Stewardship at 3 a.m.

The 3-month-old infant presents to the emergency department with a fever of 101° F. The emergency physician decides the infant looks ill enough to warrant some investigation. A urinalysis indicates a urinary tract infection. I am consulted to complete the admission to the hospital. The question arises, “Is a lumbar puncture indicated to rule out meningitis?”

I’ve been down this pathway many times. For years I have relied on a meta-analysis which corrected the bias of an old article from 1972.¹ Multiple studies in the 2000-2010 time frame have shown that the risk of concurrent meningitis in a young infant with a UTI is vanishingly small. It is much less than 2%, with many studies finding 0%. So on a typical day, my answer is no tap if there is no clinical suggestion of meningitis.

Hospital medicine has recently focused on reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. When you only occasionally admit patients to the hospital, untoward events appear random and uncommon. When you work there day in and day out, you appreciate that all medical interventions have risks and costs.

A recent editorial raised the question of stewardship in medicine.² It asked why physicians would choose a very expensive drug when there is little evidence of its superiority over a much cheaper predecessor. Physicians, whose actions influence a $3 trillion industry, have not embraced stewardship as a major component of their professional responsibilities. The physician does have a fiduciary duty toward the patient. The physician recommends the best care possible to achieve the patient’s goals of care. Dentistry is distinctly different in this regard. Dentists often have several ways of repairing decayed teeth. Various types of fillings are available. Gold fillings are more expensive. Newer implants are several times more expensive than crowns. Dentists routinely adjust their treatment plan based on what the patient can afford.

While most other industries have market competition and profitability as incentives to avoid extravagance, U.S. health care seems unbridled by fiscal responsibility. The news that a small pharmaceutical company had raised the price of an old generic antibiotic by 5000%³ exposed the irrationality and capriciousness⁴ of the pricing of medications in the United States. Many politicians decried the behavior but to little effect. Most consumer products, especially computers, become more powerful and cheaper with each decade. Health care does not follow this pattern

There are many factors that influence physician behavior. Concerns about malpractice may bias physicians toward expensive overtreatment. Modern medical research is usually published expounding on the benefits of a new technology over a previous therapy without any acknowledgment that the newer and more expensive treatment may have a downside. This biases people to use the latest and greatest treatment even though it may have only demonstrated noninferiority in its trials.

I try to use evidence-based medicine when it is available. In the clinical case described earlier, I indicate to the emergency doctor that unless there is a clinical impression of coexisting meningitis, the lumbar puncture is not indicated. I cite the meta-analysis as I have many times before. But this night is different. I am simultaneously admitting a teenager whose gastrostomy tube had become dislodged and couldn’t be replaced. This neurologically devastated child had had meningitis as an infant. He is a stark reminder of the consequences of a missed diagnosis.

The parents of that child have provided him wonderful care. His skin is in excellent condition. His moderate contractures are testimony to dedicated stretching regimens at home. It is evident that the parents love the child as he is. But I am sure they would give anything to have avoided this scenario and to reverse the consequences of that meningitis. And so, the best evidence we have, that the risk of meningitis in an infant is low, is not as reassuring to me on this night. At 3 a.m., the juxtaposition of the two patients is unsettling. Is the risk low enough? Would that new test⁵, serum procalcitonin, help me to make a better decision? How certain must I be that an intervention is unnecessary?

Health care policy, economics, and practice guidelines can be debated with detached objectivity around a conference table in the middle of the day. The trepidation in an emergency room at 3 a.m. is different. This is my patient. I am his doctor. That is the heart of medical ethics.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Dr. Powell said he had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. E-mail him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

References

1. “How common is co-existing meningitis in infants with urinary tract infection?” on Bestbets.org.

2. “Why do doctors choose a $2,000 cure when a $50 one is just as good?” by Andrew Lam, Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2015.

3. “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015.

4. “How an $84,000 drug got its price: ‘Let’s hold our position … whatever the headlines’ ” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2015.

5. JAMA Pediatr. Published online, 2015 Nov 23. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3267.

The 3-month-old infant presents to the emergency department with a fever of 101° F. The emergency physician decides the infant looks ill enough to warrant some investigation. A urinalysis indicates a urinary tract infection. I am consulted to complete the admission to the hospital. The question arises, “Is a lumbar puncture indicated to rule out meningitis?”

I’ve been down this pathway many times. For years I have relied on a meta-analysis which corrected the bias of an old article from 1972.¹ Multiple studies in the 2000-2010 time frame have shown that the risk of concurrent meningitis in a young infant with a UTI is vanishingly small. It is much less than 2%, with many studies finding 0%. So on a typical day, my answer is no tap if there is no clinical suggestion of meningitis.

Hospital medicine has recently focused on reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. When you only occasionally admit patients to the hospital, untoward events appear random and uncommon. When you work there day in and day out, you appreciate that all medical interventions have risks and costs.

A recent editorial raised the question of stewardship in medicine.² It asked why physicians would choose a very expensive drug when there is little evidence of its superiority over a much cheaper predecessor. Physicians, whose actions influence a $3 trillion industry, have not embraced stewardship as a major component of their professional responsibilities. The physician does have a fiduciary duty toward the patient. The physician recommends the best care possible to achieve the patient’s goals of care. Dentistry is distinctly different in this regard. Dentists often have several ways of repairing decayed teeth. Various types of fillings are available. Gold fillings are more expensive. Newer implants are several times more expensive than crowns. Dentists routinely adjust their treatment plan based on what the patient can afford.

While most other industries have market competition and profitability as incentives to avoid extravagance, U.S. health care seems unbridled by fiscal responsibility. The news that a small pharmaceutical company had raised the price of an old generic antibiotic by 5000%³ exposed the irrationality and capriciousness⁴ of the pricing of medications in the United States. Many politicians decried the behavior but to little effect. Most consumer products, especially computers, become more powerful and cheaper with each decade. Health care does not follow this pattern

There are many factors that influence physician behavior. Concerns about malpractice may bias physicians toward expensive overtreatment. Modern medical research is usually published expounding on the benefits of a new technology over a previous therapy without any acknowledgment that the newer and more expensive treatment may have a downside. This biases people to use the latest and greatest treatment even though it may have only demonstrated noninferiority in its trials.

I try to use evidence-based medicine when it is available. In the clinical case described earlier, I indicate to the emergency doctor that unless there is a clinical impression of coexisting meningitis, the lumbar puncture is not indicated. I cite the meta-analysis as I have many times before. But this night is different. I am simultaneously admitting a teenager whose gastrostomy tube had become dislodged and couldn’t be replaced. This neurologically devastated child had had meningitis as an infant. He is a stark reminder of the consequences of a missed diagnosis.

The parents of that child have provided him wonderful care. His skin is in excellent condition. His moderate contractures are testimony to dedicated stretching regimens at home. It is evident that the parents love the child as he is. But I am sure they would give anything to have avoided this scenario and to reverse the consequences of that meningitis. And so, the best evidence we have, that the risk of meningitis in an infant is low, is not as reassuring to me on this night. At 3 a.m., the juxtaposition of the two patients is unsettling. Is the risk low enough? Would that new test⁵, serum procalcitonin, help me to make a better decision? How certain must I be that an intervention is unnecessary?

Health care policy, economics, and practice guidelines can be debated with detached objectivity around a conference table in the middle of the day. The trepidation in an emergency room at 3 a.m. is different. This is my patient. I am his doctor. That is the heart of medical ethics.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Dr. Powell said he had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. E-mail him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

References

1. “How common is co-existing meningitis in infants with urinary tract infection?” on Bestbets.org.

2. “Why do doctors choose a $2,000 cure when a $50 one is just as good?” by Andrew Lam, Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2015.

3. “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015.

4. “How an $84,000 drug got its price: ‘Let’s hold our position … whatever the headlines’ ” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2015.

5. JAMA Pediatr. Published online, 2015 Nov 23. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3267.

The 3-month-old infant presents to the emergency department with a fever of 101° F. The emergency physician decides the infant looks ill enough to warrant some investigation. A urinalysis indicates a urinary tract infection. I am consulted to complete the admission to the hospital. The question arises, “Is a lumbar puncture indicated to rule out meningitis?”

I’ve been down this pathway many times. For years I have relied on a meta-analysis which corrected the bias of an old article from 1972.¹ Multiple studies in the 2000-2010 time frame have shown that the risk of concurrent meningitis in a young infant with a UTI is vanishingly small. It is much less than 2%, with many studies finding 0%. So on a typical day, my answer is no tap if there is no clinical suggestion of meningitis.

Hospital medicine has recently focused on reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. When you only occasionally admit patients to the hospital, untoward events appear random and uncommon. When you work there day in and day out, you appreciate that all medical interventions have risks and costs.

A recent editorial raised the question of stewardship in medicine.² It asked why physicians would choose a very expensive drug when there is little evidence of its superiority over a much cheaper predecessor. Physicians, whose actions influence a $3 trillion industry, have not embraced stewardship as a major component of their professional responsibilities. The physician does have a fiduciary duty toward the patient. The physician recommends the best care possible to achieve the patient’s goals of care. Dentistry is distinctly different in this regard. Dentists often have several ways of repairing decayed teeth. Various types of fillings are available. Gold fillings are more expensive. Newer implants are several times more expensive than crowns. Dentists routinely adjust their treatment plan based on what the patient can afford.

While most other industries have market competition and profitability as incentives to avoid extravagance, U.S. health care seems unbridled by fiscal responsibility. The news that a small pharmaceutical company had raised the price of an old generic antibiotic by 5000%³ exposed the irrationality and capriciousness⁴ of the pricing of medications in the United States. Many politicians decried the behavior but to little effect. Most consumer products, especially computers, become more powerful and cheaper with each decade. Health care does not follow this pattern

There are many factors that influence physician behavior. Concerns about malpractice may bias physicians toward expensive overtreatment. Modern medical research is usually published expounding on the benefits of a new technology over a previous therapy without any acknowledgment that the newer and more expensive treatment may have a downside. This biases people to use the latest and greatest treatment even though it may have only demonstrated noninferiority in its trials.

I try to use evidence-based medicine when it is available. In the clinical case described earlier, I indicate to the emergency doctor that unless there is a clinical impression of coexisting meningitis, the lumbar puncture is not indicated. I cite the meta-analysis as I have many times before. But this night is different. I am simultaneously admitting a teenager whose gastrostomy tube had become dislodged and couldn’t be replaced. This neurologically devastated child had had meningitis as an infant. He is a stark reminder of the consequences of a missed diagnosis.

The parents of that child have provided him wonderful care. His skin is in excellent condition. His moderate contractures are testimony to dedicated stretching regimens at home. It is evident that the parents love the child as he is. But I am sure they would give anything to have avoided this scenario and to reverse the consequences of that meningitis. And so, the best evidence we have, that the risk of meningitis in an infant is low, is not as reassuring to me on this night. At 3 a.m., the juxtaposition of the two patients is unsettling. Is the risk low enough? Would that new test⁵, serum procalcitonin, help me to make a better decision? How certain must I be that an intervention is unnecessary?

Health care policy, economics, and practice guidelines can be debated with detached objectivity around a conference table in the middle of the day. The trepidation in an emergency room at 3 a.m. is different. This is my patient. I am his doctor. That is the heart of medical ethics.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Dr. Powell said he had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. E-mail him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

References

1. “How common is co-existing meningitis in infants with urinary tract infection?” on Bestbets.org.

2. “Why do doctors choose a $2,000 cure when a $50 one is just as good?” by Andrew Lam, Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2015.

3. “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015.

4. “How an $84,000 drug got its price: ‘Let’s hold our position … whatever the headlines’ ” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2015.

5. JAMA Pediatr. Published online, 2015 Nov 23. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3267.