to fully learn institutional cultures and social environments of the programs.³ Likewise, telehealth was an important means of clinical teaching for residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with benefits that included cost-effectiveness and reduction of disparities in access to dermatologic care.⁴ Seventy-five percent (38/51) of PDs indicated that their program plans to include telemedicine in resident clinical rotation moving forward.

Resources Available—Our survey showed that resources available for residents, delivery of lectures and program time allocated to didactics, protected academic or study time for residents, and allocation of program time for CORE examinations are highly variable across programs. This could inspire future studies to be done to determine the differences in success of the resident on CORE examinations and in digesting material.

Postgraduate Career Plans and Fellowship Matches—Residents of programs that have a home MSDO fellowship are more likely to successfully match into a MSDO fellowship.⁵ Based on this survey, approximately 28% of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with 15%, 5%, and 3% matching into desired MSDO, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellowships, respectively. Additional studies are needed to determine advantages and disadvantages that lead to residents reaching their career goals.

Limitations—Limitations of this study include a small sample size that may not adequately represent all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs and selection bias toward respondents who are more likely to participate in survey-based research.

Conclusion

The APD plans to continue to administer this survey on an annual basis, with updates to the content and questions based on input from PDs. This survey will continue to provide valuable information to drive collaboration among residency programs and optimize the learning experience for residents. Our hope is that the response rate will increase in coming years, allowing us to draw more generalizable conclusions. Nonetheless, the survey data allow individual dermatology residency programs to compare their specific characteristics to other programs.

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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