Communication Skills in the Age of COVID-19

Restoring the Story and Creating a Valuable Clinical Note

Developing Primary Care–Based Recommendations for Social Determinants of Health: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

The purpose of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is to provide evidence-based recommendations on primary care screening, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications. A person's health is strongly influenced by social determinants of health, such as economic and social conditions; therefore, preventive recommendations that address these determinants would be ideal. However, differing social determinants have been proposed by a wide range of agencies and organizations, little prevention evidence is available, and responsible parties are in competition, all of which make the creation of evidence-based prevention recommendations for social determinants of health challenging. This article highlights social determinants already included in USPSTF recommendations and proposes a process by which others may be considered for primary care preventive recommendations. In many ways, incorporating social determinants of health into evidence-based recommendations is an evolving area. By reviewing the evidence on the effects of screening and interventions on social determinants relevant to primary care, the USPSTF will continue to provide recommendations on clinical preventive services to improve the health of all Americans.

Is It Time to More Fully Address Teaching Religion and Spirituality in Medicine?

Addressing Patient Bias Toward Health Care Workers: Recommendations for Medical Centers

Some patients engage in behavior or use language that demeans clinicians on the basis of their social identity traits, such as race, ethnicity, sex, disability, gender presentation, and sexual orientation, and some patients even request reassignment of involved clinicians. Despite the importance and prevalence of this problem, many medical centers lack an organizational approach for addressing patient conduct. Policy development can be daunting because organizations may encounter various barriers, including reluctance of staff to have difficult conversations about race or other identity traits; uncertainty about what constitutes an appropriate response to the spectrum of demeaning behaviors and who should make this determination; what, if any, support should be offered to targeted clinicians; whether these incidents should be reported and to whom; and whether the medical center's response should differ depending on whether nurses, trainees, or other clinicians are involved. These determinations have important implications for patients' informed consent rights, clinicians' employment rights, and medical centers' obligations to protect patients' health while adhering to workplace antidiscrimination laws and institutional commitments to diversity, equality, and inclusion. This article addresses these considerations and offers guidance to organizations on devising effective policies that meet the needs of medical centers, patients, and health care workers across services and roles, including physicians, nurses, and trainees.

Annals Clinical Decision Making: Incorporating Perspective Into Clinical Decisions

Open Letter to a Burned-Out Intern

The Effects of Electric Fan Use Under Differing Resting Heat Index Conditions: A Clinical Trial

Physician Impairment and Rehabilitation: Reintegration Into Medical Practice While Ensuring Patient Safety: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

Physician impairment, the inability to carry out patient care responsibilities safely and effectively, is a problem of functioning. However, the presence or treatment of a potentially impairing illness or other condition does not necessarily imply impairment. This American College of Physicians position paper examines the professional duties and principles that should guide the response of colleagues and the profession to physician impairment. The physician should be rehabilitated and reintegrated into medical practice whenever possible without compromising patient safety. At the same time, physicians have a duty to seek help when they are unable to provide safe care. When identifying and assisting colleagues who might be impaired, physicians should act on collegial concern as well as ethical and legal guidelines that require reporting of behavior that puts patients at risk. Health care institutions and the profession should support practice environments in which patient safety is prioritized and physician wellness and well-being are addressed. Physician health programs should be committed to best practices that safeguard patient safety and the rights of physician-patients.

Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements: Methods From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

One of the hallmarks of a trustworthy clinical guideline or guidance statement is a comprehensive process for disclosure of interests (DOI) and management of conflicts of interest (COIs). The American College of Physicians (ACP) Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) aims to disclose all health care–related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years. Persons complete disclosures at the start of their participation and are required to update them over the course of their involvement with the CGC, including before each CGC meeting. A DOI-COI Review and Management Panel reviews the disclosures; flags potential conflicts; grades the COI as low-, moderate-, or high-level; and manages the person's participation accordingly. A high-level COI results in recusal from authorship, voting, and all committee discussions. Participants with a moderate-level COI are recused from authorship and voting for clinically relevant topics but may participate in all discussions. A low-level COI results in no role restrictions. All disclosures and COI management decisions are publicly reported.