Search

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+) populations in the United States continue to experience disparities in health and health care. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians reaffirms and updates much of its longstanding policy on LGBTQ+ health. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+) populations in the United States continue to experience disparities in health and health care. Discrimination in both health care and society at large negatively affects LGBTQ+ health. Although progress has been made in addressing health disparities and reducing social inequality for these populations, new challenges have emerged. There is a pressing need for physicians and other health professionals to take a stance against discriminatory policies as renewed federal and state public policy efforts increasingly impose medically unnecessary restrictions on the provision of gender-affirming care. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) reaffirms and updates much of its long-standing policy on LGBTQ+ health to strongly support access to evidence-based, clinically indicated gender-affirming care and oppose political efforts to interfere in the patient–physician relationship. Furthermore, ACP opposes institutional and legal restrictions on undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education and training on gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ health issues. This paper also offers policy recommendations to protect the right of all people to participate in public life free from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation and encourages the deployment of inclusive, nondiscriminatory, and evidence-based blood donation policies for members of LGBTQ+ communities. Underlying these beliefs is a reaffirmed commitment to promoting equitable access to quality care for all people regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) calls for the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use and outlines a public health approach to controlling cannabis in jurisdictions where it is legal. ACP recommends the rigorous evaluation of the health effects and potential therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids as well as research into the effects of legalization on cannabis use. ACP also calls for evidence-based medical education related to cannabis and increased resources for cannabis use disorder treatment. Cannabis, also known as marijuana, is the dried flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves of the Cannabis sativa plant. It contains more than 100 compounds, including tetrahydrocannabinol, which has psychoactive effects. Federal law prohibits the possession, distribution, and use of cannabis outside limited research activities, but most states have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use. However, research into the potential therapeutic and adverse health effects of cannabis has been limited, in part because of the drug's federal legal status. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) calls for the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use and outlines a public health approach to controlling cannabis in jurisdictions where it is legal. ACP recommends the rigorous evaluation of the health effects and potential therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids as well as research into the effects of legalization on cannabis use. It also calls for evidence-based medical education related to cannabis and increased resources for treatment of cannabis use disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies have a variety of applications throughout the provision of health care, such as clinical documentation, diagnostic image processing, and clinical decision support. This position paper describes the American College of Physicians' (ACP) foundational positions and recommendations regarding the use of these technologies in the provision of health care. The foundation of these positions are principles in the ACP Ethics Manual. Internal medicine physicians are increasingly interacting with systems that implement artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. Some physicians and health care systems are even developing their own AI models, both within and outside of electronic health record (EHR) systems. These technologies have various applications throughout the provision of health care, such as clinical documentation, diagnostic image processing, and clinical decision support. With the growing availability of vast amounts of patient data and unprecedented levels of clinician burnout, the proliferation of these technologies is cautiously welcomed by some physicians. Others think it presents challenges to the patient–physician relationship and the professional integrity of physicians. These dispositions are understandable, given the "black box" nature of some AI models, for which specifications and development methods can be closely guarded or proprietary, along with the relative lagging or absence of appropriate regulatory scrutiny and validation. This American College of Physicians (ACP) position paper describes the College's foundational positions and recommendations regarding the use of AI- and ML-enabled tools and systems in the provision of health care. Many of the College's positions and recommendations, such as those related to patient-centeredness, privacy, and transparency, are founded on principles in the ACP Ethics Manual. They are also derived from considerations for the clinical safety and effectiveness of the tools as well as their potential consequences regarding health disparities. The College calls for more research on the clinical and ethical implications of these technologies and their effects on patient health and well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Respect for the scientific process and a diversity of views; open discourse and debate based on principles of ethics, best available evidence, and scientific inquiry and integrity; and an understanding of evidence gaps and uncertainty and how to communicate about them are important values in the advancement of science and the practice of medicine. Physicians often must make decisions about their recommendations to patients in the face of scarce or conflicting data. Are these characteristics of medicine and science widely understood and effectively communicated among members of the profession and to patients and the public? Issues of scientific integrity are longstanding, but COVID-19 brought them to the forefront, in an environment that was sometimes characterized by communication missteps as guidance came and went-or changed-quickly. Today, is open debate flourishing? Have some debates shed more heat than light? Are people losing confidence in science and medicine? In health care institutions? The American College of Physicians explores these issues and offers guidance in this position paper., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M24-0648.

Access to safe and stable housing has both a direct and indirect effect on health. Homeless persons experience unique health challenges and require a health care system and professionals designed to meet their distinct needs. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) recognizes the need to address universal access to housing to fulfil one's right to health. ACP offers several recommendations to prevent homelessness and promote the necessary health care and social needs of homeless populations. Access to safe and stable housing has both a direct and indirect effect on health. Experiencing homelessness and housing instability can induce stress and trauma, worsening behavioral health and substance use. The absence of safe and stable living conditions can make it challenging to rest, recuperate, and recover from health ailments and can pose barriers to treatment adherence. Homelessness and housing instability is associated with high rates of numerous diseases and chronic conditions. Its cyclical relationship with other social drivers of health can exacerbate health disparities. As a result, unhoused persons experience unique health challenges and require a health care system and professionals designed to meet their distinct needs. Physicians and other health professionals have a role in educating themselves about the needs of unhoused patients as well as making themselves aware of community and government resources available to these populations. Policymakers must support health professionals in these efforts by supporting the data infrastructure needed to facilitate these referrals to resources, supporting research into best practices for caring for these populations, and investing in community-based organization capacity. Policy action is needed to address the underlying drivers of homelessness, including a dearth of affordable housing, while also addressing the short-term need for safe shelter now. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) recognizes the need to address universal access to housing to fulfill one's right to health. ACP offers several recommendations to prevent homelessness and promote the necessary health care and social needs of unhoused populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Team-based care models such as the Patient-Centered Medical Home are associated with improved patient health outcomes, better team coordination and collaboration, and increased well-being among health care professionals. Yet, hindrances to wider adoption remain. In this paper, the American College of Physicians reaffirms the importance of the physician-led health care team and offers policy recommendations on professionalism, payment models, training, licensure, and research to support the expansion of dynamic clinical care teams. Team-based care models such as the Patient-Centered Medical Home are associated with improved patient health outcomes, better team coordination and collaboration, and increased well-being among health care professionals. Despite these attributes, hindrances to wider adoption remain. In addition, some health care professionals have sought to practice independent of the physician-led health care team, potentially undermining patient access to physicians who have the skills and training to deliver whole-person, comprehensive, and longitudinal care. In this paper, the American College of Physicians reaffirms the importance of the physician-led health care team and offers policy recommendations on professionalism, payment models, training, licensure, and research to support the expansion of dynamic clinical care teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This position paper provides guidance for how physicians should approach fundraising with grateful patients. The paper covers ethical issues and outlines practical management strategies that ensure the patient–provider relationship is respected and preserved at all times. Physician solicitation of charitable contributions from patients—also known among other things as grateful patient fundraising—raises significant ethical concerns. These include pressure on patients to donate and the effects of this on the patient–physician relationship, potential expectations of donor patients for treatment that is not indicated or preferential care, justice and fairness issues, disclosure and use of confidential patient information for nontreatment purposes, and conflicts of interest. The patient–physician relationship and knowledge of the patient's medical history, clinical status, personal information, and financial circumstances are some of the reasons development and administrative officials might see physicians as strong potential fundraisers. But those are among the reasons grateful patient fundraising is ethically problematic. This American College of Physicians position paper explores these issues and offers guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship of health to rights or human rights is complex. Although many find no right of any kind to health or health care, and others view health care as a right or human right, the American College of Physicians (ACP) instead sees health as a human right . The College, in the ACP Ethics Manual, has long noted the interrelated nature of health and human rights. Health as a human right also has implications for the social and structural determinants of health, including health care. Any rights framework is imperfect, and rights, human rights, and ethical obligations are not synonymous. Individual physicians and the profession have ethical obligations to patients, and these obligations can go beyond matters of rights. Society, too, has responsibilities-the equitable and universal access to appropriate health care is an ethical obligation of a just society. By recognizing health as a human right based in the intrinsic dignity and equality of all patients and supporting the patient-physician relationship and health systems that promote equitable access to appropriate health care, the United States can move closer to respecting, protecting, and fulfilling for all the opportunity for health., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-1900.

This ACP position paper addresses current controversies about the determination of death and encourages physicians to advocate for policies and practices on the determination of death that are consistent with the profession's fundamental and timeless commitment to individual patients and the public. The determination of a patient's death is of considerable medical and ethical significance. Death is a biological concept with social implications. Acting with honesty, transparency, respect, and integrity is critical to trust in the patient–physician relationship, and the profession, in life and in death. Over time, cases about the determination of death have raised questions that need to be addressed. This American College of Physicians position paper addresses current controversies and supports a clarification to the Uniform Determination of Death Act; maintaining the 2 current independent standards of determining death, cardiorespiratory and neurologic; retaining the whole brain death standard; aligning medical testing with the standards; keeping issues about the determination of death separate from organ transplantation; reaffirming the importance and role of the dead donor rule; and engaging in educational efforts for health professionals, patients, and the public on these issues. Physicians should advocate for policies and practices on the determination of death that are consistent with the profession's fundamental and timeless commitment to individual patients and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant gaps in the United States' pandemic and public health emergency response system. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) offers several policy recommendations for enhancing federal, state, and local preparedness for future pandemics and public health emergencies. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant gaps in the United States' pandemic and public health emergency response system. At the federal level, government responses were undercut by a lack of centralized coordination, inadequately defined responsibilities, and an under-resourced national stockpile. Contradictory and unclear guidance throughout the early months of the pandemic, along with inconsistent funding to public health agencies, also created notable variance in state and local responses. The lack of a coordinated response added pressure to an already overwhelmed health care system, which was forced to resort to rationing care and personal protective equipment, creating moral distress and trauma for health care workers and their patients. Despite these severe shortcomings, the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted successful policies and approaches, such as Operation Warp Speed, which led to the fastest development and distribution of a vaccine in history. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) offers several policy recommendations for enhancing federal, state, and local preparedness for future pandemic and public health emergencies. This policy paper builds on various statements produced by ACP throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including on the ethical distribution of vaccinations and resources, conditions to resume economic and social activity, and efforts to protect the health and well-being of medical professionals, among others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States' public health sector plays a crucial role in preventing illness and promoting health. However, public health is underfunded and underappreciated, forcing the field to do more with fewer resources. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians updates its 2012 policy recommendations on strengthening the nation's public health infrastructure. The United States' public health sector plays a crucial role in preventing illness and promoting health. Public health drove massive gains in life expectancy during the 20th century by supporting vaccination campaigns, promoting motor vehicle safety, and preventing and treating tobacco use. However, public health is underfunded and underappreciated, forcing the field to do more with fewer resources. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) updates its 2012 policy recommendations on strengthening the nation's public health infrastructure. ACP calls for effective coordination of public health activities, robust and stable year-to-year funding of public health services, a renewed and well-supported public health workforce, action to address health-related dis- and misinformation, modernized public health data systems, and greater coordination between public health and medical sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical care delivered via telemedicine has become an accepted mode of health care delivery for many patients. There is an urgent need to understand quality of care in the telemedicine environment. This position paper presents 6 recommendations to ensure appropriate use of performance measures to evaluate the quality of clinical care that incorporates telemedicine. There has been an exponential growth in the use of telemedicine services to provide clinical care, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical care delivered via telemedicine has become a major and accepted method of health care delivery for many patients. There is an urgent need to understand quality of care in the telemedicine environment. This American College of Physicians position paper presents 6 recommendations to ensure the appropriate use of performance measures to evaluate quality of clinical care provided in the telemedicine environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American College of Physicians (ACP) has a long-standing commitment to improving the health of all Americans and opposes any form of discrimination in the delivery of health care services. ACP is committed to working toward fully understanding and supporting the unique needs of the incarcerated population and eliminating health disparities for these persons. In this position paper, ACP offers recommendations to policymakers and administrators to improve the health and well-being of persons incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.

Indigenous peoples in the United States experience many health disparities and barriers to accessing health care services. In addition, Indigenous communities experience poor social drivers of health, including disproportionately high rates of food insecurity, violence, and poverty, among others. These challenges are unsurprising, given historical societal discrimination toward Indigenous peoples and government policies of violence, forced relocation with loss of ancestral home, and erasure of cultures and traditions. Indigenous peoples have displayed resilience that has sustained their communities through these hardships. Through treaties between the federal government and Indigenous nations, the federal government has assumed a trust responsibility to provide for the health and well-being of Indigenous populations through the direct provision of health care services and financial support of tribally operated health systems. However, despite serving a population that has endured substantial historical trauma and subsequent health issues, federal programs serving Indigenous peoples receive inadequate federal funding and substantially fewer resources compared with other federal health care programs. Access to care is further challenged by geographic isolation and health care workforce vacancies. Given the history of Indigenous peoples in the United States and their treatment by the federal government and society, the American College of Physicians (ACP) asserts the federal government must faithfully execute its trust responsibility through increased funding and resources directed toward Indigenous communities and the undertaking of concerted policy efforts to support the health and well-being of Indigenous people. ACP believes that these efforts must be community-driven, Indigenous-led, and culturally appropriate and accepted, and center values of respect and self-determination.

Environmental health refers to the health effects associated with environmental factors, such as air pollution, water contamination, and climate change. Environmental hazards are associated with poor outcomes in common diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) seeks to inform physicians about environmental health and offers policymakers recommendations to reduce the adverse health consequences of climate change, improve air and water quality, reduce exposure to toxic substances, and address environmental injustice. ACP affirms that all communities, including people of color, people with low income, and marginalized populations, deserve to live in a healthy environment.

This American College of Physicians position paper aims to inform ethical decision making for the integration of precision medicine and genetic testing into clinical care. Although the positions are primarily intended for practicing physicians, they may apply to other health care professionals and can also inform how health care systems, professional schools, and residency programs integrate genomics into educational and clinical settings. Addressing the challenges of precision medicine and genetic testing will guide ethical and responsible implementation to improve health outcomes.

The number of Americans aged 65 years or older is expected to increase in the coming decades. Because the risk for disability increases with age, more persons will need long-term services and supports (LTSS) to help with bathing, eating, dressing, and other everyday tasks. Long-term services and supports are delivered in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, the person's home, and other settings. However, the LTSS sector faces several challenges, including keeping patients and staff safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, workforce shortages, quality problems, and fragmented coverage options. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians offers policy recommendations on LTSS coverage, financing, workforce, safety and quality, and emergency preparedness and calls on policymakers and other stakeholders to reform and improve the LTSS sector so that care is high quality, accessible, equitable, and affordable.

Food insecurity functions as a social driver of health, directly negatively impacting health status and outcomes, which can further negatively impact employment and income and increase medical expenditures-all of which exacerbates food insecurity. Progress in meaningfully reducing the food-insecurity rate has stalled in recent years. Although rates have decreased since their peak during the Great Recession, these gains have been reversed by the economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the federal government is the largest provider of food assistance, there is much potential in better leveraging nutrition assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Child Nutrition Programs to increase access to healthful foods and improve public health. However, these programs face many funding challenges and internal shortcomings that create uncertainties and prevent maximal effect. Physicians and other medical professionals also have a role in improving nutritional health by screening for food insecurity and serving as connectors between patients, community organizations, and government services. Governments and payers must support these efforts by providing sufficient resources to practices to fulfill this role. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) offers several policy recommendations to strengthen the federal food-insecurity response and empower physicians and other medical professionals to better address those social drivers of health occurring beyond the office doors.

Socioeconomic factors remain one of the most clinically significant contributors to health outcomes in this country, yet the current fee-for-service payment structure incentivizes volume and does not address such factors. The American College of Physicians proposes specific policy recommendations on reforming payment programs, including those designed to treat underserved patient populations, to better address value in health care and achieve greater equity. The proposal advocates that population-based prospective payment models, including hybrid models that combine fee-for-service with prospective payments, not only have the potential to achieve high-value care but can also be designed in such a way as to adjust for the social drivers that impact health outcomes. The need to recognize health care disparities and inequities in the implementation of the Quality Payment Program in particular and risk scoring in general and the need for social policies to improve access to health information technology are further examples of policy prescriptions that can advance equity. Evidence-based services and programs in Medicare Part B that are shown to preserve the Medicare trust fund through savings in Part A should be able to be scored as offsets for the cost of those new programs. The approach of building a health care system that is smarter about how dollars are spent to make people healthier must shift to one with a clear intention of decreasing health inequities and addressing social drivers of health.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the United States' largest integrated health care delivery system, serving over 9 million enrollees at nearly 1300 health care facilities. In addition to providing health care to the nation's military veterans, the VHA has a research and development program, trains thousands of medical residents and other health care professionals, and conducts emergency preparedness and response activities. The VHA has been celebrated for delivering high-quality care to veterans, early adoption of electronic medical records, and high patient satisfaction. However, the system faces challenges, including implementation of an expanded community care program, modernization of its electronic medical records system, and providing care to a population with complex needs. The position paper offers policy recommendations on VHA funding, the community care program, medical and health care professions training, and research and development.

The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics. In this position paper, ACP considers the effect of mergers, integration, private equity investment, nonprofit hospital requirements, and conversions from nonprofit to for-profit status on patients, physicians, and the health care system.

This document is a poem titled "Fifty in the Sock Drawer: Virus Log 04.26.2020" by Maryella Desak Sirmon. The poem describes a brief encounter between the narrator and a woman during the COVID-19 pandemic. The narrator pays for a purchase with a generous tip, and the woman is taken aback by the amount. The narrator explains that the money had been sitting unused in their sock drawer and it is better to use it now than to save it for an uncertain future. The woman is moved by the gesture and the poem ends with a sense of hope. [Extracted from the article]

The letter published in the Annals of Internal Medicine discusses the issue of missed directives in healthcare systems that rely heavily on electronic health records. The author, an independent internal medicine physician, highlights the challenges they face in accessing and sharing patient records with larger institutions. This lack of efficient communication and incorporation of paper records into electronic systems poses a significant patient safety concern, as critical information may not be relayed to the care team in a timely manner. The author emphasizes the need for improvement in this area and calls on internal medicine physicians to take the lead in addressing this institutional flaw. [Extracted from the article]

This position paper from the American College of Physicians (ACP) presents a review of current performance measures for major depressive disorder (MDD) to inform physicians, payers, and policymakers about their quality and appropriateness for use in various measurement programs. The paper also highlights challenges related to developing performance measures that address MDD management. Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a severe mood disorder that affects at least 8.4% of the adult population in the United States. Characteristics of MDD include persistent sadness, diminished interest in daily activities, and a state of hopelessness. The illness may progress quickly and have devastating consequences if left untreated. Eight performance measures are available to evaluate screening, diagnosis, and successful management of MDD. However, many performance measures do not meet the criteria for validity, reliability, evidence, and meaningfulness. The American College of Physicians (ACP) embraces performance measurement as a means to externally validate the quality of care of practices, medical groups, and health plans and to drive reimbursement processes. However, a plethora of performance measures that provide low or no value to patient care have inundated physicians, practices, and systems and burdened them with collecting and reporting of data. The ACP's Performance Measurement Committee (PMC) reviews performance measures using a validated process to inform regulatory and accreditation bodies in an effort to recognize high-quality performance measures, address gaps and areas for improvement in performance measures, and help reduce reporting burden. Out of 8 performance measures, the PMC found only 1 measure (suicide risk assessment) that was valid at all levels of attribution. This paper presents a review of MDD performance measures and highlights opportunities to improve performance measures addressing MDD management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several performance measures have been developed to assess and improve osteoporosis screening, diagnosis, and treatment. These performance measures vary in quality but are often used in accountability, public reporting, and/or payment programs. This article evaluates 6 osteoporosis performance measures relevant to internal medicine physicians to inform physicians, payers, and policy makers in their selection and interpretation of performance measures for this condition. Primary osteoporosis is characterized by decreasing bone mass and density and reduced bone strength that leads to a higher risk for fracture, especially hip and spine fractures. The prevalence of osteoporosis in the United States is estimated at 12.6% for adults older than 50 years. Although it is most frequently diagnosed in White and Asian females, it still affects males and females of all ethnicities. Osteoporosis is considered a major health issue, which has prompted the development and use of several performance measures to assess and improve the effectiveness of screening, diagnosis, and treatment. These performance measures are often used in accountability, public reporting, and/or payment programs. However, the reliability, validity, evidence, attribution, and meaningfulness of performance measures have been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to present a review of current performance measures on osteoporosis and inform physicians, payers, and policymakers in their selection of performance measures for this condition. The Performance Measurement Committee identified 6 osteoporosis performance measures relevant to internal medicine physicians, only 1 of which was found valid at all levels of attribution. This paper also proposes a performance measure concept to address a performance gap for the initial approach to therapy for patients with a new diagnosis of osteoporosis based on the current American College of Physicians guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews should provide an unbiased summary of evidence on both benefits and harms. Authors may spin results, particularly harms, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This paper provides a framework for identifying spin and examples of and how to rectify spin. "Spin" refers to misleading reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of findings in primary and secondary research (such as in systematic reviews). The study of spin primarily focuses on beneficial outcomes. The objectives of this research were threefold: first, to develop a framework for identifying spin associated with harms in systematic reviews of interventions; second, to apply the framework to a set of reviews, thereby pinpointing instances where spin may be present; and finally, to revise the spin examples, offering guidance on how spin can be rectified. The authors developed their framework through an iterative process that engaged an international group of researchers specializing in spin and reporting bias. The framework comprises 12 specific types of spin for harms, grouped by 7 categories across the 3 domains (reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation). The authors subsequently gathered instances of spin from a random sample of 100 systematic reviews of interventions. Of the 58 reviews that assessed harm and the 42 that did not, they found that 28 (48%) and 6 (14%), respectively, had at least 1 of the 12 types of spin for harms. Inappropriate extrapolation of the results and conclusions for harms to populations, interventions, outcomes, or settings not assessed in a review was the most common category of spin in 17 of 100 reviews. The authors revised the examples to remove spin, taking into consideration the context (for example, medical discipline, source population), findings for harms, and methodological limitations of the original reviews. They provide guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors in recognizing and rectifying or (preferably) avoiding spin, ultimately enhancing the clarity and accuracy of harms reporting in systematic review publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of colposcopy, a common medical procedure, is entwined with that of Nazi medicine and the death camp Auschwitz. This article explores that history and focuses on the actions of Hans Hinselmann, often referred to as the "father of colposcopy." The centennial anniversary of Hans Hinselmann's initial publication describing colposcopy is approaching. In the 100 years since the inventor's seminal paper, colposcopy has become indispensable in the diagnosis and management of cervical cancer. It remains central in diagnosing precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions and has dramatically reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality since the mid-20th century. Previous descriptions of colposcopy's development in medical literature obscure the dark history of its earliest days, arising within the center of German Nazism. The pioneers of colposcopy benefited from the Nazi government's public health focus and exploited the environment fostered by the Nazi medical establishment. They made use of the apparatus of the Auschwitz concentration camp to position colposcopy for expanded postwar adoption, ultimately accomplishing Hinselmann's stated goal that colposcopy become a routine part of gynecologic examination and care. This historical exposition clarifies the Nazi past of colposcopy, highlights the important role that unethical treatment of victims of Auschwitz played in cementing this procedure within standard cervical cancer screening programs globally, and offers steps to reckon with this tragic legacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, titled "Standards and Ethics Issues in the Determination of Death," responds to reader comments about the American College of Physicians' (ACP) position paper. The comment in question disagrees with the ACP's stance of not specifying medical tests for determining brain death. The ACP argues that the law defers to physician clinical judgment and expertise, and that standards of care must accommodate diverse clinical circumstances. The ACP maintains that their position aligns with norms of ethics and professionalism, and that it is important to ensure that medical testing aligns with the accepted whole brain standard of death. The article also mentions the contradictory statements made by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) regarding brain death. The ACP emphasizes the importance of following the law, ethics, and the whole brain standard when determining death, and suggests that validated processes for evaluating loss of neuroendocrine regulation should be developed and used. [Extracted from the article]

Algorithms are used in health care to calculate organ function and predict patient risk or future outcomes, and, subsequently, for treatment decisions, further diagnostic procedures, or referral for further care. Inputs to algorithms and how they are calculated may result in racial or ethnic disparities in access to care, quality of care, and disparities in health outcomes. This paper systematically reviews studies that have evaluated the impact of algorithms on racial or ethnic disparities and what strategies have been used to mitigate such disparities. Background: There is increasing concern for the potential impact of health care algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities. Purpose: To examine the evidence on how health care algorithms and associated mitigation strategies affect racial and ethnic disparities. Data Sources: Several databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2023. Study Selection: Using predefined criteria and dual review, studies were screened and selected to determine: 1) the effect of algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care outcomes and 2) the effect of strategies or approaches to mitigate racial and ethnic bias in the development, validation, dissemination, and implementation of algorithms. Data Extraction: Outcomes of interest (that is, access to health care, quality of care, and health outcomes) were extracted with risk-of-bias assessment using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions) tool and adapted CARE-CPM (Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models) equity extension. Data Synthesis: Sixty-three studies (51 modeling, 4 retrospective, 2 prospective, 5 prepost studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) were included. Heterogenous evidence on algorithms was found to: a) reduce disparities (for example, the revised kidney allocation system), b) perpetuate or exacerbate disparities (for example, severity-of-illness scores applied to critical care resource allocation), and/or c) have no statistically significant effect on select outcomes (for example, the HEART Pathway [history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin]). To mitigate disparities, 7 strategies were identified: removing an input variable, replacing a variable, adding race, adding a non–race-based variable, changing the racial and ethnic composition of the population used in model development, creating separate thresholds for subpopulations, and modifying algorithmic analytic techniques. Limitation: Results are mostly based on modeling studies and may be highly context-specific. Conclusion: Algorithms can mitigate, perpetuate, and exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities, regardless of the explicit use of race and ethnicity, but evidence is heterogeneous. Intentionality and implementation of the algorithm can impact the effect on disparities, and there may be tradeoffs in outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many eligible voters in the United States are not registered to vote, many registered voters do not vote, and physicians vote less often than the average citizen. This article describes the connection between voting and health, identifies some barriers to voting, and makes policy recommendations to support safe and accessible voting. During the past 2 decades, voter turnout in U.S. presidential elections has ranged from 51.7% to 66.9% of the eligible population. Low voter turnout rates and inequitable electoral institutions, such as gerrymandered districts, can skew policy decisions toward the preferences of a smaller group and further exclude individuals and communities who have been historically marginalized and excluded from decision-making processes. Voting and health are directly connected through the institution of policies by ballot initiative and the election of officials who incorporate health into their platforms. They are also indirectly connected, as civic participation connects persons to their community and empowers them with agency in decision making. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians seeks to inform physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals on the links between electoral processes and health; encourage civic participation; and offer policy recommendations to support safe and equitable access to electoral participation to advance health equity for both patients and health care professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarizes major changes in treatment of hepatitis C in chronic kidney disease (CKD) as recommended by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2022 clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C. In particular, it highlights new evidence and subsequent recommendations on expanding treatment of hepatitis C in patients with CKD, expanding the donor pool for kidney transplant recipients with kidney donors who are positive for hepatitis C virus, and treating hepatitis C in patients with glomerulonephritis. Description: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2022 clinical practice guideline on prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an update of the 2018 guideline from KDIGO. Methods: The KDIGO Work Group (WG) updated the guideline, which included reviewing and grading new evidence that was identified and summarized. As in the previous guideline, the WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of recommendations and used expert judgment to develop recommendations. New evidence led to updating of recommendations in the chapters on treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with CKD (Chapter 2), management of HCV infection before and after kidney transplant (Chapter 4), and diagnosis and management of kidney disease associated with HCV infection (Chapter 5). Recommendations in chapters on detection and evaluation of hepatitis C in CKD (Chapter 1) and prevention of HCV transmission in hemodialysis units (Chapter 3) were not updated because of an absence of significant new evidence. Recommendations: The 2022 updated guideline includes 43 graded recommendations and 20 ungraded recommendations, 7 of which are new or modified on the basis of the most recent evidence and consensus among the WG members. The updated guidelines recommend expanding treatment of hepatitis C with sofosbuvir-based regimens to patients with CKD glomerular filtration rate categories G4 and G5, including those receiving dialysis; expanding the donor pool for kidney transplant recipients by accepting HCV-positive kidneys regardless of the recipient's HCV status; and initiating direct-acting antiviral treatment of HCV-infected patients with clinical evidence of glomerulonephritis without requiring kidney biopsy. The update also addresses the use of immunosuppressive regimens in such patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a summary of the July 2024 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. It includes several articles on various topics. The first article discusses trends in diet quality among U.S. adults by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic disadvantage. The second article explores the association between COVID-19 vaccine side effects and long-term neutralizing antibody response. The third article focuses on long COVID and the need for a standardized definition and models of care. The fourth article presents the American College of Physicians' policy position paper on the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. The fifth article discusses newer pharmacologic treatments for type 2 diabetes. Lastly, the document highlights best practices in caring for seriously ill patients, emphasizing the importance of palliative care. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence.Objective: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care.Design: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders.Setting: International.Participants: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines.Measurements: Not applicable.Results: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication.Limitation: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented.Conclusion: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines.Primary Funding Source: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a movement to expand scopes of practice for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other health care professionals to practice independent of physicians. In its position paper, ACP summarized recommendations for physician-led, team-based, Patient-Centered Medical Home models. The editorialist proposes additional strategies to achieve team-based care through interprofessional education and training and postgraduate residency training for nonphysician clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Hypercholesterolemia is a principal modifiable risk factor for the primary prevention of CVD. In addition to lifestyle modification, statins are an important tool to reduce risk for CVD in selected patients. A useful strategy to identify candidates for statins is to estimate the 10-year risk for CVD through the use of a validated risk calculator. Commonly used calculators include the Framingham risk score and the pooled cohort equation. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that statins reduce the risk for CVD in patients without known CVD. Two recent guidelines have proposed an approach to the use of statins in primary prevention of CVD. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines form the basis for this discussion. The guidelines differ on the use of advanced testing to modify the 10-year CVD risk estimate and on the need for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets to establish the efficacy of statins. Advanced testing with coronary artery calcium measurement may be helpful for patients who are potentially eligible for statin therapy but who are uncertain if they wish to take a statin. In this paper, 2 experts, a preventive cardiologist and a general internist, discuss their approach to the use of statins for primary prevention of CVD and how they would apply the guidelines to an individual patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization , some state governments have imposed stringent restrictions on abortion, whereas others have sought to protect access. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians updates its previous positions to reflect this new reality and offers recommendations to promote equitable access to reproductive health care services and safeguard maternal health. The legal landscape around access to reproductive health care services was substantially altered after the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. In the aftermath of the decision, some state governments have begun to impose stringent restrictions and complete bans on the provision of abortion, whereas others have sought to protect and expand access. Some have gone as far as imposing criminal and civil penalties on physicians and other clinicians who provide evidence-based, clinically indicated reproductive health care services and information that is guided by biomedical ethics and provided in the best interest of the patient's health and well-being. In several states, lawmakers have attempted and successfully used new approaches to enforcing and achieving these prohibitions, including prohibitions on crossing state lines to obtain abortion care, prohibitions on the mailing of medication abortion, and the authorization of third-party civil lawsuits. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians (ACP) updates and expands on its previous public policy positions on abortion from its 2018 policy paper, "Women's Health Policy in the United States," to reflect this new reality. The College also offers policymakers and payers recommendations to promote equitable access to reproductive health care services and safeguard maternal health. ACP reaffirms its opposition to undue and unnecessary governmental interference in the patient–physician relationship that criminalizes the provision of health care made in the physician's clinical judgment and based on clinical evidence and the standard of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, titled "Cause of Death," reflects on the changing process of documenting the cause of death. The author, a nurse, reminisces about the past when they would fill out a paper form with a special pen and ink, giving a sense of solemnity to the task. Now, the process is electronic and more standardized, leaving less room for interpretation. The author ponders whether the cause of death can be attributed to lack of care due to factors like lack of insurance or inability to afford medication. Overall, the article offers a personal reflection on the evolving nature of documenting the cause of death. [Extracted from the article]

In its position paper, ACP presents recommendations for how the United States can be prepared for future pandemics. The editorialist reflects on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the ACP recommendations and provides additional suggestions to ensure that the United States will be ready when the next health crisis hits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is a tribute to Dr. Frank Davidoff, who recently passed away. The author, Michael J. Barry, reflects on his experience working with Dr. Davidoff as a medical student in 1984. They collaborated on a scientific paper that focused on screening for irradiation-related thyroid nodules. Dr. Davidoff taught the author important skills in decision analysis, technical writing, and clinical problem solving, and inspired many students and trainees to improve patient-centered medicine. The author expresses gratitude to Dr. Davidoff and offers their condolences. [Extracted from the article]

In a new position paper, ACP reasserts recommendations to prepare for climate-mediated disease and disasters; increase medical education, training, and research opportunities; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The editorialists discuss the recommendations and the critical need to ensure that they are effectively translated into action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]