OBG Management

REPRODUCTIVE ROUNDS

Applications of office hysteroscopy for the infertility patient

J. Preston Parry, MD, MPH; Mark Trolice, MD, MBA

What role does diagnostic office hysteroscopy play in an infertility evaluation?

Performed properly, office hysteroscopy can transform your practice by accurately, gently, and safely assessing the uterine cavity as well as assessing tubal patency.

More specifically, hysteroscopy is the gold standard for assessing the uterine cavity. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in evaluating uterine cavity abnormalities were 44.83%; 86.67%; 56.52%; and 80.25%, respectively. Given the poor sensitivity of HSG, a diagnosis of endometrial polyps and/or chronic endometritis is more likely to be missed.

Our crossover trial comparing HSG to office hysteroscopy for tubal patency showed that women were 110 times more likely to have the maximum level of pain with HSG than diagnostic hysteroscopy when using a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope. Further, infection rates and vasovagal events were far lower with hysteroscopy.

Finally, compared with HSG, we showed 98%-100% sensitivity and 84% specificity for tubal occlusion with hysteroscopy by air-infused saline. Conversely, HSG typically is associated with 76%-96% sensitivity and 67%-100% specificity. Additionally, we can often perform diagnostic hysteroscopies for approximately $35 per procedure for total fixed and disposable equipment costs.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/reproductive-rounds

FEATURE

Is ChatGPT a friend or foe of medical publishing?

Lucy Hicks

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said.

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/263471/business-medicine/chatgpt-friend-or-foe-medical-publishing

Continue to: FROM THE JOURNALS...

FROM THE JOURNALS

Review supports continued mask-wearing in health care visits

Jay Croft

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/covid-19-updates

CONFERENCE COVERAGE

A ‘one-stop shop’: New guidance on hormones and aging

Miriam E. Tucker

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men and diabetes treatment goals in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/conference-coverage ●

REPRODUCTIVE ROUNDS

Applications of office hysteroscopy for the infertility patient

J. Preston Parry, MD, MPH; Mark Trolice, MD, MBA

What role does diagnostic office hysteroscopy play in an infertility evaluation?

Performed properly, office hysteroscopy can transform your practice by accurately, gently, and safely assessing the uterine cavity as well as assessing tubal patency.

More specifically, hysteroscopy is the gold standard for assessing the uterine cavity. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in evaluating uterine cavity abnormalities were 44.83%; 86.67%; 56.52%; and 80.25%, respectively. Given the poor sensitivity of HSG, a diagnosis of endometrial polyps and/or chronic endometritis is more likely to be missed.

Our crossover trial comparing HSG to office hysteroscopy for tubal patency showed that women were 110 times more likely to have the maximum level of pain with HSG than diagnostic hysteroscopy when using a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope. Further, infection rates and vasovagal events were far lower with hysteroscopy.

Finally, compared with HSG, we showed 98%-100% sensitivity and 84% specificity for tubal occlusion with hysteroscopy by air-infused saline. Conversely, HSG typically is associated with 76%-96% sensitivity and 67%-100% specificity. Additionally, we can often perform diagnostic hysteroscopies for approximately $35 per procedure for total fixed and disposable equipment costs.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/reproductive-rounds

FEATURE

Is ChatGPT a friend or foe of medical publishing?

Lucy Hicks

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said.

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/263471/business-medicine/chatgpt-friend-or-foe-medical-publishing

Continue to: FROM THE JOURNALS...

FROM THE JOURNALS

Review supports continued mask-wearing in health care visits

Jay Croft

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/covid-19-updates

CONFERENCE COVERAGE

A ‘one-stop shop’: New guidance on hormones and aging

Miriam E. Tucker

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men and diabetes treatment goals in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/conference-coverage ●

REPRODUCTIVE ROUNDS

Applications of office hysteroscopy for the infertility patient

J. Preston Parry, MD, MPH; Mark Trolice, MD, MBA

What role does diagnostic office hysteroscopy play in an infertility evaluation?

Performed properly, office hysteroscopy can transform your practice by accurately, gently, and safely assessing the uterine cavity as well as assessing tubal patency.

More specifically, hysteroscopy is the gold standard for assessing the uterine cavity. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in evaluating uterine cavity abnormalities were 44.83%; 86.67%; 56.52%; and 80.25%, respectively. Given the poor sensitivity of HSG, a diagnosis of endometrial polyps and/or chronic endometritis is more likely to be missed.

Our crossover trial comparing HSG to office hysteroscopy for tubal patency showed that women were 110 times more likely to have the maximum level of pain with HSG than diagnostic hysteroscopy when using a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope. Further, infection rates and vasovagal events were far lower with hysteroscopy.

Finally, compared with HSG, we showed 98%-100% sensitivity and 84% specificity for tubal occlusion with hysteroscopy by air-infused saline. Conversely, HSG typically is associated with 76%-96% sensitivity and 67%-100% specificity. Additionally, we can often perform diagnostic hysteroscopies for approximately $35 per procedure for total fixed and disposable equipment costs.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/reproductive-rounds

FEATURE

Is ChatGPT a friend or foe of medical publishing?

Lucy Hicks

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said.

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/263471/business-medicine/chatgpt-friend-or-foe-medical-publishing

Continue to: FROM THE JOURNALS...

FROM THE JOURNALS

Review supports continued mask-wearing in health care visits

Jay Croft

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/covid-19-updates

CONFERENCE COVERAGE

A ‘one-stop shop’: New guidance on hormones and aging

Miriam E. Tucker

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men and diabetes treatment goals in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.

https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/conference-coverage ●

Product Update

Newly available single-use vaginal speculum

Ceek Women’s Health introduces the Nella single-use vaginal speculum for use during gynecologic examinations and procedures. Designed “by women for women, along with trusted clinicians to enhance patient comfort,” according to Ceek’s press release, the Nella speculum has a quiet operating mechanism, an LED light, and sidewall retractors. Its narrow shape allows for patient comfort and cervical visualization and because it is single use, it eliminates possibilities of cross contamination, according to the manufacturer. In addition, Ceek says it is an ergonomic tool, made from premium material, and is available in one size.

For more information, visit https://www.nellaspec.com

Product Update

Newly available single-use vaginal speculum

Ceek Women’s Health introduces the Nella single-use vaginal speculum for use during gynecologic examinations and procedures. Designed “by women for women, along with trusted clinicians to enhance patient comfort,” according to Ceek’s press release, the Nella speculum has a quiet operating mechanism, an LED light, and sidewall retractors. Its narrow shape allows for patient comfort and cervical visualization and because it is single use, it eliminates possibilities of cross contamination, according to the manufacturer. In addition, Ceek says it is an ergonomic tool, made from premium material, and is available in one size.

For more information, visit https://www.nellaspec.com

Product Update

Newly available single-use vaginal speculum

Ceek Women’s Health introduces the Nella single-use vaginal speculum for use during gynecologic examinations and procedures. Designed “by women for women, along with trusted clinicians to enhance patient comfort,” according to Ceek’s press release, the Nella speculum has a quiet operating mechanism, an LED light, and sidewall retractors. Its narrow shape allows for patient comfort and cervical visualization and because it is single use, it eliminates possibilities of cross contamination, according to the manufacturer. In addition, Ceek says it is an ergonomic tool, made from premium material, and is available in one size.

For more information, visit https://www.nellaspec.com

ILLUSTRATION © IRYNA INSHYNA/SHUTTERSTOCK

Patient satisfaction questionnaires were developed in the 1980s as part of the movement to better understand the patient’s experience and their perspective of the quality of care. In 1985, the Press Ganey survey—now the most widely used method to assess patient satisfaction—was developed by 2 professors in anthropology and sociology-statistics at Notre Dame. Initially intended for inpatient admissions, the survey was validated based on a few thousand survey results.¹ Given the strong interest in improving patient satisfaction at the time, it became widely adopted and quickly expanded into outpatient encounters and ambulatory surgery settings.

Although other surveys have been developed,² the Press Ganey survey is the most commonly used assessment tool for patient satisfaction metrics in the United States, with approximately 50% of all hospitals and more than 41,000 health care organizations using its services.^3,4 The survey consists of 6 domains related to satisfaction with:

1. the care provider

2. the nurse or assistant

3. personal issues

4. overall assessment

5. access

6. moving through the visit. 

Survey items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from “very poor” (a score of 1) to “very good” (a score of 5). According to the company, because this format is balanced and parallel (unlike a “poor” to “excellent” format), responses can be quantified and used statistically without violating methodologic assumptions. Also, variability in patients’ responses with this format allows for the identification of opportunities to improve, unlike “yes/no” response formats.¹ There are limitations to this design, however, which can impact data quality,⁵ as we will see.

While the distribution process varies by institution, there is an algorithm laid out by Press Ganey for administering surveys to patients in their preferred language after outpatient visits. Based on recent research into Press Ganey response rates, the typical response rate is estimated to be 16% to 19%.⁶ Although this low response rate is typical of survey data, it inherently introduces the risk of responder bias—meaning results may be skewed by patients who represent the extremes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Adoption of the survey as we move toward value-based care

More recently, patients’ satisfaction with their health care has received increased attention as we move to a patient-centered care model and as health care reimbursement models shift toward value-based care. Current trends in health care policy statements include the importance of raising the standard of care and shifting from a “fee-for-service” to a “pay-for-performance” reimbursement model.^7,8 As a result, hospitals are establishing systems to measure “performance” that are not nationally standardized or extensively studied with objective measures. The changing standard of health care expectations in the United States is a topic of much public debate.⁹ And as expectations and new standards are defined, the impact of implementing novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

Patient satisfaction also has been identified as a driver for hospital finances through loyalty, described as the “likelihood to return to that system for future medical services.”^10,11 This measure has contributed to policy changes that reinforce prioritization of patient satisfaction. For example, the Affordable Care Act tied Medicare reimbursement and patient satisfaction together in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This program uses measures of clinical processes, efficiency, outcomes, and patient experiences to calculate a total score that results in hospital reimbursement and incentives,¹² which creates a direct pathway from patient experience to reimbursement—underscoring hospitals’ desire for ongoing assessment of patient satisfaction.

Continue to: Gender, race, and age bias...

Gender, race, and age bias

Although the rationale behind gathering patient input is important, recent data suggest that patient satisfaction surveys are subject to inherent biases.^6,13,14 These biases tend to negatively impact women and non-White physicians, adding to the systemic discrimination against women and physicians of color that already exists in health care.

In a single-site retrospective study performed in 2018 by Rogo-Gupta et al, female gynecologists were found to be 47% less likely to receive top patient satisfaction scores than their male counterparts owing to their gender alone, suggesting that gender bias may impact the results of patient satisfaction questionnaires.¹³ The authors encouraged that the results of patient satisfaction surveys be interpreted with great caution until the impact on female physicians is better understood.

A multi-center study by the same group (Rogo-Gupta et al) assessed the same construct across 5 different geographically diverse institutions.¹⁵ This study confirmed that female gynecologists were less likely to receive a top satisfaction score from their patients (19% lower odds when compared with male gynecologists). They also studied the effects of other patient demographics, including age, race/ethnicity, and race concordance. Older patients (aged ≥63 years) had an over-3-fold increase in odds of providing a top satisfaction score than younger patients. Additionally, Asian physicians had significantly lower odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with White physicians, while Asian patients had significantly lower odds of providing a top satisfaction score when compared with White patients. Lastly, in most cases, when underrepresented-in-medicine patients saw an underrepresented-in-medicine physician (race concordance), there was a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score. Asian race concordance, however, actually resulted in a lower likelihood of receiving a top satisfaction score.¹⁵

Literature from other specialties supports these findings. These results are consistent with emerging data from other medical specialties that also suggest that Press Ganey survey data are subject to inherent biases. For example, data from emergency medicine literature have shown discrepancies between patient satisfaction for providers at tertiary inner-city institutions versus those in affluent suburban populations,¹⁶ and that worse mortality is actually correlated with better patient satisfaction scores, and vice versa.¹⁷

Another study by Sotto-Santiago in 2019 assessed patient satisfaction scores in multiple specialties at a single institution where quality-related financial incentives were offered based on this metric. They found a significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between underrepresented and White physicians, which suggests a potential bias among patients and institutional practices—ultimately leading to pay inequities through differences in financial incentives.¹⁸

Percentile differences reveal small gaps in satisfaction ratings

When examining the difference between raw Press Ganey patient satisfaction data and the percentiles associated with these scores, an interesting finding arises. Looking at the 2023 multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al, the difference in the top raw scores between male and female gynecologists appears to be small (3.3%).¹⁵ However, in 2020, the difference in top scores separating the top (75th) and bottom (25th) percentile quartiles of physicians was also small, at only 6.9%.

Considering the percentiles, if a provider who scores in the 25th percentile is compared with a colleague who scores in the 75th percentile, they may think the reported satisfaction score differences were quite large. This may potentially invoke feelings of decreased self-worth, negatively impact their professional identity or overall well-being, and they may seek (or be told to seek) improvement opportunities. Now imagine the provider in question realizes the difference between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is actually only 6.9%. This information may completely change how the results are interpreted and acted upon by administrators. This is further changed with the understanding that 3.3% of the difference may be due to gender alone, narrowing the gap even further. Providers would become understandably frustrated if measures of success such as reimbursement, financial bonus or incentives, promotion, or advancement are linked to these results. It violates the value of fairness and does not offer an equitable starting point.

Evolution of the data distribution. Another consideration, as noted by Robert C. Lloyd, PhD, one of the statisticians who helped develop the percentile statistical analysis mapping in 1985, is that it was based on a classic bell-shaped distribution of patient satisfaction survey scores.¹⁹ Because hospitals, medical groups, and physicians have been working these past 20 years to achieve higher Press Ganey scores, the data no longer have a bell-shaped distribution. Rather, there are significant clusters of raw scores at the high end with a very narrow response range. When these data are mapped to the percentile spectrum, they are highly inaccurate.¹⁹

Impact of sample size. According to Press Ganey, a minimum of 30 survey responses collected over the designated time period is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions of the data for a specific individual, program, or hospital. Despite this requirement to achieve statistical significance, Sullivan and DeLucia found that the firm often provides comparative data about hospital departments and individual physicians based on a smaller sample size that may create an unacceptably large margin of error.²⁰ Sullivan, for example, said his department may only have 8 to 10 Press Ganey survey responses per month and yet still receives monthly reports from the company analyzing the data. Because of the small sample size, 1 month his department ranked in the 1st percentile and 2 months later it ranked in the 99th percentile.²⁰

The effect of a high ceiling rate. A psychometrics report for the Press Ganey survey is available from the vendor that provides vague assessments of reliability and validity based on 2,762 surveys from 12 practices across 10 states. This report describes a 12-question version of the survey with “no problems encountered” with missingness and response variability. The report further states that the Press Ganey survey demonstrates construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validities, and high reliability; however, these data are not made available.¹

In response to this report, Presson et al analyzed more than 34,000 surveys from one institution to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Press Ganey survey.21 Overall, the survey demonstrated suitable psychometric properties for most metrics. However, Presson et al noted a significantly high ceiling rate of 29.3% for the total score, which ranged from 55.4% to 84.1% across items.²¹ (Ceiling rates are considered substantial if they occur more than 20% of the time.) Ultimately, a high ceiling rate reduces the power to discriminate between patients who have high satisfaction (everyone is “happy”) with those who are just slightly less than happy, but not dissatisfied. This data quality metric can impact the reliability and validity of a survey—and substantial ceiling rates can notably impact percentile rankings of scores within an institution, offering a possible explanation for the small percentage change between the top and bottom percentiles.

Continue to: Other issues with surveys...

Other issues with surveys

In addition to the limitations associated with percentile groupings, survey data are always subject to nonresponse bias, and small sample size can lead to nonsignificant results. Skewed responses also can make it difficult to identify true outlying providers who may need remediation or may be offering a superior patient experience. Satisfaction surveys also lack an assessment of objective data and instead assess how patients perceive and feel, which introduces subjectivity to the results.

Additionally, focusing on improving patient experience ratings can incentivize unnecessary or inappropriate care (ie, overprescribing of narcotics, prescribing antibiotics when not indicated, or ordering testing that may not change management). Some physicians even state that they are not getting the type of feedback that they are asking for and that the survey is not asking the right questions to elicit patient input that is meaningful to their practice. Lastly, the incorporation of trainees and advanced practice providers in the patient care experience leads to the assessment of an alternative provider being included in the ultimate score and may not be representative of that physician.

Patients’ perception and survey results. In some circumstances, the patient’s understanding of their medical situation may affect their responses. Some may argue that patients may mistake a physician’s confidence for competence, when in reality these two entities are mutually exclusive. In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University Medical Center surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer for their perceived quality of care and the process of getting care, including referrals, test results, and treatments. They compared the responses with patient records to determine the actual quality of care. Of the 374 women who received treatment for early-stage breast cancer, 55% said they received “excellent care,” but most—88%—actually got care that was in line with the best current treatment guidelines. Interestingly, the study found African American women were less likely to report excellent care than White or Hispanic women, less likely to trust their doctor, and more likely to say they experienced bias during the process. However, there was no difference in actual quality of care received in any group.²²

You can’t improve what you can’t control. Ultimately, while many providers think patient satisfaction survey results may help inform some aspects of their practice, they cannot improve what they cannot control. For example, the multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al found that older patients (≥63 years) have more than a 3-fold increase in odds of giving a top satisfaction score than younger patients (≤33 years), independent of other aspects of the care experience.15 Additionally, they found that older physicians (≥56 years) had a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with physicians who were younger than 55 years old.¹⁵ Given that physicians clearly cannot control their own age or the age of their patients, the negative impacts of these biases need to be addressed and remedied at a systems level.

Why might these biases exist?

While we cannot completely understand all of the possible explanations for these biases, it is important to emphasize the long-standing prejudice and discrimination against women and people of color in our society and how this has impacted our behavior. While strides have been made, there clearly still seems to be a difference between what we say and how our biases impact our behavior. Women are still tougher on women in professional evaluations in other fields as well²³; it is not unique to medicine. While workplace improvements are slowly changing, women still face inequities. The more research we publish to describe it, the more we hope the conversation continues, allowing us to reduce the impact of bias on our sense of self-worth and identity related to our careers, narrow the pay gap, and see women advance at the same rate as male counterparts. Considerable transformation is crucial to prevent further workforce attrition.

With regard to the lower scores provided by Asian patients, studies suggest that cultural response bias, rather than true differences in quality of care, may account for these discrepancies. Previous literature has found that Asian patients are more likely to select midpoints, rather than extremes, when completing Likert-type studies²⁴ and are not more likely to change medical providers than other race/ethnicities, indicating that lower ratings may not necessarily imply greater dissatisfaction with care.²⁵

Far-reaching effects on finances, income, well-being, job satisfaction, etc.

Depending on how the results are distributed and used, the effects of patient satisfaction surveys can extend well beyond the original intentions. At some institutions, income for physicians is directly tied to their Press Ganey satisfaction scores, which could have profound implications for female and Asian physicians,^13,15 who would be paid less—resulting in a wider pay gap than already exists.¹⁸

When negative and not constructive, patient evaluations can contribute to physician burnout and a loss of productive members of the workforce.²⁶ This is especially important in obstetrics and gynecology, where physicians are most likely to experience burnout due to multiple factors such as high-risk medical conditions, pressures of the electronic medical record (EMR), the medicolegal environment, and difficulty balancing patient expectations for autonomy with professional judgement.²⁷ Burnout also disproportionately affects women and younger physicians, which is especially concerning given that, in 2017, approximately one-third of practicing obstetrician/gynecologists were women, while that same year more than 80% of trainees matching into the field were women.²⁸ In one survey sent to members of a prominent medical society, 20% of the medical professionals who responded said they have had their employment threatened by low patient satisfaction scores, 78% reported that patient satisfaction surveys moderately or severely affected their job satisfaction, and 28% stated they had considered quitting their job or leaving the medical profession.²⁹Another related effect is the association between malpractice proceedings and a lack of satisfaction with perceived quality of physician-patient communication.³⁰ This may be an important determinant of malpractice lawsuits, and ensuring high patient satisfaction may be a form of defensive medicine.

Continue to: Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies...

Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies

The rapid, widespread adoption of the Press Ganey survey across specialties, clinical care settings, and geographic areas may have been largely due to the ease and operational benefits for hospitals rather than after rigorous study and validation. For example, repeated use of a specific measurement tool may facilitate comparison across areas within a hospital but also across institutions, which can help assess performance at a national level. Hospitals also may have a financial incentive to work with a single third-party or vendor instead of using multiple options across multiple vendors. However, the impact of adoption of novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

A similar example of an emergence of a technological advancement that has changed the field of medicine and how we provide care is the EMR. Epic is now the most commonly used medical record system and holds the market share of the industry, covering 78% of patients in the United States.³¹ While there are certainly many potential benefits of a common EMR, such as ease of information sharing and standardization of formatting, opportunities are identified in real time and require product adjustment. For example, modifications have been made to accurately represent gender outside of the previously used dichotomous options. Diagnoses such as cervical cancer screening can now be used even if the patient gender is listed as male.

Similarly, the Press Ganey and other patient satisfaction questionnaires should be evaluated and modified to address existing societal biases. The World Health Organization estimates that it will take 300 years to fix gender inequality,³² but we have an opportunity now to control the narrative and improve patient feedback.

Future research avenues

Ultimately, there is a need to further explore currently available methods of evaluating clinical encounters to better understand the inherent biases and limitations. We hope this review will encourage other physicians to examine their specialties and hospitals and require similar analyses from vendors of such satisfaction rating products prior to using them. At the very least, health systems should be willing to partner with vendors and physicians on an ongoing basis to better understand the biases involved in these survey results and make modifications as needed. Patients also obtain information from and contribute to self-reported, publicly available websites; therefore, additional exploration into a nationalized standard for assessing patient satisfaction also may serve as an opportunity to standardize the information patients evaluate.³³ Further assessment of the potential financial and emotional impact of using the currently available patient-reported surveys on female physicians, Asian physicians, young physicians, and physicians who see young patients is needed. It is time to put pressure on a broken patient satisfaction system and improve on a national level to avoid undue negative consequences on our physicians. Use of patient satisfaction survey data should be limited until we all understand and account for the biases that are evident. ●

ILLUSTRATION © IRYNA INSHYNA/SHUTTERSTOCK

Patient satisfaction questionnaires were developed in the 1980s as part of the movement to better understand the patient’s experience and their perspective of the quality of care. In 1985, the Press Ganey survey—now the most widely used method to assess patient satisfaction—was developed by 2 professors in anthropology and sociology-statistics at Notre Dame. Initially intended for inpatient admissions, the survey was validated based on a few thousand survey results.¹ Given the strong interest in improving patient satisfaction at the time, it became widely adopted and quickly expanded into outpatient encounters and ambulatory surgery settings.

Although other surveys have been developed,² the Press Ganey survey is the most commonly used assessment tool for patient satisfaction metrics in the United States, with approximately 50% of all hospitals and more than 41,000 health care organizations using its services.^3,4 The survey consists of 6 domains related to satisfaction with:

1. the care provider

2. the nurse or assistant

3. personal issues

4. overall assessment

5. access

6. moving through the visit. 

Survey items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from “very poor” (a score of 1) to “very good” (a score of 5). According to the company, because this format is balanced and parallel (unlike a “poor” to “excellent” format), responses can be quantified and used statistically without violating methodologic assumptions. Also, variability in patients’ responses with this format allows for the identification of opportunities to improve, unlike “yes/no” response formats.¹ There are limitations to this design, however, which can impact data quality,⁵ as we will see.

While the distribution process varies by institution, there is an algorithm laid out by Press Ganey for administering surveys to patients in their preferred language after outpatient visits. Based on recent research into Press Ganey response rates, the typical response rate is estimated to be 16% to 19%.⁶ Although this low response rate is typical of survey data, it inherently introduces the risk of responder bias—meaning results may be skewed by patients who represent the extremes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Adoption of the survey as we move toward value-based care

More recently, patients’ satisfaction with their health care has received increased attention as we move to a patient-centered care model and as health care reimbursement models shift toward value-based care. Current trends in health care policy statements include the importance of raising the standard of care and shifting from a “fee-for-service” to a “pay-for-performance” reimbursement model.^7,8 As a result, hospitals are establishing systems to measure “performance” that are not nationally standardized or extensively studied with objective measures. The changing standard of health care expectations in the United States is a topic of much public debate.⁹ And as expectations and new standards are defined, the impact of implementing novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

Patient satisfaction also has been identified as a driver for hospital finances through loyalty, described as the “likelihood to return to that system for future medical services.”^10,11 This measure has contributed to policy changes that reinforce prioritization of patient satisfaction. For example, the Affordable Care Act tied Medicare reimbursement and patient satisfaction together in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This program uses measures of clinical processes, efficiency, outcomes, and patient experiences to calculate a total score that results in hospital reimbursement and incentives,¹² which creates a direct pathway from patient experience to reimbursement—underscoring hospitals’ desire for ongoing assessment of patient satisfaction.

Continue to: Gender, race, and age bias...

Gender, race, and age bias

Although the rationale behind gathering patient input is important, recent data suggest that patient satisfaction surveys are subject to inherent biases.^6,13,14 These biases tend to negatively impact women and non-White physicians, adding to the systemic discrimination against women and physicians of color that already exists in health care.

In a single-site retrospective study performed in 2018 by Rogo-Gupta et al, female gynecologists were found to be 47% less likely to receive top patient satisfaction scores than their male counterparts owing to their gender alone, suggesting that gender bias may impact the results of patient satisfaction questionnaires.¹³ The authors encouraged that the results of patient satisfaction surveys be interpreted with great caution until the impact on female physicians is better understood.

A multi-center study by the same group (Rogo-Gupta et al) assessed the same construct across 5 different geographically diverse institutions.¹⁵ This study confirmed that female gynecologists were less likely to receive a top satisfaction score from their patients (19% lower odds when compared with male gynecologists). They also studied the effects of other patient demographics, including age, race/ethnicity, and race concordance. Older patients (aged ≥63 years) had an over-3-fold increase in odds of providing a top satisfaction score than younger patients. Additionally, Asian physicians had significantly lower odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with White physicians, while Asian patients had significantly lower odds of providing a top satisfaction score when compared with White patients. Lastly, in most cases, when underrepresented-in-medicine patients saw an underrepresented-in-medicine physician (race concordance), there was a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score. Asian race concordance, however, actually resulted in a lower likelihood of receiving a top satisfaction score.¹⁵

Literature from other specialties supports these findings. These results are consistent with emerging data from other medical specialties that also suggest that Press Ganey survey data are subject to inherent biases. For example, data from emergency medicine literature have shown discrepancies between patient satisfaction for providers at tertiary inner-city institutions versus those in affluent suburban populations,¹⁶ and that worse mortality is actually correlated with better patient satisfaction scores, and vice versa.¹⁷

Another study by Sotto-Santiago in 2019 assessed patient satisfaction scores in multiple specialties at a single institution where quality-related financial incentives were offered based on this metric. They found a significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between underrepresented and White physicians, which suggests a potential bias among patients and institutional practices—ultimately leading to pay inequities through differences in financial incentives.¹⁸

Percentile differences reveal small gaps in satisfaction ratings

When examining the difference between raw Press Ganey patient satisfaction data and the percentiles associated with these scores, an interesting finding arises. Looking at the 2023 multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al, the difference in the top raw scores between male and female gynecologists appears to be small (3.3%).¹⁵ However, in 2020, the difference in top scores separating the top (75th) and bottom (25th) percentile quartiles of physicians was also small, at only 6.9%.

Considering the percentiles, if a provider who scores in the 25th percentile is compared with a colleague who scores in the 75th percentile, they may think the reported satisfaction score differences were quite large. This may potentially invoke feelings of decreased self-worth, negatively impact their professional identity or overall well-being, and they may seek (or be told to seek) improvement opportunities. Now imagine the provider in question realizes the difference between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is actually only 6.9%. This information may completely change how the results are interpreted and acted upon by administrators. This is further changed with the understanding that 3.3% of the difference may be due to gender alone, narrowing the gap even further. Providers would become understandably frustrated if measures of success such as reimbursement, financial bonus or incentives, promotion, or advancement are linked to these results. It violates the value of fairness and does not offer an equitable starting point.

Evolution of the data distribution. Another consideration, as noted by Robert C. Lloyd, PhD, one of the statisticians who helped develop the percentile statistical analysis mapping in 1985, is that it was based on a classic bell-shaped distribution of patient satisfaction survey scores.¹⁹ Because hospitals, medical groups, and physicians have been working these past 20 years to achieve higher Press Ganey scores, the data no longer have a bell-shaped distribution. Rather, there are significant clusters of raw scores at the high end with a very narrow response range. When these data are mapped to the percentile spectrum, they are highly inaccurate.¹⁹

Impact of sample size. According to Press Ganey, a minimum of 30 survey responses collected over the designated time period is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions of the data for a specific individual, program, or hospital. Despite this requirement to achieve statistical significance, Sullivan and DeLucia found that the firm often provides comparative data about hospital departments and individual physicians based on a smaller sample size that may create an unacceptably large margin of error.²⁰ Sullivan, for example, said his department may only have 8 to 10 Press Ganey survey responses per month and yet still receives monthly reports from the company analyzing the data. Because of the small sample size, 1 month his department ranked in the 1st percentile and 2 months later it ranked in the 99th percentile.²⁰

The effect of a high ceiling rate. A psychometrics report for the Press Ganey survey is available from the vendor that provides vague assessments of reliability and validity based on 2,762 surveys from 12 practices across 10 states. This report describes a 12-question version of the survey with “no problems encountered” with missingness and response variability. The report further states that the Press Ganey survey demonstrates construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validities, and high reliability; however, these data are not made available.¹

In response to this report, Presson et al analyzed more than 34,000 surveys from one institution to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Press Ganey survey.21 Overall, the survey demonstrated suitable psychometric properties for most metrics. However, Presson et al noted a significantly high ceiling rate of 29.3% for the total score, which ranged from 55.4% to 84.1% across items.²¹ (Ceiling rates are considered substantial if they occur more than 20% of the time.) Ultimately, a high ceiling rate reduces the power to discriminate between patients who have high satisfaction (everyone is “happy”) with those who are just slightly less than happy, but not dissatisfied. This data quality metric can impact the reliability and validity of a survey—and substantial ceiling rates can notably impact percentile rankings of scores within an institution, offering a possible explanation for the small percentage change between the top and bottom percentiles.

Continue to: Other issues with surveys...

Other issues with surveys

In addition to the limitations associated with percentile groupings, survey data are always subject to nonresponse bias, and small sample size can lead to nonsignificant results. Skewed responses also can make it difficult to identify true outlying providers who may need remediation or may be offering a superior patient experience. Satisfaction surveys also lack an assessment of objective data and instead assess how patients perceive and feel, which introduces subjectivity to the results.

Additionally, focusing on improving patient experience ratings can incentivize unnecessary or inappropriate care (ie, overprescribing of narcotics, prescribing antibiotics when not indicated, or ordering testing that may not change management). Some physicians even state that they are not getting the type of feedback that they are asking for and that the survey is not asking the right questions to elicit patient input that is meaningful to their practice. Lastly, the incorporation of trainees and advanced practice providers in the patient care experience leads to the assessment of an alternative provider being included in the ultimate score and may not be representative of that physician.

Patients’ perception and survey results. In some circumstances, the patient’s understanding of their medical situation may affect their responses. Some may argue that patients may mistake a physician’s confidence for competence, when in reality these two entities are mutually exclusive. In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University Medical Center surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer for their perceived quality of care and the process of getting care, including referrals, test results, and treatments. They compared the responses with patient records to determine the actual quality of care. Of the 374 women who received treatment for early-stage breast cancer, 55% said they received “excellent care,” but most—88%—actually got care that was in line with the best current treatment guidelines. Interestingly, the study found African American women were less likely to report excellent care than White or Hispanic women, less likely to trust their doctor, and more likely to say they experienced bias during the process. However, there was no difference in actual quality of care received in any group.²²

You can’t improve what you can’t control. Ultimately, while many providers think patient satisfaction survey results may help inform some aspects of their practice, they cannot improve what they cannot control. For example, the multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al found that older patients (≥63 years) have more than a 3-fold increase in odds of giving a top satisfaction score than younger patients (≤33 years), independent of other aspects of the care experience.15 Additionally, they found that older physicians (≥56 years) had a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with physicians who were younger than 55 years old.¹⁵ Given that physicians clearly cannot control their own age or the age of their patients, the negative impacts of these biases need to be addressed and remedied at a systems level.

Why might these biases exist?

While we cannot completely understand all of the possible explanations for these biases, it is important to emphasize the long-standing prejudice and discrimination against women and people of color in our society and how this has impacted our behavior. While strides have been made, there clearly still seems to be a difference between what we say and how our biases impact our behavior. Women are still tougher on women in professional evaluations in other fields as well²³; it is not unique to medicine. While workplace improvements are slowly changing, women still face inequities. The more research we publish to describe it, the more we hope the conversation continues, allowing us to reduce the impact of bias on our sense of self-worth and identity related to our careers, narrow the pay gap, and see women advance at the same rate as male counterparts. Considerable transformation is crucial to prevent further workforce attrition.

With regard to the lower scores provided by Asian patients, studies suggest that cultural response bias, rather than true differences in quality of care, may account for these discrepancies. Previous literature has found that Asian patients are more likely to select midpoints, rather than extremes, when completing Likert-type studies²⁴ and are not more likely to change medical providers than other race/ethnicities, indicating that lower ratings may not necessarily imply greater dissatisfaction with care.²⁵

Far-reaching effects on finances, income, well-being, job satisfaction, etc.

Depending on how the results are distributed and used, the effects of patient satisfaction surveys can extend well beyond the original intentions. At some institutions, income for physicians is directly tied to their Press Ganey satisfaction scores, which could have profound implications for female and Asian physicians,^13,15 who would be paid less—resulting in a wider pay gap than already exists.¹⁸

When negative and not constructive, patient evaluations can contribute to physician burnout and a loss of productive members of the workforce.²⁶ This is especially important in obstetrics and gynecology, where physicians are most likely to experience burnout due to multiple factors such as high-risk medical conditions, pressures of the electronic medical record (EMR), the medicolegal environment, and difficulty balancing patient expectations for autonomy with professional judgement.²⁷ Burnout also disproportionately affects women and younger physicians, which is especially concerning given that, in 2017, approximately one-third of practicing obstetrician/gynecologists were women, while that same year more than 80% of trainees matching into the field were women.²⁸ In one survey sent to members of a prominent medical society, 20% of the medical professionals who responded said they have had their employment threatened by low patient satisfaction scores, 78% reported that patient satisfaction surveys moderately or severely affected their job satisfaction, and 28% stated they had considered quitting their job or leaving the medical profession.²⁹Another related effect is the association between malpractice proceedings and a lack of satisfaction with perceived quality of physician-patient communication.³⁰ This may be an important determinant of malpractice lawsuits, and ensuring high patient satisfaction may be a form of defensive medicine.

Continue to: Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies...

Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies

The rapid, widespread adoption of the Press Ganey survey across specialties, clinical care settings, and geographic areas may have been largely due to the ease and operational benefits for hospitals rather than after rigorous study and validation. For example, repeated use of a specific measurement tool may facilitate comparison across areas within a hospital but also across institutions, which can help assess performance at a national level. Hospitals also may have a financial incentive to work with a single third-party or vendor instead of using multiple options across multiple vendors. However, the impact of adoption of novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

A similar example of an emergence of a technological advancement that has changed the field of medicine and how we provide care is the EMR. Epic is now the most commonly used medical record system and holds the market share of the industry, covering 78% of patients in the United States.³¹ While there are certainly many potential benefits of a common EMR, such as ease of information sharing and standardization of formatting, opportunities are identified in real time and require product adjustment. For example, modifications have been made to accurately represent gender outside of the previously used dichotomous options. Diagnoses such as cervical cancer screening can now be used even if the patient gender is listed as male.

Similarly, the Press Ganey and other patient satisfaction questionnaires should be evaluated and modified to address existing societal biases. The World Health Organization estimates that it will take 300 years to fix gender inequality,³² but we have an opportunity now to control the narrative and improve patient feedback.

Future research avenues

Ultimately, there is a need to further explore currently available methods of evaluating clinical encounters to better understand the inherent biases and limitations. We hope this review will encourage other physicians to examine their specialties and hospitals and require similar analyses from vendors of such satisfaction rating products prior to using them. At the very least, health systems should be willing to partner with vendors and physicians on an ongoing basis to better understand the biases involved in these survey results and make modifications as needed. Patients also obtain information from and contribute to self-reported, publicly available websites; therefore, additional exploration into a nationalized standard for assessing patient satisfaction also may serve as an opportunity to standardize the information patients evaluate.³³ Further assessment of the potential financial and emotional impact of using the currently available patient-reported surveys on female physicians, Asian physicians, young physicians, and physicians who see young patients is needed. It is time to put pressure on a broken patient satisfaction system and improve on a national level to avoid undue negative consequences on our physicians. Use of patient satisfaction survey data should be limited until we all understand and account for the biases that are evident. ●

ILLUSTRATION © IRYNA INSHYNA/SHUTTERSTOCK

Patient satisfaction questionnaires were developed in the 1980s as part of the movement to better understand the patient’s experience and their perspective of the quality of care. In 1985, the Press Ganey survey—now the most widely used method to assess patient satisfaction—was developed by 2 professors in anthropology and sociology-statistics at Notre Dame. Initially intended for inpatient admissions, the survey was validated based on a few thousand survey results.¹ Given the strong interest in improving patient satisfaction at the time, it became widely adopted and quickly expanded into outpatient encounters and ambulatory surgery settings.

Although other surveys have been developed,² the Press Ganey survey is the most commonly used assessment tool for patient satisfaction metrics in the United States, with approximately 50% of all hospitals and more than 41,000 health care organizations using its services.^3,4 The survey consists of 6 domains related to satisfaction with:

1. the care provider

2. the nurse or assistant

3. personal issues

4. overall assessment

5. access

6. moving through the visit. 

Survey items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from “very poor” (a score of 1) to “very good” (a score of 5). According to the company, because this format is balanced and parallel (unlike a “poor” to “excellent” format), responses can be quantified and used statistically without violating methodologic assumptions. Also, variability in patients’ responses with this format allows for the identification of opportunities to improve, unlike “yes/no” response formats.¹ There are limitations to this design, however, which can impact data quality,⁵ as we will see.

While the distribution process varies by institution, there is an algorithm laid out by Press Ganey for administering surveys to patients in their preferred language after outpatient visits. Based on recent research into Press Ganey response rates, the typical response rate is estimated to be 16% to 19%.⁶ Although this low response rate is typical of survey data, it inherently introduces the risk of responder bias—meaning results may be skewed by patients who represent the extremes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Adoption of the survey as we move toward value-based care

More recently, patients’ satisfaction with their health care has received increased attention as we move to a patient-centered care model and as health care reimbursement models shift toward value-based care. Current trends in health care policy statements include the importance of raising the standard of care and shifting from a “fee-for-service” to a “pay-for-performance” reimbursement model.^7,8 As a result, hospitals are establishing systems to measure “performance” that are not nationally standardized or extensively studied with objective measures. The changing standard of health care expectations in the United States is a topic of much public debate.⁹ And as expectations and new standards are defined, the impact of implementing novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

Patient satisfaction also has been identified as a driver for hospital finances through loyalty, described as the “likelihood to return to that system for future medical services.”^10,11 This measure has contributed to policy changes that reinforce prioritization of patient satisfaction. For example, the Affordable Care Act tied Medicare reimbursement and patient satisfaction together in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This program uses measures of clinical processes, efficiency, outcomes, and patient experiences to calculate a total score that results in hospital reimbursement and incentives,¹² which creates a direct pathway from patient experience to reimbursement—underscoring hospitals’ desire for ongoing assessment of patient satisfaction.

Continue to: Gender, race, and age bias...

Gender, race, and age bias

Although the rationale behind gathering patient input is important, recent data suggest that patient satisfaction surveys are subject to inherent biases.^6,13,14 These biases tend to negatively impact women and non-White physicians, adding to the systemic discrimination against women and physicians of color that already exists in health care.

In a single-site retrospective study performed in 2018 by Rogo-Gupta et al, female gynecologists were found to be 47% less likely to receive top patient satisfaction scores than their male counterparts owing to their gender alone, suggesting that gender bias may impact the results of patient satisfaction questionnaires.¹³ The authors encouraged that the results of patient satisfaction surveys be interpreted with great caution until the impact on female physicians is better understood.

A multi-center study by the same group (Rogo-Gupta et al) assessed the same construct across 5 different geographically diverse institutions.¹⁵ This study confirmed that female gynecologists were less likely to receive a top satisfaction score from their patients (19% lower odds when compared with male gynecologists). They also studied the effects of other patient demographics, including age, race/ethnicity, and race concordance. Older patients (aged ≥63 years) had an over-3-fold increase in odds of providing a top satisfaction score than younger patients. Additionally, Asian physicians had significantly lower odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with White physicians, while Asian patients had significantly lower odds of providing a top satisfaction score when compared with White patients. Lastly, in most cases, when underrepresented-in-medicine patients saw an underrepresented-in-medicine physician (race concordance), there was a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score. Asian race concordance, however, actually resulted in a lower likelihood of receiving a top satisfaction score.¹⁵

Literature from other specialties supports these findings. These results are consistent with emerging data from other medical specialties that also suggest that Press Ganey survey data are subject to inherent biases. For example, data from emergency medicine literature have shown discrepancies between patient satisfaction for providers at tertiary inner-city institutions versus those in affluent suburban populations,¹⁶ and that worse mortality is actually correlated with better patient satisfaction scores, and vice versa.¹⁷

Another study by Sotto-Santiago in 2019 assessed patient satisfaction scores in multiple specialties at a single institution where quality-related financial incentives were offered based on this metric. They found a significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between underrepresented and White physicians, which suggests a potential bias among patients and institutional practices—ultimately leading to pay inequities through differences in financial incentives.¹⁸

Percentile differences reveal small gaps in satisfaction ratings

When examining the difference between raw Press Ganey patient satisfaction data and the percentiles associated with these scores, an interesting finding arises. Looking at the 2023 multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al, the difference in the top raw scores between male and female gynecologists appears to be small (3.3%).¹⁵ However, in 2020, the difference in top scores separating the top (75th) and bottom (25th) percentile quartiles of physicians was also small, at only 6.9%.

Considering the percentiles, if a provider who scores in the 25th percentile is compared with a colleague who scores in the 75th percentile, they may think the reported satisfaction score differences were quite large. This may potentially invoke feelings of decreased self-worth, negatively impact their professional identity or overall well-being, and they may seek (or be told to seek) improvement opportunities. Now imagine the provider in question realizes the difference between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is actually only 6.9%. This information may completely change how the results are interpreted and acted upon by administrators. This is further changed with the understanding that 3.3% of the difference may be due to gender alone, narrowing the gap even further. Providers would become understandably frustrated if measures of success such as reimbursement, financial bonus or incentives, promotion, or advancement are linked to these results. It violates the value of fairness and does not offer an equitable starting point.

Evolution of the data distribution. Another consideration, as noted by Robert C. Lloyd, PhD, one of the statisticians who helped develop the percentile statistical analysis mapping in 1985, is that it was based on a classic bell-shaped distribution of patient satisfaction survey scores.¹⁹ Because hospitals, medical groups, and physicians have been working these past 20 years to achieve higher Press Ganey scores, the data no longer have a bell-shaped distribution. Rather, there are significant clusters of raw scores at the high end with a very narrow response range. When these data are mapped to the percentile spectrum, they are highly inaccurate.¹⁹

Impact of sample size. According to Press Ganey, a minimum of 30 survey responses collected over the designated time period is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions of the data for a specific individual, program, or hospital. Despite this requirement to achieve statistical significance, Sullivan and DeLucia found that the firm often provides comparative data about hospital departments and individual physicians based on a smaller sample size that may create an unacceptably large margin of error.²⁰ Sullivan, for example, said his department may only have 8 to 10 Press Ganey survey responses per month and yet still receives monthly reports from the company analyzing the data. Because of the small sample size, 1 month his department ranked in the 1st percentile and 2 months later it ranked in the 99th percentile.²⁰

The effect of a high ceiling rate. A psychometrics report for the Press Ganey survey is available from the vendor that provides vague assessments of reliability and validity based on 2,762 surveys from 12 practices across 10 states. This report describes a 12-question version of the survey with “no problems encountered” with missingness and response variability. The report further states that the Press Ganey survey demonstrates construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validities, and high reliability; however, these data are not made available.¹

In response to this report, Presson et al analyzed more than 34,000 surveys from one institution to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Press Ganey survey.21 Overall, the survey demonstrated suitable psychometric properties for most metrics. However, Presson et al noted a significantly high ceiling rate of 29.3% for the total score, which ranged from 55.4% to 84.1% across items.²¹ (Ceiling rates are considered substantial if they occur more than 20% of the time.) Ultimately, a high ceiling rate reduces the power to discriminate between patients who have high satisfaction (everyone is “happy”) with those who are just slightly less than happy, but not dissatisfied. This data quality metric can impact the reliability and validity of a survey—and substantial ceiling rates can notably impact percentile rankings of scores within an institution, offering a possible explanation for the small percentage change between the top and bottom percentiles.

Continue to: Other issues with surveys...

Other issues with surveys

In addition to the limitations associated with percentile groupings, survey data are always subject to nonresponse bias, and small sample size can lead to nonsignificant results. Skewed responses also can make it difficult to identify true outlying providers who may need remediation or may be offering a superior patient experience. Satisfaction surveys also lack an assessment of objective data and instead assess how patients perceive and feel, which introduces subjectivity to the results.

Additionally, focusing on improving patient experience ratings can incentivize unnecessary or inappropriate care (ie, overprescribing of narcotics, prescribing antibiotics when not indicated, or ordering testing that may not change management). Some physicians even state that they are not getting the type of feedback that they are asking for and that the survey is not asking the right questions to elicit patient input that is meaningful to their practice. Lastly, the incorporation of trainees and advanced practice providers in the patient care experience leads to the assessment of an alternative provider being included in the ultimate score and may not be representative of that physician.

Patients’ perception and survey results. In some circumstances, the patient’s understanding of their medical situation may affect their responses. Some may argue that patients may mistake a physician’s confidence for competence, when in reality these two entities are mutually exclusive. In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University Medical Center surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer for their perceived quality of care and the process of getting care, including referrals, test results, and treatments. They compared the responses with patient records to determine the actual quality of care. Of the 374 women who received treatment for early-stage breast cancer, 55% said they received “excellent care,” but most—88%—actually got care that was in line with the best current treatment guidelines. Interestingly, the study found African American women were less likely to report excellent care than White or Hispanic women, less likely to trust their doctor, and more likely to say they experienced bias during the process. However, there was no difference in actual quality of care received in any group.²²

You can’t improve what you can’t control. Ultimately, while many providers think patient satisfaction survey results may help inform some aspects of their practice, they cannot improve what they cannot control. For example, the multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al found that older patients (≥63 years) have more than a 3-fold increase in odds of giving a top satisfaction score than younger patients (≤33 years), independent of other aspects of the care experience.15 Additionally, they found that older physicians (≥56 years) had a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with physicians who were younger than 55 years old.¹⁵ Given that physicians clearly cannot control their own age or the age of their patients, the negative impacts of these biases need to be addressed and remedied at a systems level.

Why might these biases exist?

While we cannot completely understand all of the possible explanations for these biases, it is important to emphasize the long-standing prejudice and discrimination against women and people of color in our society and how this has impacted our behavior. While strides have been made, there clearly still seems to be a difference between what we say and how our biases impact our behavior. Women are still tougher on women in professional evaluations in other fields as well²³; it is not unique to medicine. While workplace improvements are slowly changing, women still face inequities. The more research we publish to describe it, the more we hope the conversation continues, allowing us to reduce the impact of bias on our sense of self-worth and identity related to our careers, narrow the pay gap, and see women advance at the same rate as male counterparts. Considerable transformation is crucial to prevent further workforce attrition.

With regard to the lower scores provided by Asian patients, studies suggest that cultural response bias, rather than true differences in quality of care, may account for these discrepancies. Previous literature has found that Asian patients are more likely to select midpoints, rather than extremes, when completing Likert-type studies²⁴ and are not more likely to change medical providers than other race/ethnicities, indicating that lower ratings may not necessarily imply greater dissatisfaction with care.²⁵

Far-reaching effects on finances, income, well-being, job satisfaction, etc.

Depending on how the results are distributed and used, the effects of patient satisfaction surveys can extend well beyond the original intentions. At some institutions, income for physicians is directly tied to their Press Ganey satisfaction scores, which could have profound implications for female and Asian physicians,^13,15 who would be paid less—resulting in a wider pay gap than already exists.¹⁸

When negative and not constructive, patient evaluations can contribute to physician burnout and a loss of productive members of the workforce.²⁶ This is especially important in obstetrics and gynecology, where physicians are most likely to experience burnout due to multiple factors such as high-risk medical conditions, pressures of the electronic medical record (EMR), the medicolegal environment, and difficulty balancing patient expectations for autonomy with professional judgement.²⁷ Burnout also disproportionately affects women and younger physicians, which is especially concerning given that, in 2017, approximately one-third of practicing obstetrician/gynecologists were women, while that same year more than 80% of trainees matching into the field were women.²⁸ In one survey sent to members of a prominent medical society, 20% of the medical professionals who responded said they have had their employment threatened by low patient satisfaction scores, 78% reported that patient satisfaction surveys moderately or severely affected their job satisfaction, and 28% stated they had considered quitting their job or leaving the medical profession.²⁹Another related effect is the association between malpractice proceedings and a lack of satisfaction with perceived quality of physician-patient communication.³⁰ This may be an important determinant of malpractice lawsuits, and ensuring high patient satisfaction may be a form of defensive medicine.

Continue to: Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies...

Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies

The rapid, widespread adoption of the Press Ganey survey across specialties, clinical care settings, and geographic areas may have been largely due to the ease and operational benefits for hospitals rather than after rigorous study and validation. For example, repeated use of a specific measurement tool may facilitate comparison across areas within a hospital but also across institutions, which can help assess performance at a national level. Hospitals also may have a financial incentive to work with a single third-party or vendor instead of using multiple options across multiple vendors. However, the impact of adoption of novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

A similar example of an emergence of a technological advancement that has changed the field of medicine and how we provide care is the EMR. Epic is now the most commonly used medical record system and holds the market share of the industry, covering 78% of patients in the United States.³¹ While there are certainly many potential benefits of a common EMR, such as ease of information sharing and standardization of formatting, opportunities are identified in real time and require product adjustment. For example, modifications have been made to accurately represent gender outside of the previously used dichotomous options. Diagnoses such as cervical cancer screening can now be used even if the patient gender is listed as male.

Similarly, the Press Ganey and other patient satisfaction questionnaires should be evaluated and modified to address existing societal biases. The World Health Organization estimates that it will take 300 years to fix gender inequality,³² but we have an opportunity now to control the narrative and improve patient feedback.

Future research avenues

Ultimately, there is a need to further explore currently available methods of evaluating clinical encounters to better understand the inherent biases and limitations. We hope this review will encourage other physicians to examine their specialties and hospitals and require similar analyses from vendors of such satisfaction rating products prior to using them. At the very least, health systems should be willing to partner with vendors and physicians on an ongoing basis to better understand the biases involved in these survey results and make modifications as needed. Patients also obtain information from and contribute to self-reported, publicly available websites; therefore, additional exploration into a nationalized standard for assessing patient satisfaction also may serve as an opportunity to standardize the information patients evaluate.³³ Further assessment of the potential financial and emotional impact of using the currently available patient-reported surveys on female physicians, Asian physicians, young physicians, and physicians who see young patients is needed. It is time to put pressure on a broken patient satisfaction system and improve on a national level to avoid undue negative consequences on our physicians. Use of patient satisfaction survey data should be limited until we all understand and account for the biases that are evident. ●

This year’s menopause Update highlights a highly effective nonhormonal medication that recently received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of bothersome menopausal vasomotor symptoms. In addition, the Update provides guidance regarding how ObGyns should respond when an endometrial biopsy for postmenopausal bleeding reveals proliferative changes.

Breakthrough in women’s health: A new nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms

Johnson KA, Martin N, Nappi RE, et al. Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant in moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: a phase 3 RCT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;dgad058. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgad058.
 

Lederman S, Ottery FD, Cano A, et al. Fezolinetant for treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause (SKYLIGHT 1): a phase 3 randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2023;401:1091-1102. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00085-5.

A new oral nonestrogen-containing medication for relief of moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant (Veozah) 45 mg daily, has been approved by the FDA and was expected to be available by the end of May 2023. Fezolinetant is a selective neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonistthat offers a targeted nonhormonal approach to menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS), and it is the first in its class to make it to market.

The decline in estrogen at menopause appears to result in increased signaling at kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons in the thermoregulatory center within the hypothalamus with resultant increases in hot flashes.^1,2 Fezolinetant works by binding to and blocking the activities of the NK3 receptor.^3-5

Key study findings

Selective NK3 receptor antagonists, including fezolinetant, effectively reduce the frequency and severity of VMS comparable to that of hormone therapy (HT). Two phase 3 clinical trials, Skylight 1 and 2, confirmed the efficacy and safety of fezolinetant 45 mg in treating VMS,^6,7 and an additional 52-week placebo-controlled study, Skylight 4, confirmed long-term safety.⁸ Onset of action occurs within a week. Reported adverse events occurred in 1% to 2% of healthy menopausal women participating in clinical trials; these included headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminase levels.^6-9

The published phase 2 trials⁹ and the international randomized controlled trial (RCT) 12-week studies, Skylight 1 and 2,^6,7 found that once-daily 30-mg and 45-mg doses of fezolinetant significantly reduced VMS frequency and severity at 12 weeks among women aged 40 to 60 years who reported an average of 7 moderate to severe VMS/day; the reduction in reported VMS was sustained at 40 weeks. Phase 3 data from Skylight 1 and 2 demonstrated fezolinetant’s efficacy in reducing the frequency and severity of VMS and provided information on the safety profile of fezolinetant compared with placebo over 12 weeks and a noncontrolled extension for an additional 40 weeks.^6,7

Oral fezolinetant was associated with improved quality of life, including reduced VMS-related interference with daily life.¹⁰ Johnson and colleagues, reporting for Skylight 2, found VMS frequency and severity improvement by week 1, which achieved statistical significance at weeks 4 and 12, with this improvement maintained through week 52.⁶ A 64.3% reduction in mean daily VMS from baseline was seen at 12 weeks for fezolinetant 45 mg compared with a 45.4% reduction for placebo. VMS severity significantly decreased compared with placebo at 4 and 12 weeks.⁶

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were infrequent, reported by 2%, 1%, and 0% of those receiving fezolinetant 30 mg, fezolinetant 45 mg, and placebo.⁶ Increases in levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were noted and were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient, and these levels returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation.⁶

Of the 5 participants taking fezolinetant in Skyline 1 with ALT or AST levels greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal in the 12-week randomized trial, levels returned to normal range while continuing treatment in 2 participants, with treatment interruption in 2, and with discontinuation in 1. No new safety signals were seen in the 40-week extension trial.⁶

Continue to: Endometrial and bone safety...

Endometrial and bone safety

Results from Skylight 4, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, 52-week safety study, provided additional evidence that confirmed the longer-term safety of fezolinetant over a 52-week treatment period.⁸

Endometrial safety was assessed in postmenopausal women with normal baseline endometrium (n = 599).⁸ For fezolinetant 45 mg, 1 of 203 participants had endometrial hyperplasia (EH) (0.5%; upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3%); no cases of EH were noted in the placebo (0 of 186) or fezolinetant 30-mg (0 of 210) groups. The incidence of EH or malignancy in fezolinetant-treated participants was within prespecified limits, as assessed by blinded, centrally read endometrial biopsies. Endometrial malignancy occurred in 1 of 210 in the fezolinetant 30-mg group (0.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%) with no cases in the other groups, thus meeting FDA requirements for endometrial safety.⁸

In addition, no significant differences were noted in change from baseline endometrial thickness on transvaginal ultrasonography between fezolinetant-treated and placebo groups. Likewise, no loss of bone density was found on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans or trabecular bone scores.⁸

Liver safety

Although no cases of severe liver injury were noted, elevations in serum transaminase concentrations greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal were observed in the clinical trials. In Skylight 4, liver enzyme elevations more than 3 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 6 of 583 participants taking placebo, 8 of 590 taking fezolinetant 30 mg, and 12 of 589 taking fezolinetant 45 mg.⁸

The prescribing information for fezolinetant includes a warning for elevated hepatic transaminases: Fezolinetant should not be started if baseline serum transaminase concentration is equal to or exceeds 2 times the upper limit of normal. Liver tests should be obtained at baseline and repeated every 3 months for the first 9 months and then if symptoms suggest liver injury.^11,12

Unmet need for nonhormone treatment of VMS

Vasomotor symptoms affect up to 80% of women, with approximately 25% bothersome enough to warrant treatment. Vasomotor symptoms persist for a median of 7 years, with duration and severity differing by race and ethnicity. Black, Hispanic, and possibly Native American women experience the highest burden of VMS.² Although VMS, including hot flashes, night sweats, and mood and sleep disturbances, often are considered an annoyance to those with mild symptoms, moderate to severe VMS impact women’s lives, including functioning at home or work, affecting relationships, and decreasing perceived quality of life, and they have been associated with workplace absenteeism and increased health care costs, both direct from medical care and testing and indirect costs from lost work.^13-15

Women with 7 or more daily moderate to severe VMS (defined as with sweating or affecting function) reported interference with sleep (94%), concentration (84%), mood (85%), energy (77%), and sexual activity (61%).¹⁶ Moderately to severely bothersome VMS have been associated with impaired psychological and general well-being, affecting work performance.¹⁷ Based on a Mayo Clinic workplace survey, Faubion and colleagues estimated an annual loss of $1.8 billion in the United States for menopause-related missed work and a $28 billion loss when medical expenses were added.¹⁵

Menopausal HT has been the primary treatment for VMS and has been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of hot flashes, with additional benefits on sleep, mood, fatigue, bone loss and reduction of fracture, and genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), and with potential improvement in cardiovascular health with decreased type 2 diabetes.^18,19 For healthy women with early menopause and no contraindications, HT has been recommended until at least the age of natural menopause, as observational data suggest that HT prevents osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative changes, and sexual dysfunction for these women.^19,20 Similarly, for healthy women younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause, initiating HT has been shown to be safe and effective in treating bothersome VMS and preventing osteoporotic fractures and genitourinary changes.^19,21

Most systemic HT formulations are inexpensive (for example, available as generics), with multiple dosing and formulations available for use alone or combined as oral, transdermal, or vaginal therapies. Despite the fear that arose for clinicians and women from the initial 2002 findings of the Women’s Health Initiative regarding increased risk of breast cancer, stroke, venous thrombosis, cardiovascular disease, and dementia, major medical societies agree that when initiated at or soon after menopause, HT is a safe and effective therapy to relieve VMS, protect against bone loss, and treat genitourinary changes.^19,21

Many women, however, cannot take HT, including those with estrogen-sensitive cancers, such as breast or uterine cancers; prior cardiovascular disease, stroke, or venous thrombotic events; severe endometriosis; or migraine headaches with visual auras.² In addition, many symptomatic menopausal women without health contraindications choose not to take HT.² Until now, the only FDA-approved VMS nonhormone therapy has been a low-dose 7.5-mg paroxetine salt. Unfortunately, this formulation, along with the off-label use of other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors), gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, and clonidine, are substantially less effective than HT in treating moderate to severe VMS.

Bottom line

A substantial unmet need remains for effective therapy for moderate to severe VMS for women who cannot or choose not to take menopausal HT to relieve VMS.^2,16 Effective, safe nonhormone treatment options such as the new NK3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant will address this clinically important need.

One concern is that the cost of developing and bringing to market the first of a new type of medication will be passed on to consumers, which may put it out of the price range for the many women who need it. However, the development and FDA approval of fezolinetant as the first NK3 receptor antagonist to treat menopausal VMS is potentially a practice changer. It provides a novel, effective, and safe FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS, particularly for women who cannot or will not take hormone therapy.

Continue to: When endometrial biopsy for postmenopausal bleeding reveals proliferative changes, how should we respond?...

Abraham C. Proliferative endometrium in menopause: to treat or not to treat? Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:265-267. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005054.

The following case represents a common scenario for ObGyns.

CASE Patient with proliferative endometrial changes

A menopausal patient with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m² presents with uterine bleeding. She does not use systemic menopausal hormone therapy. Endometrial biopsy indicates proliferative changes.

When endometrial biopsy performed for bleeding reveals proliferative changes in menopausal women, we traditionally have responded by reassuring the patient that the findings are benign and advising that she should let us know if future spotting or bleeding occurs.

However, a recent review by Abraham published in Obstetrics and Gynecology details the implications of proliferative endometrial changes in menopausal patients, advising that treatment, as well as monitoring, may be appropriate.²²

Endometrial changes and what they suggest

In premenopausal women, proliferative endometrial changes are physiologic and result from ovarian estrogen production early in each cycle, during what is called the proliferative (referring to the endometrium) or follicular (referring to the dominant follicle that synthesizes estrogen) phase. In menopausal women who are not using HT, however, proliferative endometrial changes, with orderly uniform glands seen on histologic evaluation, reflect aromatization of androgens by adipose and other tissues into estrogen.

The next step on the continuum to hyperplasia (benign or atypical) after proliferative endometrium is disordered proliferative endometrium. At this stage, histologic evaluation reveals scattered cystic and dilated glands that have a normal gland-to-stroma ratio with a low gland density overall and without any atypia. Randomly distributed glands may have tubal metaplasia or fibrin thrombi associated with microinfarcts, often presenting with irregular bleeding. This is a noncancerous change that occurs with excess estrogen (endogenous or exogenous).²³

Progestins reverse endometrial hyperplasia by activating progesterone receptors, which leads to stromal decidualization with thinning of the endometrium. They have a pronounced effect on the histologic appearance of the endometrium. By contrast, endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN, previously known as endometrial hyperplasiawith atypia) shows underlying molecular mutations and histologic alterations and represents a sharp transition to true neoplasia, which greatly increases the risk of endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma.²⁴

For decades, we have been aware that if women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia are not treated with progestational therapy, their future risk of endometrial cancer is elevated. More recently, we also recognize that menopausal women found to have proliferative endometrial changes, if not treated, have an increased risk of endometrial cancer.

In a retrospective cohort study of almost 300 menopausal women who were not treated after endometrial biopsy revealed proliferative changes, investigators followed participants for an average of 11 years.²⁵ These women had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m². During follow-up, almost 12% of these women were diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia or cancer. This incidence of endometrial neoplasia was some 4 times higher than for women initially found to have atrophic endometrial changes.²⁵

Progestin treatment

Oral progestin therapy with follow-up endometrial biopsy constitutes traditional management for endometrial hyperplasia. Such therapy minimizes the likelihood that hyperplasia will progress to endometrial cancer.

We now recognize that the convenience, as well as the high endometrial progestin levels achieved, with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs) have advantages over oral progestin therapy in treating endometrial hyperplasia. Indeed, a recent US report found that among women with EIN managed medically, use of progestin-releasing IUDs has grown from 7.7% in 2008 to 35.6% in 2020.²⁶

Although both oral and intrauterine progestin are highly effective in treating simple hyperplasia, progestin IUDs are substantially more effective than oral progestins in treating EIN.²⁷ Progestin concentrations in the endometrium have been shown to be 100-fold higher after LNG-IUD placement compared with oral progestin use.²² In addition, adverse effects, including bloating, unpleasant mood changes, and increased appetite, are more common with oral than intrauterine progestin therapy.²⁸

Unfortunately, data from randomized trials addressing progestational treatment of proliferative endometrium in menopausal women are not available to support the treatment of proliferative endometrium with either oral progestins or the LNG-IUD.²²

Role of ultrasonography

Another concern is relying on a finding of thin endometrial thickness on vaginal ultrasonography. In a simulated retrospective cohort study, use of transvaginal ultrasonography to determine the appropriateness of a biopsy was found not to be sufficiently accurate or racially equitable with regard to Black women.²⁹ In simulated data, transvaginal ultrasonography missed almost 5 times more cases of endometrial cancer among Black women compared with White women due to higher fibroid prevalence and nonendometrioid histologic type malignancies in Black women.²⁹

Assessing risk

If proliferative endometrium is found, Abraham suggests assessing risk using²²:

• age
• comorbidities (including obesity)
• endometrial echo thickness on vaginal ultrasonography.

Consider the patient’s risk and tolerance of recurrent bleeding as well as her tolerance for progestational adverse effects if medical therapy is chosen. Discussion about next steps should include reviewing the histologic findings with the patient and discussing the difference in risk of progression to endometrial cancer of a finding of proliferative endometrium compared with a histologic finding of endometrial hyperplasia.

Using this patient-centered approach, observation over time with follow-up endometrial biopsies remains a management option. Although some women may tolerate micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins, there is concern that it may be less effective in suppressing the endometrium than synthetic progestins.³⁰ Accordingly, synthetic progestins represent first-line options in this setting^.

In her review, Abraham suggests that when endometrial biopsy reveals proliferative changes in a menopausal woman, we should initiate progestin treatment and perform surveillance endometrial sampling every 3 to 6 months. If such sampling reveals benign but not proliferative endometrium, progestin therapy can be stopped and endometrial biopsy repeated if bleeding recurs.²² ●

This year’s menopause Update highlights a highly effective nonhormonal medication that recently received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of bothersome menopausal vasomotor symptoms. In addition, the Update provides guidance regarding how ObGyns should respond when an endometrial biopsy for postmenopausal bleeding reveals proliferative changes.

Breakthrough in women’s health: A new nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms

Johnson KA, Martin N, Nappi RE, et al. Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant in moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: a phase 3 RCT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;dgad058. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgad058.
 

Lederman S, Ottery FD, Cano A, et al. Fezolinetant for treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause (SKYLIGHT 1): a phase 3 randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2023;401:1091-1102. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00085-5.

A new oral nonestrogen-containing medication for relief of moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant (Veozah) 45 mg daily, has been approved by the FDA and was expected to be available by the end of May 2023. Fezolinetant is a selective neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonistthat offers a targeted nonhormonal approach to menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS), and it is the first in its class to make it to market.

The decline in estrogen at menopause appears to result in increased signaling at kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons in the thermoregulatory center within the hypothalamus with resultant increases in hot flashes.^1,2 Fezolinetant works by binding to and blocking the activities of the NK3 receptor.^3-5

Key study findings

Selective NK3 receptor antagonists, including fezolinetant, effectively reduce the frequency and severity of VMS comparable to that of hormone therapy (HT). Two phase 3 clinical trials, Skylight 1 and 2, confirmed the efficacy and safety of fezolinetant 45 mg in treating VMS,^6,7 and an additional 52-week placebo-controlled study, Skylight 4, confirmed long-term safety.⁸ Onset of action occurs within a week. Reported adverse events occurred in 1% to 2% of healthy menopausal women participating in clinical trials; these included headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminase levels.^6-9

The published phase 2 trials⁹ and the international randomized controlled trial (RCT) 12-week studies, Skylight 1 and 2,^6,7 found that once-daily 30-mg and 45-mg doses of fezolinetant significantly reduced VMS frequency and severity at 12 weeks among women aged 40 to 60 years who reported an average of 7 moderate to severe VMS/day; the reduction in reported VMS was sustained at 40 weeks. Phase 3 data from Skylight 1 and 2 demonstrated fezolinetant’s efficacy in reducing the frequency and severity of VMS and provided information on the safety profile of fezolinetant compared with placebo over 12 weeks and a noncontrolled extension for an additional 40 weeks.^6,7

Oral fezolinetant was associated with improved quality of life, including reduced VMS-related interference with daily life.¹⁰ Johnson and colleagues, reporting for Skylight 2, found VMS frequency and severity improvement by week 1, which achieved statistical significance at weeks 4 and 12, with this improvement maintained through week 52.⁶ A 64.3% reduction in mean daily VMS from baseline was seen at 12 weeks for fezolinetant 45 mg compared with a 45.4% reduction for placebo. VMS severity significantly decreased compared with placebo at 4 and 12 weeks.⁶

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were infrequent, reported by 2%, 1%, and 0% of those receiving fezolinetant 30 mg, fezolinetant 45 mg, and placebo.⁶ Increases in levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were noted and were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient, and these levels returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation.⁶

Of the 5 participants taking fezolinetant in Skyline 1 with ALT or AST levels greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal in the 12-week randomized trial, levels returned to normal range while continuing treatment in 2 participants, with treatment interruption in 2, and with discontinuation in 1. No new safety signals were seen in the 40-week extension trial.⁶

Continue to: Endometrial and bone safety...

Endometrial and bone safety

Results from Skylight 4, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, 52-week safety study, provided additional evidence that confirmed the longer-term safety of fezolinetant over a 52-week treatment period.⁸

Endometrial safety was assessed in postmenopausal women with normal baseline endometrium (n = 599).⁸ For fezolinetant 45 mg, 1 of 203 participants had endometrial hyperplasia (EH) (0.5%; upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3%); no cases of EH were noted in the placebo (0 of 186) or fezolinetant 30-mg (0 of 210) groups. The incidence of EH or malignancy in fezolinetant-treated participants was within prespecified limits, as assessed by blinded, centrally read endometrial biopsies. Endometrial malignancy occurred in 1 of 210 in the fezolinetant 30-mg group (0.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%) with no cases in the other groups, thus meeting FDA requirements for endometrial safety.⁸

In addition, no significant differences were noted in change from baseline endometrial thickness on transvaginal ultrasonography between fezolinetant-treated and placebo groups. Likewise, no loss of bone density was found on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans or trabecular bone scores.⁸

Liver safety

Although no cases of severe liver injury were noted, elevations in serum transaminase concentrations greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal were observed in the clinical trials. In Skylight 4, liver enzyme elevations more than 3 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 6 of 583 participants taking placebo, 8 of 590 taking fezolinetant 30 mg, and 12 of 589 taking fezolinetant 45 mg.⁸

The prescribing information for fezolinetant includes a warning for elevated hepatic transaminases: Fezolinetant should not be started if baseline serum transaminase concentration is equal to or exceeds 2 times the upper limit of normal. Liver tests should be obtained at baseline and repeated every 3 months for the first 9 months and then if symptoms suggest liver injury.^11,12

Unmet need for nonhormone treatment of VMS

Vasomotor symptoms affect up to 80% of women, with approximately 25% bothersome enough to warrant treatment. Vasomotor symptoms persist for a median of 7 years, with duration and severity differing by race and ethnicity. Black, Hispanic, and possibly Native American women experience the highest burden of VMS.² Although VMS, including hot flashes, night sweats, and mood and sleep disturbances, often are considered an annoyance to those with mild symptoms, moderate to severe VMS impact women’s lives, including functioning at home or work, affecting relationships, and decreasing perceived quality of life, and they have been associated with workplace absenteeism and increased health care costs, both direct from medical care and testing and indirect costs from lost work.^13-15

Women with 7 or more daily moderate to severe VMS (defined as with sweating or affecting function) reported interference with sleep (94%), concentration (84%), mood (85%), energy (77%), and sexual activity (61%).¹⁶ Moderately to severely bothersome VMS have been associated with impaired psychological and general well-being, affecting work performance.¹⁷ Based on a Mayo Clinic workplace survey, Faubion and colleagues estimated an annual loss of $1.8 billion in the United States for menopause-related missed work and a $28 billion loss when medical expenses were added.¹⁵

Menopausal HT has been the primary treatment for VMS and has been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of hot flashes, with additional benefits on sleep, mood, fatigue, bone loss and reduction of fracture, and genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), and with potential improvement in cardiovascular health with decreased type 2 diabetes.^18,19 For healthy women with early menopause and no contraindications, HT has been recommended until at least the age of natural menopause, as observational data suggest that HT prevents osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative changes, and sexual dysfunction for these women.^19,20 Similarly, for healthy women younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause, initiating HT has been shown to be safe and effective in treating bothersome VMS and preventing osteoporotic fractures and genitourinary changes.^19,21

Most systemic HT formulations are inexpensive (for example, available as generics), with multiple dosing and formulations available for use alone or combined as oral, transdermal, or vaginal therapies. Despite the fear that arose for clinicians and women from the initial 2002 findings of the Women’s Health Initiative regarding increased risk of breast cancer, stroke, venous thrombosis, cardiovascular disease, and dementia, major medical societies agree that when initiated at or soon after menopause, HT is a safe and effective therapy to relieve VMS, protect against bone loss, and treat genitourinary changes.^19,21

Many women, however, cannot take HT, including those with estrogen-sensitive cancers, such as breast or uterine cancers; prior cardiovascular disease, stroke, or venous thrombotic events; severe endometriosis; or migraine headaches with visual auras.² In addition, many symptomatic menopausal women without health contraindications choose not to take HT.² Until now, the only FDA-approved VMS nonhormone therapy has been a low-dose 7.5-mg paroxetine salt. Unfortunately, this formulation, along with the off-label use of other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors), gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, and clonidine, are substantially less effective than HT in treating moderate to severe VMS.

Bottom line

A substantial unmet need remains for effective therapy for moderate to severe VMS for women who cannot or choose not to take menopausal HT to relieve VMS.^2,16 Effective, safe nonhormone treatment options such as the new NK3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant will address this clinically important need.

One concern is that the cost of developing and bringing to market the first of a new type of medication will be passed on to consumers, which may put it out of the price range for the many women who need it. However, the development and FDA approval of fezolinetant as the first NK3 receptor antagonist to treat menopausal VMS is potentially a practice changer. It provides a novel, effective, and safe FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS, particularly for women who cannot or will not take hormone therapy.

Continue to: When endometrial biopsy for postmenopausal bleeding reveals proliferative changes, how should we respond?...

Abraham C. Proliferative endometrium in menopause: to treat or not to treat? Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:265-267. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005054.

The following case represents a common scenario for ObGyns.

CASE Patient with proliferative endometrial changes

A menopausal patient with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m² presents with uterine bleeding. She does not use systemic menopausal hormone therapy. Endometrial biopsy indicates proliferative changes.

When endometrial biopsy performed for bleeding reveals proliferative changes in menopausal women, we traditionally have responded by reassuring the patient that the findings are benign and advising that she should let us know if future spotting or bleeding occurs.

However, a recent review by Abraham published in Obstetrics and Gynecology details the implications of proliferative endometrial changes in menopausal patients, advising that treatment, as well as monitoring, may be appropriate.²²

Endometrial changes and what they suggest

In premenopausal women, proliferative endometrial changes are physiologic and result from ovarian estrogen production early in each cycle, during what is called the proliferative (referring to the endometrium) or follicular (referring to the dominant follicle that synthesizes estrogen) phase. In menopausal women who are not using HT, however, proliferative endometrial changes, with orderly uniform glands seen on histologic evaluation, reflect aromatization of androgens by adipose and other tissues into estrogen.

The next step on the continuum to hyperplasia (benign or atypical) after proliferative endometrium is disordered proliferative endometrium. At this stage, histologic evaluation reveals scattered cystic and dilated glands that have a normal gland-to-stroma ratio with a low gland density overall and without any atypia. Randomly distributed glands may have tubal metaplasia or fibrin thrombi associated with microinfarcts, often presenting with irregular bleeding. This is a noncancerous change that occurs with excess estrogen (endogenous or exogenous).²³

Progestins reverse endometrial hyperplasia by activating progesterone receptors, which leads to stromal decidualization with thinning of the endometrium. They have a pronounced effect on the histologic appearance of the endometrium. By contrast, endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN, previously known as endometrial hyperplasiawith atypia) shows underlying molecular mutations and histologic alterations and represents a sharp transition to true neoplasia, which greatly increases the risk of endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma.²⁴

For decades, we have been aware that if women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia are not treated with progestational therapy, their future risk of endometrial cancer is elevated. More recently, we also recognize that menopausal women found to have proliferative endometrial changes, if not treated, have an increased risk of endometrial cancer.

In a retrospective cohort study of almost 300 menopausal women who were not treated after endometrial biopsy revealed proliferative changes, investigators followed participants for an average of 11 years.²⁵ These women had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m². During follow-up, almost 12% of these women were diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia or cancer. This incidence of endometrial neoplasia was some 4 times higher than for women initially found to have atrophic endometrial changes.²⁵

Progestin treatment

Oral progestin therapy with follow-up endometrial biopsy constitutes traditional management for endometrial hyperplasia. Such therapy minimizes the likelihood that hyperplasia will progress to endometrial cancer.

We now recognize that the convenience, as well as the high endometrial progestin levels achieved, with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs) have advantages over oral progestin therapy in treating endometrial hyperplasia. Indeed, a recent US report found that among women with EIN managed medically, use of progestin-releasing IUDs has grown from 7.7% in 2008 to 35.6% in 2020.²⁶

Although both oral and intrauterine progestin are highly effective in treating simple hyperplasia, progestin IUDs are substantially more effective than oral progestins in treating EIN.²⁷ Progestin concentrations in the endometrium have been shown to be 100-fold higher after LNG-IUD placement compared with oral progestin use.²² In addition, adverse effects, including bloating, unpleasant mood changes, and increased appetite, are more common with oral than intrauterine progestin therapy.²⁸

Unfortunately, data from randomized trials addressing progestational treatment of proliferative endometrium in menopausal women are not available to support the treatment of proliferative endometrium with either oral progestins or the LNG-IUD.²²

Role of ultrasonography

Another concern is relying on a finding of thin endometrial thickness on vaginal ultrasonography. In a simulated retrospective cohort study, use of transvaginal ultrasonography to determine the appropriateness of a biopsy was found not to be sufficiently accurate or racially equitable with regard to Black women.²⁹ In simulated data, transvaginal ultrasonography missed almost 5 times more cases of endometrial cancer among Black women compared with White women due to higher fibroid prevalence and nonendometrioid histologic type malignancies in Black women.²⁹

Assessing risk

If proliferative endometrium is found, Abraham suggests assessing risk using²²:

• age
• comorbidities (including obesity)
• endometrial echo thickness on vaginal ultrasonography.

Consider the patient’s risk and tolerance of recurrent bleeding as well as her tolerance for progestational adverse effects if medical therapy is chosen. Discussion about next steps should include reviewing the histologic findings with the patient and discussing the difference in risk of progression to endometrial cancer of a finding of proliferative endometrium compared with a histologic finding of endometrial hyperplasia.

Using this patient-centered approach, observation over time with follow-up endometrial biopsies remains a management option. Although some women may tolerate micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins, there is concern that it may be less effective in suppressing the endometrium than synthetic progestins.³⁰ Accordingly, synthetic progestins represent first-line options in this setting^.

In her review, Abraham suggests that when endometrial biopsy reveals proliferative changes in a menopausal woman, we should initiate progestin treatment and perform surveillance endometrial sampling every 3 to 6 months. If such sampling reveals benign but not proliferative endometrium, progestin therapy can be stopped and endometrial biopsy repeated if bleeding recurs.²² ●

This year’s menopause Update highlights a highly effective nonhormonal medication that recently received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of bothersome menopausal vasomotor symptoms. In addition, the Update provides guidance regarding how ObGyns should respond when an endometrial biopsy for postmenopausal bleeding reveals proliferative changes.

Breakthrough in women’s health: A new nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms

Johnson KA, Martin N, Nappi RE, et al. Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant in moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: a phase 3 RCT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;dgad058. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgad058.
 

Lederman S, Ottery FD, Cano A, et al. Fezolinetant for treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause (SKYLIGHT 1): a phase 3 randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2023;401:1091-1102. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00085-5.

A new oral nonestrogen-containing medication for relief of moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant (Veozah) 45 mg daily, has been approved by the FDA and was expected to be available by the end of May 2023. Fezolinetant is a selective neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonistthat offers a targeted nonhormonal approach to menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS), and it is the first in its class to make it to market.

The decline in estrogen at menopause appears to result in increased signaling at kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons in the thermoregulatory center within the hypothalamus with resultant increases in hot flashes.^1,2 Fezolinetant works by binding to and blocking the activities of the NK3 receptor.^3-5

Key study findings

Selective NK3 receptor antagonists, including fezolinetant, effectively reduce the frequency and severity of VMS comparable to that of hormone therapy (HT). Two phase 3 clinical trials, Skylight 1 and 2, confirmed the efficacy and safety of fezolinetant 45 mg in treating VMS,^6,7 and an additional 52-week placebo-controlled study, Skylight 4, confirmed long-term safety.⁸ Onset of action occurs within a week. Reported adverse events occurred in 1% to 2% of healthy menopausal women participating in clinical trials; these included headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminase levels.^6-9

The published phase 2 trials⁹ and the international randomized controlled trial (RCT) 12-week studies, Skylight 1 and 2,^6,7 found that once-daily 30-mg and 45-mg doses of fezolinetant significantly reduced VMS frequency and severity at 12 weeks among women aged 40 to 60 years who reported an average of 7 moderate to severe VMS/day; the reduction in reported VMS was sustained at 40 weeks. Phase 3 data from Skylight 1 and 2 demonstrated fezolinetant’s efficacy in reducing the frequency and severity of VMS and provided information on the safety profile of fezolinetant compared with placebo over 12 weeks and a noncontrolled extension for an additional 40 weeks.^6,7

Oral fezolinetant was associated with improved quality of life, including reduced VMS-related interference with daily life.¹⁰ Johnson and colleagues, reporting for Skylight 2, found VMS frequency and severity improvement by week 1, which achieved statistical significance at weeks 4 and 12, with this improvement maintained through week 52.⁶ A 64.3% reduction in mean daily VMS from baseline was seen at 12 weeks for fezolinetant 45 mg compared with a 45.4% reduction for placebo. VMS severity significantly decreased compared with placebo at 4 and 12 weeks.⁶

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were infrequent, reported by 2%, 1%, and 0% of those receiving fezolinetant 30 mg, fezolinetant 45 mg, and placebo.⁶ Increases in levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were noted and were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient, and these levels returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation.⁶

Of the 5 participants taking fezolinetant in Skyline 1 with ALT or AST levels greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal in the 12-week randomized trial, levels returned to normal range while continuing treatment in 2 participants, with treatment interruption in 2, and with discontinuation in 1. No new safety signals were seen in the 40-week extension trial.⁶

Continue to: Endometrial and bone safety...

Endometrial and bone safety

Results from Skylight 4, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, 52-week safety study, provided additional evidence that confirmed the longer-term safety of fezolinetant over a 52-week treatment period.⁸

Endometrial safety was assessed in postmenopausal women with normal baseline endometrium (n = 599).⁸ For fezolinetant 45 mg, 1 of 203 participants had endometrial hyperplasia (EH) (0.5%; upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3%); no cases of EH were noted in the placebo (0 of 186) or fezolinetant 30-mg (0 of 210) groups. The incidence of EH or malignancy in fezolinetant-treated participants was within prespecified limits, as assessed by blinded, centrally read endometrial biopsies. Endometrial malignancy occurred in 1 of 210 in the fezolinetant 30-mg group (0.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%) with no cases in the other groups, thus meeting FDA requirements for endometrial safety.⁸

In addition, no significant differences were noted in change from baseline endometrial thickness on transvaginal ultrasonography between fezolinetant-treated and placebo groups. Likewise, no loss of bone density was found on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans or trabecular bone scores.⁸

Liver safety

Although no cases of severe liver injury were noted, elevations in serum transaminase concentrations greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal were observed in the clinical trials. In Skylight 4, liver enzyme elevations more than 3 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 6 of 583 participants taking placebo, 8 of 590 taking fezolinetant 30 mg, and 12 of 589 taking fezolinetant 45 mg.⁸

The prescribing information for fezolinetant includes a warning for elevated hepatic transaminases: Fezolinetant should not be started if baseline serum transaminase concentration is equal to or exceeds 2 times the upper limit of normal. Liver tests should be obtained at baseline and repeated every 3 months for the first 9 months and then if symptoms suggest liver injury.^11,12

Unmet need for nonhormone treatment of VMS

Vasomotor symptoms affect up to 80% of women, with approximately 25% bothersome enough to warrant treatment. Vasomotor symptoms persist for a median of 7 years, with duration and severity differing by race and ethnicity. Black, Hispanic, and possibly Native American women experience the highest burden of VMS.² Although VMS, including hot flashes, night sweats, and mood and sleep disturbances, often are considered an annoyance to those with mild symptoms, moderate to severe VMS impact women’s lives, including functioning at home or work, affecting relationships, and decreasing perceived quality of life, and they have been associated with workplace absenteeism and increased health care costs, both direct from medical care and testing and indirect costs from lost work.^13-15

Women with 7 or more daily moderate to severe VMS (defined as with sweating or affecting function) reported interference with sleep (94%), concentration (84%), mood (85%), energy (77%), and sexual activity (61%).¹⁶ Moderately to severely bothersome VMS have been associated with impaired psychological and general well-being, affecting work performance.¹⁷ Based on a Mayo Clinic workplace survey, Faubion and colleagues estimated an annual loss of $1.8 billion in the United States for menopause-related missed work and a $28 billion loss when medical expenses were added.¹⁵

Menopausal HT has been the primary treatment for VMS and has been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of hot flashes, with additional benefits on sleep, mood, fatigue, bone loss and reduction of fracture, and genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), and with potential improvement in cardiovascular health with decreased type 2 diabetes.^18,19 For healthy women with early menopause and no contraindications, HT has been recommended until at least the age of natural menopause, as observational data suggest that HT prevents osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative changes, and sexual dysfunction for these women.^19,20 Similarly, for healthy women younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause, initiating HT has been shown to be safe and effective in treating bothersome VMS and preventing osteoporotic fractures and genitourinary changes.^19,21

Most systemic HT formulations are inexpensive (for example, available as generics), with multiple dosing and formulations available for use alone or combined as oral, transdermal, or vaginal therapies. Despite the fear that arose for clinicians and women from the initial 2002 findings of the Women’s Health Initiative regarding increased risk of breast cancer, stroke, venous thrombosis, cardiovascular disease, and dementia, major medical societies agree that when initiated at or soon after menopause, HT is a safe and effective therapy to relieve VMS, protect against bone loss, and treat genitourinary changes.^19,21

Many women, however, cannot take HT, including those with estrogen-sensitive cancers, such as breast or uterine cancers; prior cardiovascular disease, stroke, or venous thrombotic events; severe endometriosis; or migraine headaches with visual auras.² In addition, many symptomatic menopausal women without health contraindications choose not to take HT.² Until now, the only FDA-approved VMS nonhormone therapy has been a low-dose 7.5-mg paroxetine salt. Unfortunately, this formulation, along with the off-label use of other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors), gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, and clonidine, are substantially less effective than HT in treating moderate to severe VMS.

Bottom line

A substantial unmet need remains for effective therapy for moderate to severe VMS for women who cannot or choose not to take menopausal HT to relieve VMS.^2,16 Effective, safe nonhormone treatment options such as the new NK3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant will address this clinically important need.

One concern is that the cost of developing and bringing to market the first of a new type of medication will be passed on to consumers, which may put it out of the price range for the many women who need it. However, the development and FDA approval of fezolinetant as the first NK3 receptor antagonist to treat menopausal VMS is potentially a practice changer. It provides a novel, effective, and safe FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS, particularly for women who cannot or will not take hormone therapy.

Continue to: When endometrial biopsy for postmenopausal bleeding reveals proliferative changes, how should we respond?...

Abraham C. Proliferative endometrium in menopause: to treat or not to treat? Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:265-267. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005054.

The following case represents a common scenario for ObGyns.

CASE Patient with proliferative endometrial changes

A menopausal patient with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m² presents with uterine bleeding. She does not use systemic menopausal hormone therapy. Endometrial biopsy indicates proliferative changes.

When endometrial biopsy performed for bleeding reveals proliferative changes in menopausal women, we traditionally have responded by reassuring the patient that the findings are benign and advising that she should let us know if future spotting or bleeding occurs.

However, a recent review by Abraham published in Obstetrics and Gynecology details the implications of proliferative endometrial changes in menopausal patients, advising that treatment, as well as monitoring, may be appropriate.²²

Endometrial changes and what they suggest

In premenopausal women, proliferative endometrial changes are physiologic and result from ovarian estrogen production early in each cycle, during what is called the proliferative (referring to the endometrium) or follicular (referring to the dominant follicle that synthesizes estrogen) phase. In menopausal women who are not using HT, however, proliferative endometrial changes, with orderly uniform glands seen on histologic evaluation, reflect aromatization of androgens by adipose and other tissues into estrogen.

The next step on the continuum to hyperplasia (benign or atypical) after proliferative endometrium is disordered proliferative endometrium. At this stage, histologic evaluation reveals scattered cystic and dilated glands that have a normal gland-to-stroma ratio with a low gland density overall and without any atypia. Randomly distributed glands may have tubal metaplasia or fibrin thrombi associated with microinfarcts, often presenting with irregular bleeding. This is a noncancerous change that occurs with excess estrogen (endogenous or exogenous).²³

Progestins reverse endometrial hyperplasia by activating progesterone receptors, which leads to stromal decidualization with thinning of the endometrium. They have a pronounced effect on the histologic appearance of the endometrium. By contrast, endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN, previously known as endometrial hyperplasiawith atypia) shows underlying molecular mutations and histologic alterations and represents a sharp transition to true neoplasia, which greatly increases the risk of endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma.²⁴

For decades, we have been aware that if women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia are not treated with progestational therapy, their future risk of endometrial cancer is elevated. More recently, we also recognize that menopausal women found to have proliferative endometrial changes, if not treated, have an increased risk of endometrial cancer.

In a retrospective cohort study of almost 300 menopausal women who were not treated after endometrial biopsy revealed proliferative changes, investigators followed participants for an average of 11 years.²⁵ These women had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m². During follow-up, almost 12% of these women were diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia or cancer. This incidence of endometrial neoplasia was some 4 times higher than for women initially found to have atrophic endometrial changes.²⁵

Progestin treatment

Oral progestin therapy with follow-up endometrial biopsy constitutes traditional management for endometrial hyperplasia. Such therapy minimizes the likelihood that hyperplasia will progress to endometrial cancer.

We now recognize that the convenience, as well as the high endometrial progestin levels achieved, with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs) have advantages over oral progestin therapy in treating endometrial hyperplasia. Indeed, a recent US report found that among women with EIN managed medically, use of progestin-releasing IUDs has grown from 7.7% in 2008 to 35.6% in 2020.²⁶

Although both oral and intrauterine progestin are highly effective in treating simple hyperplasia, progestin IUDs are substantially more effective than oral progestins in treating EIN.²⁷ Progestin concentrations in the endometrium have been shown to be 100-fold higher after LNG-IUD placement compared with oral progestin use.²² In addition, adverse effects, including bloating, unpleasant mood changes, and increased appetite, are more common with oral than intrauterine progestin therapy.²⁸

Unfortunately, data from randomized trials addressing progestational treatment of proliferative endometrium in menopausal women are not available to support the treatment of proliferative endometrium with either oral progestins or the LNG-IUD.²²

Role of ultrasonography

Another concern is relying on a finding of thin endometrial thickness on vaginal ultrasonography. In a simulated retrospective cohort study, use of transvaginal ultrasonography to determine the appropriateness of a biopsy was found not to be sufficiently accurate or racially equitable with regard to Black women.²⁹ In simulated data, transvaginal ultrasonography missed almost 5 times more cases of endometrial cancer among Black women compared with White women due to higher fibroid prevalence and nonendometrioid histologic type malignancies in Black women.²⁹

Assessing risk

If proliferative endometrium is found, Abraham suggests assessing risk using²²:

• age
• comorbidities (including obesity)
• endometrial echo thickness on vaginal ultrasonography.

Consider the patient’s risk and tolerance of recurrent bleeding as well as her tolerance for progestational adverse effects if medical therapy is chosen. Discussion about next steps should include reviewing the histologic findings with the patient and discussing the difference in risk of progression to endometrial cancer of a finding of proliferative endometrium compared with a histologic finding of endometrial hyperplasia.

Using this patient-centered approach, observation over time with follow-up endometrial biopsies remains a management option. Although some women may tolerate micronized progesterone over synthetic progestins, there is concern that it may be less effective in suppressing the endometrium than synthetic progestins.³⁰ Accordingly, synthetic progestins represent first-line options in this setting^.

In her review, Abraham suggests that when endometrial biopsy reveals proliferative changes in a menopausal woman, we should initiate progestin treatment and perform surveillance endometrial sampling every 3 to 6 months. If such sampling reveals benign but not proliferative endometrium, progestin therapy can be stopped and endometrial biopsy repeated if bleeding recurs.²² ●

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

“If you don’t have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu.” I first heard this quote in 2013, and it launched my interest in health care leadership and influenced me countless times over the last 10 years.

As Chief of Staff at Cleveland Clinic, I oversee nearly 5,000 physicians and scientists across the globe. I am involved in the physician life cycle: recruiting, hiring, privileging and credentialing, talent development, promotion, professionalism, and career transitions. I also sit at the intersection of medical care and the business of medicine. This means leading 18 clinical service lines responsible for 5.6 million visits, 161,000 surgeries, and billions of dollars in operating revenue per year. How I spend most of my time is a far cry from what I spent 11 years’ training to do—gynecologic surgery. This shift in my career was not because I changed my mind about caring for patients or that I tired of being a full-time surgeon. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women’s health remains my “why,” and my leadership journey has taught me that it is critical to have a seat at the table for the sake of ObGyns and women everywhere.

Women’s health on the menu

I will start with a concrete example of when we, as women and ObGyns, were on the menu. In late 2019, the Ohio state House of Representatives introduced a bill that subjected doctors to potential murder charges if they did not try everything to save the life of a mother and fetus, “including attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman’s uterus.”¹ This bill was based on 2 case reports—one from 1915 and one from 1980—which were both low quality, and the latter case was deemed to be fraudulent.² How did this happen?

An Ohio state representative developed the bill with help from a lobbyist and without input from physicians or content experts. When asked, the representative shared that “he never researched whether re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy into a woman’s uterus was a viable medical procedure before including it in the bill.”³ He added, “I heard about it over the years. I never questioned it or gave it a lot of thought.”³

This example resonates deeply with many of us; it inspires us to speak up and act. As ObGyns, we clearly understand the consequences of legal and regulatory change in women’s health and how it directly impacts our patients and each of us as physicians. Let’s shift to something that you may feel less passion about, but I believe is equally important. This is where obstetrician-gynecologists sit in the intersection of medical care and business. This is the space where I spend most of my time, and from this vantage point, I worry about our field.

The business of medicine

Starting at the macroeconomic level, let’s think about how we as physicians are reimbursed and who makes these decisions. Looking at the national health care expenditure data, Medicare and Medicaid spending makes up nearly 40% of the total spend, and it is growing.⁴ Additionally, private health insurance tends to follow Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decision making, further compounding its influence.⁴ In simple terms, CMS decides what is covered and how much we are paid. Whether you are in a solo private practice, an employer health care organization, or an academic medical center, physician reimbursement is declining.

In fact, Congress passed its year-end omnibus legislation in the final days of 2022, including a 2% Medicare physician payment cut for 2023,⁵ at a time when expenses to practice medicine, including nonphysician staff and supplies, are at an all-time high and we are living in a 6% inflationary state. This translates into being asked to serve more patients and cut costs. Our day-to-day feels much tighter, and this is why: Medicare physician pay increased just 11% over the past 20 years⁶ (2001–2021) in comparison to the cost of running a medical practice, which increased nearly 40% during that time. In other words, adjusting for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician payment has fallen 22% over the last 20 years.⁷

Depending on your employment model, you may feel insulated from these changes as increases in reimbursement have occurred in other areas, such as hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers.⁸ In the short term, these increases help, as organizations will see additional funds. But there are 2 main issues: First, it is not nearly enough when you consider the soaring costs of running a hospital. And second, looking at our national population, we rely tremendously on self-employed doctors to serve our patients.

More than 80% of US counties lack adequate health care infrastructure.⁹ More than a third of the US population has less-than-adequate access to pharmacies, primary care physicians, hospitals, trauma centers, and low-cost health centers.⁹ To put things into perspective, more than 20% of counties in the United States are hospital deserts, where most people must drive more than 30 minutes to reach the closest hospital.⁹

There is good reason for this. Operating a hospital is a challenging endeavor. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and the most recent health care financial challenges, most health care systems and large hospitals operated with very low operating margins (2%–3%). Businesses with similar margins include grocery stores and car dealerships. These low-margin businesses, including health care, rely on high volume for sustainability. High patient volumes distribute expensive hospital costs over many encounters. If physicians cannot sustain practices across the country, it is challenging to have sufficient admission and surgical volumes to justify the cost base of hospitals.

To tie this together, we have very little influence on what we are paid for our services. Reimbursement is declining, which makes it hard to have financially sustainable practices. As hospitals struggle, there is more pressure to prioritize highly profitable service lines, like orthopedics and urology, which are associated with favorable technical revenue. As hospitals are threatened, health care deserts widen, which leaves our entire health care system in jeopardy. Not surprisingly, this most likely affects those who face additional barriers to access, such as those with lower income, limited internet access, and lack of insurance. Together, these barriers further widen disparities in health care outcomes, including outcomes for women. Additionally, this death by a thousand cuts has eroded morale and increased physician burnout.

Transforming how we practice medicine is the only viable solution. I have good news: You are the leaders you have been waiting for.

Continue to: Physicians make good managers...

Physicians make good managers

To successfully transform how we practice medicine, it is critical that those leading the transformation deeply understand how medicine is practiced. The level of understanding required can be achieved only through years of medical practice, as a doctor. We understand how medical teams interact and that different sectors of our health care system are interdependent. Also, because physicians drive patient activity and ultimately reimbursement, having a seat at the table is crucial.

Some health care systems are run by businesspeople—people with finance backgrounds—and others are led by physicians. In 2017, Becker’s Hospital Review listed the chief executive officers (CEOs) of 183 nonprofit hospital and health systems.¹⁰ Of these, only 25% were led by individuals with an MD. Looking at the 115 largest hospitals in the United States, 30% are physician led.¹⁰ Considering the top 10 hospitals ranked by U.S. News & World Report for 2022, 8 of 10 have a physician at the helm.

Beyond raters and rankers, physician-led hospitals do better. Goodall compared CEOs in the top 100 best hospitals in U.S. News & World Report in 3 key medical specialties: cancer, digestive disorders, and cardiac care.¹¹ The study explored the question: “Are hospitals’ quality ranked more highly when they are led by a medically trained doctor or non-MD professional managers?”¹¹ Analysis revealed that hospital quality scores are about 25% higher in physician-run hospitals than in manager-run hospitals.¹¹ Additional research shows that good management practices correlate with hospital performance, and that “the proportion of managers with a clinical degree has the largest positive effect.”¹²

Several theories exist as to why doctors make good managers in the health care setting.^13,14 Doctors may create a more sympathetic and productive work environment for other clinicians because they are one of them. They have peer-to-peer credibility—because they have walked the walk, they have insight and perspective into how medicine is practiced.

Physicians serve as effective change agents for their organizations in several ways:

• First, physicians take a clinical approach in their leadership roles¹³ and focus on patient care at the center of their decisions. We see the people behind the numbers. Simply put, we humanize the operational side of health care.
• As physicians, we understand the interconnectivity in the practice of medicine. While closing certain service lines may be financially beneficial, these services are often closely linked to profitable service lines.
• Beyond physicians taking a clinical approach to leadership, we emphasize quality.¹³ Because we all have experienced complications and lived through bad outcomes alongside our patients, we understand deeply how important patient safety and quality is, and we are not willing to sacrifice that for financial gain. For us, this is personal. We don’t see our solution to health care challenges as an “or” situation, instead we view it as an “and” situation.
• Physician leaders often can improve medical staff engagement.¹³ A 2018 national survey of physicians found that those who are satisfied with their leadership are more engaged at work, have greater job satisfaction, and are less likely to experience signs of burnout.¹⁵ Physician administrators add value here.

Continue to: Surgeons as leaders...

Surgeons as leaders

What do we know about surgeons as physician leaders? Looking at the previously mentioned lists of physician leaders, surgeons are relatively absent. In the Becker’s Hospital Review study of nonprofit hospitals, only 9% of CEOs were surgeons.¹⁰ In addition, when reviewing data that associated physician leaders and hospital performance, only 3 of the CEOs were surgeons.¹¹ Given that surgeons make up approximately 19% of US physicians, we are underrepresented.

The omission of surgeons as leaders seems inappropriate given that most hospitals are financially reliant on revenue related to surgical care and optimizing this space is an enormous opportunity. Berger and colleagues offered 3 theories as to why there are fewer surgeon leaders¹⁶:

• The relative pay of surgeons exceeds that of most other specialties, and there may be less incentive to accept the challenges presented by leadership roles. (I will add that surgeon leadership is more costly to a system.)
• The craftsmanship nature of surgery discourages the development of other career interests beginning at the trainee level.
• Surgeons have been perceived stereotypically to exhibit arrogance, a characteristic that others may not warm to.

This last observation stings. Successful leadership takes social skill and teamwork.¹⁴ Although medical care is one of the few disciplines in which lack of teamwork might cost lives, physicians are not trained to be team players. We recognize how our training has led us to be lone wolves or gunners, situations where we as individuals had to beat others to secure our spot. We have been trained in command-and-control environments, in stepping up as a leader in highly stressful situations. This part of surgical culture may handicap surgeons in their quest to be health care leaders.

Other traits, however, make us particularly great leaders in health care. Our desire to succeed, willingness to push ourselves to extremes, ability to laser focus on a task, acceptance of delayed gratification, and aptitude for making timely decisions on limited data help us succeed in leadership roles. Seven years of surgical training helped me develop the grit I use every day in the C-suite.

We need more physician and surgeon leadership to thrive in the challenging health care landscape. Berger and colleagues proposed 3 potential solutions to increase the number of surgeons in hospital leadership positions¹⁶:

Nurture future surgical leaders through exposure to management training. Given the contribution to both expense in support services and resources and revenue related to surgical care, each organization needs a content expert to guide these decisions.

Recognize the important contributions that surgeons already make regarding quality, safety, and operational efficiency. An excellent example of this is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Because surgeons are content experts in this area, we are primed to lead.

Hospitals, medical schools, and academic departments of surgery should recognize administrative efforts as an important part of the overall academic mission. As the adage states, “No margin, no mission.” We need bright minds to preserve and grow our margins so that we can further invest in our missions.

This is not easy. Given the barriers, this will not happen organically. Charan and colleagues provided an outline for a leadership pathway adapted for physicians (FIGURE).^17,18 It starts with the individual practitioner who is a practicing physician and spends most of their time focused on patient care. As a physician becomes more interested in leadership, they develop new skills and take on more and more responsibility. As they increase in leadership responsibility, they tend to reduce clinical time and increase time spent on strategic and business management. This framework creates a pipeline so that physicians and surgeons can be developed strategically and given increasing responsibility as they develop their capabilities and expand their skill sets.

The leadership challenge

To thrive, we must transform health care by changing how we practice medicine. As ObGyns, we are the leaders we have been waiting for. As you ponder your future, think of your current career and the opportunities you might have. Do you have a seat at the table? What table is that? How are you using your knowledge, expertise, and privilege to advance health care and medicine? I challenge you to critically evaluate this—and lead. ●

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

“If you don’t have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu.” I first heard this quote in 2013, and it launched my interest in health care leadership and influenced me countless times over the last 10 years.

As Chief of Staff at Cleveland Clinic, I oversee nearly 5,000 physicians and scientists across the globe. I am involved in the physician life cycle: recruiting, hiring, privileging and credentialing, talent development, promotion, professionalism, and career transitions. I also sit at the intersection of medical care and the business of medicine. This means leading 18 clinical service lines responsible for 5.6 million visits, 161,000 surgeries, and billions of dollars in operating revenue per year. How I spend most of my time is a far cry from what I spent 11 years’ training to do—gynecologic surgery. This shift in my career was not because I changed my mind about caring for patients or that I tired of being a full-time surgeon. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women’s health remains my “why,” and my leadership journey has taught me that it is critical to have a seat at the table for the sake of ObGyns and women everywhere.

Women’s health on the menu

I will start with a concrete example of when we, as women and ObGyns, were on the menu. In late 2019, the Ohio state House of Representatives introduced a bill that subjected doctors to potential murder charges if they did not try everything to save the life of a mother and fetus, “including attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman’s uterus.”¹ This bill was based on 2 case reports—one from 1915 and one from 1980—which were both low quality, and the latter case was deemed to be fraudulent.² How did this happen?

An Ohio state representative developed the bill with help from a lobbyist and without input from physicians or content experts. When asked, the representative shared that “he never researched whether re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy into a woman’s uterus was a viable medical procedure before including it in the bill.”³ He added, “I heard about it over the years. I never questioned it or gave it a lot of thought.”³

This example resonates deeply with many of us; it inspires us to speak up and act. As ObGyns, we clearly understand the consequences of legal and regulatory change in women’s health and how it directly impacts our patients and each of us as physicians. Let’s shift to something that you may feel less passion about, but I believe is equally important. This is where obstetrician-gynecologists sit in the intersection of medical care and business. This is the space where I spend most of my time, and from this vantage point, I worry about our field.

The business of medicine

Starting at the macroeconomic level, let’s think about how we as physicians are reimbursed and who makes these decisions. Looking at the national health care expenditure data, Medicare and Medicaid spending makes up nearly 40% of the total spend, and it is growing.⁴ Additionally, private health insurance tends to follow Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decision making, further compounding its influence.⁴ In simple terms, CMS decides what is covered and how much we are paid. Whether you are in a solo private practice, an employer health care organization, or an academic medical center, physician reimbursement is declining.

In fact, Congress passed its year-end omnibus legislation in the final days of 2022, including a 2% Medicare physician payment cut for 2023,⁵ at a time when expenses to practice medicine, including nonphysician staff and supplies, are at an all-time high and we are living in a 6% inflationary state. This translates into being asked to serve more patients and cut costs. Our day-to-day feels much tighter, and this is why: Medicare physician pay increased just 11% over the past 20 years⁶ (2001–2021) in comparison to the cost of running a medical practice, which increased nearly 40% during that time. In other words, adjusting for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician payment has fallen 22% over the last 20 years.⁷

Depending on your employment model, you may feel insulated from these changes as increases in reimbursement have occurred in other areas, such as hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers.⁸ In the short term, these increases help, as organizations will see additional funds. But there are 2 main issues: First, it is not nearly enough when you consider the soaring costs of running a hospital. And second, looking at our national population, we rely tremendously on self-employed doctors to serve our patients.

More than 80% of US counties lack adequate health care infrastructure.⁹ More than a third of the US population has less-than-adequate access to pharmacies, primary care physicians, hospitals, trauma centers, and low-cost health centers.⁹ To put things into perspective, more than 20% of counties in the United States are hospital deserts, where most people must drive more than 30 minutes to reach the closest hospital.⁹

There is good reason for this. Operating a hospital is a challenging endeavor. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and the most recent health care financial challenges, most health care systems and large hospitals operated with very low operating margins (2%–3%). Businesses with similar margins include grocery stores and car dealerships. These low-margin businesses, including health care, rely on high volume for sustainability. High patient volumes distribute expensive hospital costs over many encounters. If physicians cannot sustain practices across the country, it is challenging to have sufficient admission and surgical volumes to justify the cost base of hospitals.

To tie this together, we have very little influence on what we are paid for our services. Reimbursement is declining, which makes it hard to have financially sustainable practices. As hospitals struggle, there is more pressure to prioritize highly profitable service lines, like orthopedics and urology, which are associated with favorable technical revenue. As hospitals are threatened, health care deserts widen, which leaves our entire health care system in jeopardy. Not surprisingly, this most likely affects those who face additional barriers to access, such as those with lower income, limited internet access, and lack of insurance. Together, these barriers further widen disparities in health care outcomes, including outcomes for women. Additionally, this death by a thousand cuts has eroded morale and increased physician burnout.

Transforming how we practice medicine is the only viable solution. I have good news: You are the leaders you have been waiting for.

Continue to: Physicians make good managers...

Physicians make good managers

To successfully transform how we practice medicine, it is critical that those leading the transformation deeply understand how medicine is practiced. The level of understanding required can be achieved only through years of medical practice, as a doctor. We understand how medical teams interact and that different sectors of our health care system are interdependent. Also, because physicians drive patient activity and ultimately reimbursement, having a seat at the table is crucial.

Some health care systems are run by businesspeople—people with finance backgrounds—and others are led by physicians. In 2017, Becker’s Hospital Review listed the chief executive officers (CEOs) of 183 nonprofit hospital and health systems.¹⁰ Of these, only 25% were led by individuals with an MD. Looking at the 115 largest hospitals in the United States, 30% are physician led.¹⁰ Considering the top 10 hospitals ranked by U.S. News & World Report for 2022, 8 of 10 have a physician at the helm.

Beyond raters and rankers, physician-led hospitals do better. Goodall compared CEOs in the top 100 best hospitals in U.S. News & World Report in 3 key medical specialties: cancer, digestive disorders, and cardiac care.¹¹ The study explored the question: “Are hospitals’ quality ranked more highly when they are led by a medically trained doctor or non-MD professional managers?”¹¹ Analysis revealed that hospital quality scores are about 25% higher in physician-run hospitals than in manager-run hospitals.¹¹ Additional research shows that good management practices correlate with hospital performance, and that “the proportion of managers with a clinical degree has the largest positive effect.”¹²

Several theories exist as to why doctors make good managers in the health care setting.^13,14 Doctors may create a more sympathetic and productive work environment for other clinicians because they are one of them. They have peer-to-peer credibility—because they have walked the walk, they have insight and perspective into how medicine is practiced.

Physicians serve as effective change agents for their organizations in several ways:

• First, physicians take a clinical approach in their leadership roles¹³ and focus on patient care at the center of their decisions. We see the people behind the numbers. Simply put, we humanize the operational side of health care.
• As physicians, we understand the interconnectivity in the practice of medicine. While closing certain service lines may be financially beneficial, these services are often closely linked to profitable service lines.
• Beyond physicians taking a clinical approach to leadership, we emphasize quality.¹³ Because we all have experienced complications and lived through bad outcomes alongside our patients, we understand deeply how important patient safety and quality is, and we are not willing to sacrifice that for financial gain. For us, this is personal. We don’t see our solution to health care challenges as an “or” situation, instead we view it as an “and” situation.
• Physician leaders often can improve medical staff engagement.¹³ A 2018 national survey of physicians found that those who are satisfied with their leadership are more engaged at work, have greater job satisfaction, and are less likely to experience signs of burnout.¹⁵ Physician administrators add value here.

Continue to: Surgeons as leaders...

Surgeons as leaders

What do we know about surgeons as physician leaders? Looking at the previously mentioned lists of physician leaders, surgeons are relatively absent. In the Becker’s Hospital Review study of nonprofit hospitals, only 9% of CEOs were surgeons.¹⁰ In addition, when reviewing data that associated physician leaders and hospital performance, only 3 of the CEOs were surgeons.¹¹ Given that surgeons make up approximately 19% of US physicians, we are underrepresented.

The omission of surgeons as leaders seems inappropriate given that most hospitals are financially reliant on revenue related to surgical care and optimizing this space is an enormous opportunity. Berger and colleagues offered 3 theories as to why there are fewer surgeon leaders¹⁶:

• The relative pay of surgeons exceeds that of most other specialties, and there may be less incentive to accept the challenges presented by leadership roles. (I will add that surgeon leadership is more costly to a system.)
• The craftsmanship nature of surgery discourages the development of other career interests beginning at the trainee level.
• Surgeons have been perceived stereotypically to exhibit arrogance, a characteristic that others may not warm to.

This last observation stings. Successful leadership takes social skill and teamwork.¹⁴ Although medical care is one of the few disciplines in which lack of teamwork might cost lives, physicians are not trained to be team players. We recognize how our training has led us to be lone wolves or gunners, situations where we as individuals had to beat others to secure our spot. We have been trained in command-and-control environments, in stepping up as a leader in highly stressful situations. This part of surgical culture may handicap surgeons in their quest to be health care leaders.

Other traits, however, make us particularly great leaders in health care. Our desire to succeed, willingness to push ourselves to extremes, ability to laser focus on a task, acceptance of delayed gratification, and aptitude for making timely decisions on limited data help us succeed in leadership roles. Seven years of surgical training helped me develop the grit I use every day in the C-suite.

We need more physician and surgeon leadership to thrive in the challenging health care landscape. Berger and colleagues proposed 3 potential solutions to increase the number of surgeons in hospital leadership positions¹⁶:

Nurture future surgical leaders through exposure to management training. Given the contribution to both expense in support services and resources and revenue related to surgical care, each organization needs a content expert to guide these decisions.

Recognize the important contributions that surgeons already make regarding quality, safety, and operational efficiency. An excellent example of this is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Because surgeons are content experts in this area, we are primed to lead.

Hospitals, medical schools, and academic departments of surgery should recognize administrative efforts as an important part of the overall academic mission. As the adage states, “No margin, no mission.” We need bright minds to preserve and grow our margins so that we can further invest in our missions.

This is not easy. Given the barriers, this will not happen organically. Charan and colleagues provided an outline for a leadership pathway adapted for physicians (FIGURE).^17,18 It starts with the individual practitioner who is a practicing physician and spends most of their time focused on patient care. As a physician becomes more interested in leadership, they develop new skills and take on more and more responsibility. As they increase in leadership responsibility, they tend to reduce clinical time and increase time spent on strategic and business management. This framework creates a pipeline so that physicians and surgeons can be developed strategically and given increasing responsibility as they develop their capabilities and expand their skill sets.

The leadership challenge

To thrive, we must transform health care by changing how we practice medicine. As ObGyns, we are the leaders we have been waiting for. As you ponder your future, think of your current career and the opportunities you might have. Do you have a seat at the table? What table is that? How are you using your knowledge, expertise, and privilege to advance health care and medicine? I challenge you to critically evaluate this—and lead. ●

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

“If you don’t have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu.” I first heard this quote in 2013, and it launched my interest in health care leadership and influenced me countless times over the last 10 years.

As Chief of Staff at Cleveland Clinic, I oversee nearly 5,000 physicians and scientists across the globe. I am involved in the physician life cycle: recruiting, hiring, privileging and credentialing, talent development, promotion, professionalism, and career transitions. I also sit at the intersection of medical care and the business of medicine. This means leading 18 clinical service lines responsible for 5.6 million visits, 161,000 surgeries, and billions of dollars in operating revenue per year. How I spend most of my time is a far cry from what I spent 11 years’ training to do—gynecologic surgery. This shift in my career was not because I changed my mind about caring for patients or that I tired of being a full-time surgeon. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women’s health remains my “why,” and my leadership journey has taught me that it is critical to have a seat at the table for the sake of ObGyns and women everywhere.

Women’s health on the menu

I will start with a concrete example of when we, as women and ObGyns, were on the menu. In late 2019, the Ohio state House of Representatives introduced a bill that subjected doctors to potential murder charges if they did not try everything to save the life of a mother and fetus, “including attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman’s uterus.”¹ This bill was based on 2 case reports—one from 1915 and one from 1980—which were both low quality, and the latter case was deemed to be fraudulent.² How did this happen?

An Ohio state representative developed the bill with help from a lobbyist and without input from physicians or content experts. When asked, the representative shared that “he never researched whether re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy into a woman’s uterus was a viable medical procedure before including it in the bill.”³ He added, “I heard about it over the years. I never questioned it or gave it a lot of thought.”³

This example resonates deeply with many of us; it inspires us to speak up and act. As ObGyns, we clearly understand the consequences of legal and regulatory change in women’s health and how it directly impacts our patients and each of us as physicians. Let’s shift to something that you may feel less passion about, but I believe is equally important. This is where obstetrician-gynecologists sit in the intersection of medical care and business. This is the space where I spend most of my time, and from this vantage point, I worry about our field.

The business of medicine

Starting at the macroeconomic level, let’s think about how we as physicians are reimbursed and who makes these decisions. Looking at the national health care expenditure data, Medicare and Medicaid spending makes up nearly 40% of the total spend, and it is growing.⁴ Additionally, private health insurance tends to follow Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decision making, further compounding its influence.⁴ In simple terms, CMS decides what is covered and how much we are paid. Whether you are in a solo private practice, an employer health care organization, or an academic medical center, physician reimbursement is declining.

In fact, Congress passed its year-end omnibus legislation in the final days of 2022, including a 2% Medicare physician payment cut for 2023,⁵ at a time when expenses to practice medicine, including nonphysician staff and supplies, are at an all-time high and we are living in a 6% inflationary state. This translates into being asked to serve more patients and cut costs. Our day-to-day feels much tighter, and this is why: Medicare physician pay increased just 11% over the past 20 years⁶ (2001–2021) in comparison to the cost of running a medical practice, which increased nearly 40% during that time. In other words, adjusting for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician payment has fallen 22% over the last 20 years.⁷

Depending on your employment model, you may feel insulated from these changes as increases in reimbursement have occurred in other areas, such as hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers.⁸ In the short term, these increases help, as organizations will see additional funds. But there are 2 main issues: First, it is not nearly enough when you consider the soaring costs of running a hospital. And second, looking at our national population, we rely tremendously on self-employed doctors to serve our patients.

More than 80% of US counties lack adequate health care infrastructure.⁹ More than a third of the US population has less-than-adequate access to pharmacies, primary care physicians, hospitals, trauma centers, and low-cost health centers.⁹ To put things into perspective, more than 20% of counties in the United States are hospital deserts, where most people must drive more than 30 minutes to reach the closest hospital.⁹

There is good reason for this. Operating a hospital is a challenging endeavor. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and the most recent health care financial challenges, most health care systems and large hospitals operated with very low operating margins (2%–3%). Businesses with similar margins include grocery stores and car dealerships. These low-margin businesses, including health care, rely on high volume for sustainability. High patient volumes distribute expensive hospital costs over many encounters. If physicians cannot sustain practices across the country, it is challenging to have sufficient admission and surgical volumes to justify the cost base of hospitals.

To tie this together, we have very little influence on what we are paid for our services. Reimbursement is declining, which makes it hard to have financially sustainable practices. As hospitals struggle, there is more pressure to prioritize highly profitable service lines, like orthopedics and urology, which are associated with favorable technical revenue. As hospitals are threatened, health care deserts widen, which leaves our entire health care system in jeopardy. Not surprisingly, this most likely affects those who face additional barriers to access, such as those with lower income, limited internet access, and lack of insurance. Together, these barriers further widen disparities in health care outcomes, including outcomes for women. Additionally, this death by a thousand cuts has eroded morale and increased physician burnout.

Transforming how we practice medicine is the only viable solution. I have good news: You are the leaders you have been waiting for.

Continue to: Physicians make good managers...

Physicians make good managers

To successfully transform how we practice medicine, it is critical that those leading the transformation deeply understand how medicine is practiced. The level of understanding required can be achieved only through years of medical practice, as a doctor. We understand how medical teams interact and that different sectors of our health care system are interdependent. Also, because physicians drive patient activity and ultimately reimbursement, having a seat at the table is crucial.

Some health care systems are run by businesspeople—people with finance backgrounds—and others are led by physicians. In 2017, Becker’s Hospital Review listed the chief executive officers (CEOs) of 183 nonprofit hospital and health systems.¹⁰ Of these, only 25% were led by individuals with an MD. Looking at the 115 largest hospitals in the United States, 30% are physician led.¹⁰ Considering the top 10 hospitals ranked by U.S. News & World Report for 2022, 8 of 10 have a physician at the helm.

Beyond raters and rankers, physician-led hospitals do better. Goodall compared CEOs in the top 100 best hospitals in U.S. News & World Report in 3 key medical specialties: cancer, digestive disorders, and cardiac care.¹¹ The study explored the question: “Are hospitals’ quality ranked more highly when they are led by a medically trained doctor or non-MD professional managers?”¹¹ Analysis revealed that hospital quality scores are about 25% higher in physician-run hospitals than in manager-run hospitals.¹¹ Additional research shows that good management practices correlate with hospital performance, and that “the proportion of managers with a clinical degree has the largest positive effect.”¹²

Several theories exist as to why doctors make good managers in the health care setting.^13,14 Doctors may create a more sympathetic and productive work environment for other clinicians because they are one of them. They have peer-to-peer credibility—because they have walked the walk, they have insight and perspective into how medicine is practiced.

Physicians serve as effective change agents for their organizations in several ways:

• First, physicians take a clinical approach in their leadership roles¹³ and focus on patient care at the center of their decisions. We see the people behind the numbers. Simply put, we humanize the operational side of health care.
• As physicians, we understand the interconnectivity in the practice of medicine. While closing certain service lines may be financially beneficial, these services are often closely linked to profitable service lines.
• Beyond physicians taking a clinical approach to leadership, we emphasize quality.¹³ Because we all have experienced complications and lived through bad outcomes alongside our patients, we understand deeply how important patient safety and quality is, and we are not willing to sacrifice that for financial gain. For us, this is personal. We don’t see our solution to health care challenges as an “or” situation, instead we view it as an “and” situation.
• Physician leaders often can improve medical staff engagement.¹³ A 2018 national survey of physicians found that those who are satisfied with their leadership are more engaged at work, have greater job satisfaction, and are less likely to experience signs of burnout.¹⁵ Physician administrators add value here.

Continue to: Surgeons as leaders...

Surgeons as leaders

What do we know about surgeons as physician leaders? Looking at the previously mentioned lists of physician leaders, surgeons are relatively absent. In the Becker’s Hospital Review study of nonprofit hospitals, only 9% of CEOs were surgeons.¹⁰ In addition, when reviewing data that associated physician leaders and hospital performance, only 3 of the CEOs were surgeons.¹¹ Given that surgeons make up approximately 19% of US physicians, we are underrepresented.

The omission of surgeons as leaders seems inappropriate given that most hospitals are financially reliant on revenue related to surgical care and optimizing this space is an enormous opportunity. Berger and colleagues offered 3 theories as to why there are fewer surgeon leaders¹⁶:

• The relative pay of surgeons exceeds that of most other specialties, and there may be less incentive to accept the challenges presented by leadership roles. (I will add that surgeon leadership is more costly to a system.)
• The craftsmanship nature of surgery discourages the development of other career interests beginning at the trainee level.
• Surgeons have been perceived stereotypically to exhibit arrogance, a characteristic that others may not warm to.

This last observation stings. Successful leadership takes social skill and teamwork.¹⁴ Although medical care is one of the few disciplines in which lack of teamwork might cost lives, physicians are not trained to be team players. We recognize how our training has led us to be lone wolves or gunners, situations where we as individuals had to beat others to secure our spot. We have been trained in command-and-control environments, in stepping up as a leader in highly stressful situations. This part of surgical culture may handicap surgeons in their quest to be health care leaders.

Other traits, however, make us particularly great leaders in health care. Our desire to succeed, willingness to push ourselves to extremes, ability to laser focus on a task, acceptance of delayed gratification, and aptitude for making timely decisions on limited data help us succeed in leadership roles. Seven years of surgical training helped me develop the grit I use every day in the C-suite.

We need more physician and surgeon leadership to thrive in the challenging health care landscape. Berger and colleagues proposed 3 potential solutions to increase the number of surgeons in hospital leadership positions¹⁶:

Nurture future surgical leaders through exposure to management training. Given the contribution to both expense in support services and resources and revenue related to surgical care, each organization needs a content expert to guide these decisions.

Recognize the important contributions that surgeons already make regarding quality, safety, and operational efficiency. An excellent example of this is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Because surgeons are content experts in this area, we are primed to lead.

Hospitals, medical schools, and academic departments of surgery should recognize administrative efforts as an important part of the overall academic mission. As the adage states, “No margin, no mission.” We need bright minds to preserve and grow our margins so that we can further invest in our missions.

This is not easy. Given the barriers, this will not happen organically. Charan and colleagues provided an outline for a leadership pathway adapted for physicians (FIGURE).^17,18 It starts with the individual practitioner who is a practicing physician and spends most of their time focused on patient care. As a physician becomes more interested in leadership, they develop new skills and take on more and more responsibility. As they increase in leadership responsibility, they tend to reduce clinical time and increase time spent on strategic and business management. This framework creates a pipeline so that physicians and surgeons can be developed strategically and given increasing responsibility as they develop their capabilities and expand their skill sets.

The leadership challenge

To thrive, we must transform health care by changing how we practice medicine. As ObGyns, we are the leaders we have been waiting for. As you ponder your future, think of your current career and the opportunities you might have. Do you have a seat at the table? What table is that? How are you using your knowledge, expertise, and privilege to advance health care and medicine? I challenge you to critically evaluate this—and lead. ●