2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Dearth of infectious diseases physicians as the USA faces a global pandemic

      discussion
      a
      The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
      Elsevier Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed stark problems in the US health-care system. With more than half a million Americans infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the health-care industry is at the front line of grappling with a type of disaster that has not been seen in generations. There remains a shortage of testing kits, scalable infrastructure, and personal protective equipment to keep health-care workers and first responders safe, as well as an absence of adequately run clinical trials or clear recommendations from many of the governing bodies to guide practice. As health-care systems continue to navigate the logistics of coordinating a response to a unique problem, increased focus needs to be on infectious diseases physicians. Infectious diseases physicians are experts who are trained in internal medicine and who complete extensive training in infections and associated diseases. Their training encompasses multiple practice settings, including epidemiology, antibiotic stewardship, international health, sexually transmitted infections, and comprehensive care of people living with HIV. Despite being one of the most frequently consulted services in most hospitals, the number of infectious diseases physicians is not keeping up with the need. According to the National Resident Matching Program statistics for the most recent physician fellowship match in 2020, 84 (21%) of 406 available infectious diseases trainee positions in the USA went unfilled, compared with two (<0·1%) of 1010 available cardiology positions, or two (<1%) of 615 available oncology positions that went unfilled. Although the number of infectious diseases physicians in the USA has increased steadily from 6424 in 2008, to 9136 in 2018 (a 42% increase, including physicians in patient care, teaching, and research faculty), the rate of future increase is uncertain. There are several reasons for such discrepancies in the number of infectious diseases physicians in the US health-care workforce. One reason is that infectious diseases physicians are some of the lowest paid physicians among all specialties. Paediatric infectious diseases specialists were paid the least in 2019, with adult infectious diseases specialists not paid much more. Several medical and surgical specialties, such as cardiology and neurosurgery, on average earned two to three times the amount that their infectious diseases counterparts did. This discrepancy in earning stems from a reimbursement system based on a numerical quantity, known as relative value units, which are inherently skewed toward procedure-based specialties. This system of reimbursement affects non-procedural specialties such as infectious diseases that often work at least the same number of hours (if not more) as other physicians, but are reimbursed at a much lower rate for their services. The impact of newer payment models in Medicare, such as the Merit Based Incentive Program and Alternative Payment Models, on specialties such as infectious diseases is still unknown. Other complicating factors include the retirement of older infectious diseases physicians (individuals older than 55 years make up a substantial portion of the infectious diseases workforce in the USA) and ensuring their timely replacement. There are also concerns around immigration policy and finding and retaining appropriate positions for the non-citizen physicians that form one-third of the infectious diseases workforce. Although the number of infectious diseases physicians is increasing, there is still substantial maldistribution that is likely to grow because rural areas are served by a smaller number of these physicians. Furthermore, the substantial cost of medical school, with the average US student graduating with US$200 000 of debt, means that the economics of future income weighs heavily in specialty choice for many medical students. The tangible and intangible benefits of robust infectious diseases programmes in hospitals have been known for some time. In studies of patients who have been admitted to hospital, appropriate consultation with an infectious diseases specialist has resulted in shorter stays and lower antibiotic costs,1, 2 lower mortality for patients with sepsis,3, 4 and fewer complications. 5 Infectious diseases specialists are instrumental in improving transitions of care for outpatient antibiotic therapy,6, 7 and spend considerable time leading infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship programmes that prevent the spread of hospital-acquired infections and reduce hospital costs.8, 9 Often overlooked, infectious diseases specialists also comprise pivotal teaching faculty at academic hospitals, honing the skills of the next generation of young physicians. Given increasing global travel, continued emergence of new infectious diseases, antibiotic-resistant organisms, and a growing population, the role that infectious diseases specialists will have in the health of everyone in society will only increase. Similar to the AIDS epidemic in the 1990s, the current COVID-19 pandemic might spur a new generation of physicians to join the infectious diseases workforce. However, a more concerted effort might be needed to ensure a pipeline of future infectious diseases physicians in the USA that must include value-based reimbursement, pioneering policy interventions such as loan repayment eligibility for these physicians, and comprehensive immigration reform. Any less would endanger high value care in the US health-care system and under-prepare the country for future pandemics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Course and outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a retrospective analysis of 308 episodes in a Swiss tertiary-care centre.

          Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide. The charts of adult patients with SAB who were hospitalised in a Swiss tertiary-care centre between 1998 and 2002 were studied retrospectively. In total, 308 episodes of SAB were included: 2% were caused by methicillin-resistant strains; 49% were community-acquired; and 51% were nosocomial. Bacteraemia without focus was the most common type of community-acquired SAB (52%), whereas intravenous catheter-related infection predominated (61%) among nosocomial episodes of SAB. An infectious diseases (ID) specialist was consulted in 82% of all cases; 83% received appropriate antibiotic treatment within 24 h of obtaining blood cultures. Overall hospital-associated mortality was 20%. Community-acquired SAB was associated independently with a higher mortality rate than nosocomial SAB (26% vs. 13%; p 0.009). Independent risk-factors for a fatal outcome were age (p < 0.001), immunosuppression (p 0.007), alcoholism (p < 0.001), haemodialysis (p 0.03), acute renal failure (p < 0.001) and septic shock (p < 0.001). Consultation with an ID specialist was associated with a better outcome in univariate analysis (p < 0.001). Compared with a previous retrospective analysis performed at the same institution between 1980 and 1986, there was a 140% increase in community-acquired SAB, a 60% increase in catheter-related SAB, and a 14% reduction in mortality. In conclusion, mortality in patients with SAB remained high, despite effective antibiotic therapy. Patients with community-acquired SAB were twice as likely to die as patients with nosocomial SAB. Consultation with an ID specialist may reduce mortality in patients with SAB.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Infectious diseases consultation lowers mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

            Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a lethal and increasingly common infection in hospitalized patients. We assessed the impact of infectious diseases consultation (IDC) on clinical management and hospital mortality of SAB in 240 hospitalized patients in a retrospective cohort study. Patients who received IDC were older than those who did not (57.9 vs. 51.7 yr; p = 0.05), and were more likely to have a health care-associated infection (63% vs. 45%; p < 0.01). In patients who received IDC, there was a higher prevalence of severe complications of SAB such as central nervous system involvement (5% vs. 0%, p = 0.01), endocarditis (20% vs. 2%; p < 0.01), or osteomyelitis (15.6% vs. 3.4%; p < 0.01). Patients who received IDC had closer blood culture follow-up and better antibiotic selection, and were more likely to have pus or prosthetic material removed. Hospital mortality from SAB was lower in patients who received IDC than in those who did not (13.9% vs. 23.7%; p = 0.05). In multivariate survival analysis, IDC was associated with substantially lower hazard of hospital mortality during SAB (hazard 0.46; p = 0.03). This mortality benefit accrued predominantly in patients with methicillin-resistant SAB (hazard 0.3; p < 0.01), and in patients who did not require ICU admission (hazard 0.15; p = 0.01). In conclusion, IDC is associated with reduced mortality in patients with staphylococcal bacteremia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The network approach for prevention of healthcare-associated infections: long-term effect of participation in the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network.

              To describe the rates of several key outcomes and healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) among hospitals that participated in the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (DICON). Prospective, observational cohort study of patients admitted to 24 community hospitals from 2003 through 2009. The following data were collected and analyzed: incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), and HAIs caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); employee exposures to bloodborne pathogens (EBBPs); physician EBBPs; patient-days; central line-days; ventilator-days; and urinary catheter-days. Poisson regression was used to determine whether incidence rates of these HAIs and exposures changed during the first 5 and 7 years of participation in DICON; nonrandom clustering of each outcome was controlled for. Cost saved and lives saved were calculated on the basis of published estimates. In total, we analyzed 6.5 million patient-days, 4,783 EBPPs, 2,948 HAIs due to MRSA, and 2,076 device-related infections. Rates of employee EBBPs, HAIs due to MRSA, and device-related infections decreased significantly during the first 5 years of participation in DICON (P< .05 for all models; average decrease was approximately 50%); in contrast, physician EBBPs remained unchanged. In aggregate, 210 CLABSIs, 312 cases of VAP, 332 CAUTIs, 1,042 HAIs due to MRSA, and 1,016 employee EBBPs were prevented. Each hospital saved approximately $100,000 per year of participation, and collectively the hospitals may have prevented 52-105 deaths from CLABSI or VAP. The 7-year analysis demonstrated that these trends continued with further participation. Hospitals with long-term participation in an infection control network decreased rates of significant HAIs by approximately 50%, decreased costs, and saved lives.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Infect Dis
                Lancet Infect Dis
                The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
                Elsevier Ltd.
                1473-3099
                1474-4457
                7 May 2020
                7 May 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA
                Article
                S1473-3099(20)30377-7
                10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30377-7
                7252147
                32386608
                ea9d5c19-ff19-4f8f-a9c6-78ab07c888e7
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article