Strategies for physicians to prevent burnout

- Kenny Lin, MD

Although they probably came as little surprise to most of us who practice primary care, the results of a national survey of physician burnout in the Archives of Internal Medicine earlier this year made headlines in The New York Times and The Atlantic. This study found that 1) physicians are more likely to experience symptoms of burnout than similarly educated workers in the U.S. general population; and 2) physicians on the "front line of care access" - family physicians, general internists, and emergency medicine physicians - had the highest rates of burnout.

A Curbside Consultation in the November 1st issue of AFP discussed the distinct but closely related problem of demoralization in a family physician who serves as the part-time medical director for a financially troubled clinic for children with developmental disorders. This physician was forced to accept layoffs of several key staff members without a corresponding decrease in workload:

She recognized the great need of these children and families, and had talked with other staff and administration about additional programs she wanted to develop. She now would have to say good-bye to coworkers and abandon her hopes for a larger and more robust program. She realized that the remaining staff, herself included, would have to work harder, and that she would have less time to spend with patients, the part of the work she found most fulfilling. Patients who needed the most help would, in fact, get less help. ... Over the next week, she became dejected and sad.

In the accompanying commentary, Dr. Stewart Gabel connected the often temporary state of demoralization to the more serious and persistent state of burnout:

Demoralization is a state of hopelessness and helplessness that is akin to, but separable from, depression. It is associated with a sense of subjective incompetence, the belief that a person is unable to express his or her values and achieve his or her goals. Demoralization has an existential dimension that is associated with the affected person's experienced losses. ... Moving past demoralization involves remoralization, or the renewal of one's personal values and the activities that stem from these values. ... However, if not addressed, persistent feelings of demoralization are likely to result in or contribute to burnout.

How can physicians prevent the demands of practicing present-day medicine from leading them down the road to burnout? An article in Family Practice Management suggested eight ideas, including joining a physician support group; strengthening interpersonal communication skills; and making it a priority to address the spiritual needs of patients and themselves.

New treatments for head lice

- Kenny Lin, MD

Pediculosis is a distressing diagnosis that frequently causes children to be sent home from school or day care. In the September 15th issue of American Family Physician, Dr. Karen Gunning and colleagues provided a treatment update for pediculosis and scabies. Permethrin 1% lotion or shampoo is the recommended first-line treatment for head lice infestation (see illustration below). However, permethrin resistance is increasingly common in many communities, and second-line therapies have substantial disadvantages: malathion is flammable, and lindane is neurotoxic and cannot be used in young children. Additional safe, effective treatments are now being developed.

Yesterday, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine the results of two randomized trials evaluating a single 10-minute home application of topical 0.5% ivermectin lotion for head lice in patients 6 months of age or older. Compared to the control groups, patient assigned to receive ivermectin were significantly more likely to be louse-free at day 2 (95% vs. 31%) and day 15 (74% vs. 18%), with no difference in adverse events. A major limitation of these studies is that topical ivermectin was compared to a placebo rather than to established head lice treatments.

Often, new treatments are no better than old ones

- Kenny Lin, MD

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis from the Cochrane Collaboration broke new ground in evaluating not one intervention or group of interventions for a single health condition, but the more general question of whether new treatments are more effective than established ones. The authors analyzed data from four cohorts of publicly funded trials of cancer treatments, treatments for neurological problems, and treatments for mixed diseases. In this sample, they found that slightly more than half of new treatments turned out to be better than old ones, but not by much: primary outcomes were just 9 percent better with the new treatments, and mortality fell by only 5 percent.

To make it easier for family physicians to compare new treatments to old ones, AFP publishes the STEPS (Safety, Tolerability, Effectiveness, Price, and Simplicity) series of new drug reviews. The October 15th issue includes a STEPS review of rivaroxaban (Xarelto), a new oral anticoagulant that is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Under Effectiveness, the review notes: "Rivaroxaban was as effective as warfarin at preventing stroke and systemic embolism, and reduced annual stroke rates to 2.1 percent, compared with 2.4 percent for warfarin. No trials have compared rivaroxaban with dabigatran (Pradaxa), a direct thrombin inhibitor, or with fondaparinux (Arixtra), an injectable factor Xa inhibitor." Rivaroxaban does not require laboratory INR monitoring like warfarin, but costs more than 40 times as much. Family physicians and patients will need to decide whether this relatively small benefit is worth the increased cost of this new drug compared to the old.

Why don't comparative effectiveness studies change clinical practice?

- Kenny Lin, MD

The October 1st issue features the third article in AFP's new series "Implementing Effective Health Care Reviews," a summary of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's comparative effectiveness report on treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Notably, the report found no differences in efficacy between proton pump inhibitors; better symptom relief from continuous daily compared with on-demand dosing; and limited data on endoscopic treatments. What are the chances that results from this and other high-quality comparative effectiveness studies will quickly change your practice? Not very good, unfortunately. As I wrote in an editorial that introduced the series:

To date, the track record of translating comparative effectiveness research findings into clinical practice has been mixed, at best. For example, several years after a landmark randomized controlled trial demonstrated the superiority of thiazide diuretics compared with other first-line medications for hypertension, prescribing of thiazide diuretics had increased only modestly. An evaluation of diabetes practice guidelines produced after the publication of an Effective Health Care review of oral treatments found numerous inconsistencies between guideline recommendations and evidence-based conclusions. Despite extensive evidence that initial coronary stenting provides no advantages over optimal medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease, more than one-half of patients who undergo stenting in the United States have not had a prior trial of medical therapy.

In the October issue of Health Affairs, Justin Timbie and colleagues propose five reasons that scientific evidence is slow to change how physicians practice:

1) Misalignment of financial incentives - e.g., fee-for-service payment systems tend to reward invasive therapies, such as surgery for back pain, that may be no better than conservative management.

2) Ambiguity of results - "Without consensus on evidentiary standards prior to the release of comparative effectiveness results, ambiguous results become fuel for competing interpretations, making it difficult for providers, insurers, and policy makers to act on the evidence."

3) Cognitive biases in interpreting new information - e.g., a tendency to reject evidence that contradicts previous strongly held beliefs, such as the superiority of atypical to conventional antipsychotics.

4) Failure to address the needs of end users - e.g., designing a study to compare the benefits of two therapeutic strategies, but not the harms.

5) Limited use of decision support - e.g., poorly designed electronic or paper patient decision aids that do not fit into the workflow of primary care practices.

Do these reasons sound about right to you? How do you think these obstacles could be overcome in order for front-line family physicians to rapidly incorporate the best scientific evidence into their practices?

Who should receive medications for influenza?

- Kenny Lin, MD

Flu season is coming soon, and in addition to familiarizing themselves with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vaccination guidelines for the 2012-13 season (offer influenza vaccine to everyone 6 months of age or older), physicians should consider how they plan to diagnose patients with suspected influenza. Despite the availability of multiple antiviral medications for influenza, whom to treat remains a challenging question.

In a 2010 Cochrane for Clinicians commentary, Dr. William E. Cayley observed that the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir provided limited benefits for prevention and treatment of otherwise healthy persons with influenza. However, this conclusion was based on incomplete data - that is, results from published trials only. Subsequently, the Cochrane review authors were able to access several unpublished "clinical study reports" from the manufacturers and modified the review to reflect these additional data. In an updated Cochrane for Clinicians, published in the October 1st issue of AFP, Dr. Cayley finds that the evidence no longer supports using neuraminidase inhibitors to prevent influenza transmission:

The authors found that, based on clinical study reports, treatment with oseltamivir reduced the likelihood of an antibody response to influenza, the diagnostic marker that is typically used to determine the effectiveness of prophylaxis. In the absence of another way to measure the effectiveness of oseltamivir prophylaxis, it is uncertain whether the medication reduces the risk of influenza transmission.

Even for treatment of persons with influenza, the benefits of antivirals are modest: oseltamivir reduced the duration of symptoms by less than one day and had no effect on hospitalizations. Since these medications have side effects, physicians may reserve their use for persons at higher risk of complications, such as those with asthma or other chronic respiratory problems. As Dr. Cayley notes, existing guidelines are only as good as the evidence that supports them - and in the case of influenza treatments, not very good at all:

The contrast between the limited positive findings of this review and the strong support for treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors in public health guidelines (such as those from the CDC) highlights the importance of ongoing assessment of such recommendations and related educational materials, especially when evidence to support widespread implementation of an expensive intervention is lacking.

The spiritual assessment in family medicine: unnecessary or essential?

- Kenny Lin, MD

Since it became possible to post online comments on AFP content earlier this year, no single article has prompted as many comments as "The Spiritual Assessment," published in the September 15th issue. The range of comments thus far reflects family physicians' diversity of views on this topic. For example, while one reader opined that spiritual concerns have "little to do with improving the health of our patients," another countered, "I do not think this article goes far enough in promoting this type of spiritual health assessment." Another reader argued that the spiritual assessment should "not be elevated to the status of another vital sign we must always take." Some readers expressed concerns that physicians might seek to impose their religious beliefs on vulnerable patients, while another suggested that "many physicians seem to have more fear of [discussing] spiritual issues than the patients do."

In the article, Drs. Aaron Saguil and Karen Phelps suggest assessing older patients, hospitalized patients, and patients with worsening or terminal illness, who are more likely to be interested in sharing their spiritual or religious beliefs. Other patients may bring up their faith or spiritual practices without prompting in the course of a normal conversation. Since 80 percent of patients and family physicians perceive religion to be important, according to the authors, acknowledging and supporting spiritual beliefs is a key component of holistic, patient-centered care:

The spiritual assessment allows physicians to support patients by stressing empathetic listening, documenting spiritual preferences for future visits, incorporating the precepts of patients' faith traditions into treatment plans, and encouraging patients to use the resources of their spiritual traditions and communities for overall wellness. Conducting the spiritual assessment also may help strengthen the physician-patient relationship and offer physicians opportunities for personal renewal, resiliency, and growth.

We invite other readers to share their perspectives on the role of the spiritual assessment in family medicine by posting a comment on the article, posting a comment to this blog, or sending an e-mail to afpcomment@aafp.org.

What works for patients with irritable bowel syndrome?

- Kenny Lin, MD

A lot of treatments do, according to a review article by Thad Wilkins, MD and colleagues in the Sept. 1 issue of American Family Physician. Most effective appear to be regular exercise, antibiotics, antispasmodics, peppermint oil, and probiotics. Less effective (increase stool frequency but not pain) are over-the-counter antidiarrheals and laxatives. Fiber is no more effective than placebo. Other treatments that can provide some benefit include antidepressants, psychological therapies, and lubiprostone. With this many options to choose from, the challenge for physicians is selecting treatments that are most likely to benefit individual patients. The authors suggest classifying irritable bowel syndrome as diarrhea-predominant, constipation-predominant, or mixed presentation to guide initial and subsequent choices. Forming a therapeutic alliance with patients is critical, since IBS symptoms often recur despite treatment, and "a positive patient-physician interaction is associated with fewer return visits for IBS and is a key component in the treatment of these patients." A freely accessible handout for patients summarizes the most common treatments and provides additional informational resources.