Just want to share my two recent articles on depression that were published in The Hill.
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Saturday, August 1, 2020
It is 2020 and we still have to remind the health care decision makers that data need to be collected, analyzed, and reported by race, ethnicity, and gender. The reason behind this push to have meaningful inclusion of diverse population is that it is good science; and, to not do so may have dangerous consequences. This is especially true for clinical trials as they are meant to provide information that is useful about anyone who will use it or take it. Here is our OpEd piece on COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials that appeared in The Hill.
As COVID-19 began to change our way of life I knew that this would be a hard time for most people and that many people would need support. I wrote the first edition in 2011 and because of how the science has advanced and how our expectations have changed what started as an update ended up being 90% new plus 92 endnotes.
Life has changed and what is needed is a combination of science, clinical insights, and the lessons learned from many others. There is much that we can do on our own to make our lives better and when we cannot do it alone...there are many options for treatment.
The book is available at Amazon and at your local bookstores.
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
Keeping patients and health care workers safe is more than cleaning surfaces and having people tested for COVID-19 four days before they come from a procedure. It also means thinking about exposure, viral load, and ventilation. The time a patient spends in a hospital or health care facilities must be minimized for the health of the patient and all those who work in a health care setting. Procedures need to be recalibrated in real time to take into account the changing realities of COVID-19. It is not about having to wait; it is about the extra time spent possibly being exposed or exposing others.
For example, it is unconscionable that Georgetown University Hospital asks patients to check-in 2 hours before they are taken in to start the prep-op for a procedure. Good management practices would find it unacceptable that the process should take 2 hours. In the case that I witnessed the process actually took less than 20 minutes but the patient had to be there 2 hours before and then ended up waiting an additional hour because the other procedures were delayed. Of course there is paperwork that needs to be done, but much of that can be, and is often accomplished by phone or online.
I contacted the hospital by email about my concerns. The “Patient Advocate” responded in a way that made clear that they were an advocate for the hospital. I eventually called Dr. Michael Sachtleben, President, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and Dr. Lisa Boyle, Vice President of Medical Affairs kindly returned the call. I emphasized that especially now, under the current circumstances, 2 hours should be unacceptable to all. For certain what is required is timely action and not the process of a committee to agree that 2 hours is too long. The goal must be to reduce time spent in the hospital as much as possible. No excuses. Following pre-COVID-19 standard operating procedures is dangerous to some and fatal to others.
I will see if there is any change as I will be taking my patient back for a repeat procedure.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
In August 2018 I wrote my first blog on Vitamin D and wondered how long it would take for clinical practice to change. Much more has been documented since then to move prescribers to rethink and change what they recommend.
On August 27, 2019 JAMA published an original investigation, “Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” The September 3, 2019 NEJM Journal Watch comments on the study were succinct, “In any case, the findings point to no benefit for bone integrity — and even potential harm — with high-dose vitamin D supplementation in patients whose vitamin D levels are adequate.”
Even with critically ill patients the benefits were not evident. The December 26, 2019 NEJM original article “Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 for Critically Ill, Vitamin D–Deficient Patients” from The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network concluded “Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D3 did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients."
When it comes to recommending Vitamin D the willingness to change current prescribing behavior is still missing. The lag between the bench and clinical practice is not just a matter of communication; prescribers also have to be willing to change.