Friday, December 16, 2011

As Doctors Use More Devices, Potential for Distraction Grows -



This phenomenon has set off an intensifying discussion at hospitals and medical schools about a problem perhaps best described as "distracted doctoring." In response, some hospitals have begun limiting the use of devices in critical settings, while schools have started reminding medical students to focus on patients instead of gadgets, even as the students are being given more devices.

"You walk around the hospital, and what you see is not funny," said Dr. Peter J. Papadakos, an anesthesiologist and director of critical care at the University of Rochester Medical Center in upstate New York, who added that he had seen nurses, doctors and other staff members glued to their phones, computers and iPads.

"You justify carrying devices around the hospital to do medical records," he said. "But you can surf the Internet or do Facebook, and sometimes, for whatever reason, Facebook is more tempting."

"My gut feeling is lives are in danger," said Dr. Papadakos, who recently published an article on "electronic distraction" in Anesthesiology News, a journal. "We're not educating people about the problem, and it's getting worse."


About 40 percent said they believed talking on the phone during surgery to be "always an unsafe practice." About half said the same about texting. The study's authors concluded, "Such distractions have the potential to be disastrous."


The pressure stems from a mantra of modern medicine that patient care must be "data driven," and informed by the latest, instantly accessible information. Annual investment in gadgets and other technology by hospitals and doctors has soared into the billions of dollars.


Dr. Peter W. Carmel, president of the American Medical Association, a physicians group, said technology "offers great potential in health care," but he added that doctors' first priority should be with the patient.


"The computer has become a good place to get a result, communicate with other people," said Abraham Verghese, a doctor and professor at the Stanford University Medical Center and a best-selling medical writer. "In the interest of preventing medical error, it's a good friend."

At the same time, he said, the wealth of data on the screen — what he frequently refers to as the "iPatient" — gets all the attention.

"The iPatient is getting wonderful care across America," Dr. Verghese said. "The real patient wonders, 'Where is everybody?' "



"He was making personal calls," Mr. Eldredge said, at least 10 of them to family and business associates, according to phone records. His client's case was settled before a lawsuit was filed so there are no court records, like the name of the patient, doctor or hospital involved. Mr. Eldredge, citing the agreement, declined to provide further details.

Others describe multitasking as relatively commonplace.

"I've seen texting among people I'm supervising in the O.R.," said Dr. Stephen Luczycki, an anesthesiologist and medical director in one of the surgical intensive care units at Yale-New Haven Hospital. He said he had also seen young anesthesiologists using the operating room computer during surgery.

"It is not, unfortunately, uncommon to see them doing any number of things with that computer beyond patient care," Dr. Luczycki said, including checking e-mail and studying or entering logs on a separate case. He said that when he was in training, he was admonished to not even study a textbook in surgery, so he could focus on the rhythm and subtleties of the procedures.


"Amazon, Gmail, I've seen all sorts of shopping, I've seen eBay," he said. "You name it, I've seen it."

Dr. Luczycki is also a huge fan of technology's positive impact on medicine. So, too, is Dio Sumagaysay, administrative director of 24 operating rooms at Oregon Health and Science University hospitals, even though he has heard about or witnessed instances of people using devices during critical moments.


Mr. Sumagaysay established a policy to make operating rooms "quiet zones," banning any activity that was not focused on patient care. He later had to reprimand a nurse he saw checking airline prices using an operating room computer during a spinal operation.



"Devices have a great capacity to reduce risk," Dr. Charles G. Prober, senior associate dean for medical education at the school, said. "But the last thing we want to see, and what is happening in some cases now, is the computer coming between the patient and his doctor."

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Emergency contraceptives over the counter: Are they more dangerous than other drugs? - Slate Magazine

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA's recommendationthat emergency contraception be made available over the counter to patients of all ages on Wednesday. Her argument was that its effects on 11-year-olds have not been thoroughly studied. Critics pointed out that many over-the-counter drugs are far more dangerous than emergency contraceptives. What's the most dangerous drug you can buy without a prescription?
It's hard to say. As far as the Explainer can tell, no researcher has ever compared the fatality rates of every drug available over the counter—probably because the number of deaths from overdose of antacids and many other products is so small as to make the study a waste of time. There is, however, a large body of research on pain relievers. Analgesic overdoses are pretty common in the United States. In 2000, poison-control centers received more than 130,000 calls from people who believed they had taken a dangerous amount of an over-the-counter painkiller. Nearly one-half of those calls concerned acetaminophen, best known as the active ingredient in Tylenol. Approximately 0.2 percent of those cases ended in death. That's higher than the reported death rate for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like Advil (ibuprofen) and Aleve (naproxen), but lower than the fatality rate for aspirin. (Aspirin is technically in the same category, but is often separated for research purposes.)* However, most of the aspirin deaths appear to have been suicides, while accidental overdose is more common than intentional overdose for acetaminophen. Between the years 1990 and 1998, 458 people died from taking too much acetaminophen.*
Pseudoephedrine, a very common cold medication, is also implicated in a number of deaths every year. In 2004, for example, poison-control centers reported 21 deaths in which the chemical was involved. However, most of those patients took a cocktail of drugs—often including acetaminophen—and many of the cases were ruled suicides. It's also not entirely correct to call pseudoephedrine an over-counter drug. A 2005 act of Congress forced retailers to move it behind the counter because of its use in the production of methamphetamine.
Of course, many other drugs can be fatal if you go way overboard. Even Epsom salts, which are commonly used as a laxative, can cause cardiac arrest. A hospital in Scotland reported a case of attempted suicide by Epsom salts in 2009. The woman ingested an incredible 4.4 pounds of the stuff. She suffered some acute cardiac complications, but doctors were able to save her.

It's not easy to determine the fatal dose of over-the-counter drugs. Take the example of acetaminophen. A person's ability to handle the drug depends on a variety of factors, including the condition of their liver, how much they've eaten, and whether they take the pill in conjunction with alcohol. (Bad idea.) Compared to other over-the-counter drugs, acetaminophen has a relatively narrow safety margin—that is, the difference between a safe-but-effective dose and an overdose is relatively small. Doctors have reported liver failure from as little as 2.5 grams in a day, which is 1.5 grams less than the approved limit.

The FDA has considered reducing the approved daily dose (PDF) of over-the-counter acetaminophen, but that wouldn't help in all cases. Many patients don't realize how much of the drug they're taking. Those who are prescribed the painkiller Percocet, for example, might take over-the-counter acetaminophen as an adjunct for different or breakthrough pain. The problem is that Percoset contains acetaminophen, and the combination can easily put them over the dose limit.
What's the fatal dose of emergency contraceptive? Nobody knows. The drug certainly has side effects, like nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, and the like. Women who use the morning-after pill as their regular form of contraception can also experience some menstrual irregularities. But no one has taken a fatal dose of Plan B.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Painkillers for N.F.L. Players? Not So Fast -

The former professional football player is confused. It is difficult for him to pinpoint, after the pads have come off for good, the precise cause of his aching body and his aching soul. He knows that the game did it. But what part of the game? Was it the physical violence? The psychological warfare? The realization that his life peaked in his 20s? The drugs he took to stay on the field? Whatever the cause, there is always the pain. The pain is constant in football and as a result it is constantly being manipulated.

Last week a group of 12 former National Football League players filed a class-action lawsuit against the league, claiming that the N.F.L. and its teams failed to warn players of the side effects of the drug Toradol, widely administered to players before games to numb pain. The lawsuit contends that the use of the drug masked injuries like concussions and thus further endangered the athletes.

When I played for the Denver Broncos, from 2003 to 2008, Toradol was a popular pregame injection. The night before we took the field, 10 to 20 of us would go into a designated room and stand in line to receive our shots. I don't remember what, if any, specific injury I was nursing on any particular occasion. I do remember that my body was perpetually feeling bad, as were those of my teammates. Our training staff knew this and would encourage us to get a shot. We were told it would make us feel better. So we lined up for the needle.

When I got to the front of the line, I was told that the shot was known to cause internal bleeding in a very small percentage of patients but otherwise was safe. This disclaimer was given with needle in hand and a line of men waiting behind me. There was no hesitation, no trepidation, no point at which I felt that taking Toradol was a risk. I trusted our team doctors. They wouldn't suggest a drug if it was dangerous.

The big risk, in my mind, was not being at my best the next day. The big risk was not taking the shot, playing poorly and being viewed by the staff as unwilling to do what it took to help the team win. The big risk was losing my job.

The N.F.L. is a machine. The operators of the machine pull its levers more frantically every season, pushing it past its breaking point. So the league has stockpiled interchangeable spare parts. The broken ones are seamlessly replaced and the machine keeps rolling. The old pieces are discarded and left to rust in a scrap heap.

This harsh reality is softened by human relationships. Football players spend every day with the members of their team's medical staff. They learn to trust them. The athletic trainers nurse the players back to health when they are injured. The team doctors perform their operations. Friendships are formed and bonds are created. But underneath it all hums the machine.

Athletic trainers are paid to keep the machine humming. The long-term health of the individual player is not their first concern; the health of the team is. The faster a trainer gets his players back on the field, the more likely he'll be to keep his job. Trainers are under pressure to do this by masking a player's pain with drugs and designing a hasty rehabilitation schedule, even if it inevitably trades one injury for the next.

The player rarely if ever has a say in the treatment process. When he is injured, the athletic trainers and team doctors take the necessary X-rays and M.R.I.'s and decide on the course of action among themselves. Only afterward do they tell the player what injury they have found and how they will treat it. If the player seeks a second opinion, which he is technically allowed to do, it is taken as an affront to the medical staff, and he will be treated in the training room like a turncoat. The medical staff issues its reports to the head coach, and is often beholden to him, which is another reason that players don't challenge their diagnoses or treatments.

The player is not told how to access his medical records or whether he even has a right to them. The folder of my medical records was as thick as a dictionary and I never had access to it. Even after I filed a workers' compensation lawsuit against the Broncos a year ago that later included a request for that folder, I still don't have it. The team hasn't released it to me.

If the N.F.L. is serious about protecting its players, it should appoint a league-wide medical body, unaffiliated with any specific team, to oversee players' health. Such an institution would be able to provide care to the athlete without the interests of his team distorting treatment.

Until then, teams will continue to convince players that their bodies and brains are ready for professional football, even when they are not. The injured body needs coaxing. It needs to be stroked, rubbed, heated, stretched and lied to. There are coaches, owners, trainers, fans and a host of media people counting on the players, after all, ready to question their manhood if they decide that the pain is too much to bear.

But the next game, the game that right now feels so important, will pass. In a couple of weeks, few will ever speak of it again. And then it's on to the next one. And the machine will keep humming.

Nate Jackson is working on a book about life in the N.F.L.

Facebook launches tool to report suicidal behavior | Reuters













Monday, December 12, 2011

Many elderly screened for cancer despite doubts | Reuters






















