A significant part of my job as a pediatric hospitalist involves caring for newborns. It is arguably the best thing that I get to do as a physician, even if I do at times prefer the increased intellectual stimulation of the ill hospitalized child. While seeing newborns, I am almost always surrounded by happy and appreciative parents, grandparents and whoever else is invited to meet and greet the new arrival because the babies are almost always healthy. In fact, and not that I really care (sniff, sniff), the parents of newborns are with rare exception the only caregivers that ever thank me at discharge.
Unfortunately, sometimes I am called upon to assist babies that are having difficulty transitioning into the outside world for a variety of reasons. These reasons can range from the fairly minor and transient to the catastrophic. And despite our advances in the understanding of neonatal pathophysiology and in medical technology, there remain newborn infants that cannot be saved or who have severe lifelong deficits caused by their illness or injury. This will likely always be the case, especially if unqualified professionals continue to involve themselves in either the delivery or the care of babies.
Over the course of 11 years of practice, and after having seen thousands of both perfectly healthy and severely ill newborns, I have acquired a skill set which allows for the recognition of a baby in trouble and the ability to respond appropriately. All pediatricians and family doctors strive to develop this, particularly if they see patients in the newborn nursery, although I imagine none, including myself, would claim to have perfected this “art”. Newborn medicine can be very challenging for many reasons, not the least of which is the significant overlap of the presenting signs and symptoms of many serious conditions, with even normal baby behavior sometimes mimicking potentially life-threatening pathology. (more…)
There is no role of chiropractic in treating childhood bedwetting
In pediatrics, very few things are completely black and white. This is an aspect of conventional medicine in general that tends to separate the approach of science-based practitioners from that of proponents of the many forms of irregular medicine commonly discussed on SBM. They appear to experience no shame in claiming absolute certainty while doling out all manner of implausible remedies for ailments ranging from the well-established to the fictional.
While we do face questions from patients and their caregivers regarding largely invented diagnoses in pediatrics, with chronic Lyme disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity being just two of many increasingly encountered concerns, my experience has been that alternative medical providers tend to focus their efforts on the same real problems that pediatricians and family practitioners deal with on a daily basis. And I don’t believe that it is mere coincidence that these conditions are largely self-limited in nature, a fact often not shared. Parental and patient buy-in is often more easily obtained with certainty rather than nuance.
Chiropractors, for example, seem to pride themselves on their ability to cure ear infections. Of course in greater than 80% of children with acute ear infections, symptoms will resolve without any intervention whatsoever. This is why the AAP has been trying for years to decrease the rates of antibiotic prescriptions for ear infections, unfortunately with little in the way of success thus far. And when the infections don’t resolve on their own, there is no good evidence that anything a chiropractor has to offer can help. The same can be said for their claims regarding colic and gastroesophageal reflux, which I’ve written about before.
Another condition frequently mentioned by chiropractors as being particularly in their wheelhouse is nighttime bedwetting, the medical term for this being nocturnal enuresis. Rarely have I seen a chiropractic website with a section on the benefits for children that does not mention their success in curing bedwetting. Fred Clary, DC, even claims on his website to be able to cure bedwetting in the newborn baby. And to think I’ve just been ignoring the problem as a newborn hospitalist. Is it because the thought of a newborn infant gaining continence is absurd, or am I just a shill for Big Pampers?
“Ummm, I probably shouldn’t be telling you this.”
The July issue of Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, contains an extremely thought provoking article discussing the risks and benefits of disclosing an incidental finding of nonparentage during pediatric genetic testing. Nonparentage occurs when one, or very rarely both, of the social parents did not serve as source code for a child’s genetic programming, so to speak. Naturally, we aren’t talking about known adoptions but rather when the nonbiological parent is unaware of the fact that they did not contribute an egg or sperm.
Authors Marissa Palmor and Autumn Fiester, both bioethicists at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, take the position of universal nondisclosure when nonparentage is discovered. They acknowledge the pro-disclosure arguments and, in my opinion, successfully rebut them. They go on to make a compelling recommendation for the incorporation of a universal nondisclosure clause into consent forms which states clearly that parental status will not be discussed. (more…)
I’ve written about the management of acute pain in children in the past, and unfortunately my feelings haven’t changed in the interim. Acute pain, particularly pain related to procedures such as venipuncture for blood sampling and intravenous access, and intramuscular administration of medications such as antibiotics and vaccines, is commonly undertreated, downplayed and even ignored altogether by medical professionals and even caregivers. So when I was made aware of a device being used in pediatric clinics and emergency departments (and even available for home use) with apparent success in preventing or reducing procedural pain in children, I was intrigued and more than a bit hopeful. (more…)
The practice of medicine is an art, not a trade; a calling, not a business; a calling in which your heart will be exercised equally with your head.
The practice of medicine is an art, based on science.
-Sir William Osler, AEQUANIMITAS
The truth is that many of us have some kind of “extraordinary gift.” For a few of us, that gift is the ability to throw a ball at 90 miles per hour and hit a catcher’s glove. For others, that gift is a form of extraordinary perception. Medical intuitives “see” things that others don’t. Wendy Marks has been described as a “human CT scan.” What no one has been able to diagnose by conventional methods is often seen when Wendy scans a body.
–Boston Women’s Journal April/May 2002
The concept of an art to the practice of medicine comes up frequently and in a variety of contexts. Early on in our medical education, we are exposed to the phrase and what it supposedly means, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. But the art of medicine is always painted (pun intended) in a positive light. I will admit that I have a strong opinion, perhaps biased by my involvement with the science-based medicine movement and an equally early exposure during my medical training to champions of evidence-based practice and the use of critical thinking in the approach to patient care.
By now, regular SBM readers should be aware of the Choosing Wisely initiative. Just in case, Choosing Wisely is a campaign developed by the ABIM Foundation to bring together experts from a variety of medical specialties in order to identify common practices that should be questioned by patients and providers, if not outright discontinued. Their ultimate goal was not to establish treatment guidelines or dictate care, but to foster discussion. As I’ve written about in a prior post on the overuse of antibiotics in pediatrics, it doesn’t appear to have caught on. I routinely ask colleagues, residents and students if they are aware of it, and am frequently disappointed by their response.
The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a list of five questionable practices back in February of 2013 and I loved it. All five are important:
- Stop treating viruses with antibiotics
- Stop prescribing and recommending cough and cold medicines for young children
- Stop routine use of CT scans for minor head injuries
- Stop routine use of neuroimaging for simple febrile seizures
- Stop routine use of CT scans for abdominal pain
By far the most common medical problem in newborn infants is jaundice, typically appreciated as a yellowish discoloration of the skin caused by increased blood levels of a pigment called bilirubin. In my role as a newborn hospitalist, I manage jaundice every day. If I am not treating jaundice, in every single baby I see I am at least determining the risk of the child developing jaundice severe enough to require treatment. I then use that assessment to help guide my recommendations on when the infant should follow up with their primary care pediatrician after discharge home.
Fortunately for the millions of infants who develop jaundice every year, in the vast majority it is a self-limited process and often considered to be just a normal part of the first few days of life. But in a significant minority of them, careful management is required in order to prevent complications. Some infants need treatment to prevent neurological symptoms from developing, and to reverse them when they do occur. And in a very small percentage of babies who develop severe jaundice, permanent brain damage and even death can occur.
Because newborn jaundice tends to resolve without any intervention, and complications are now uncommon, it isn’t surprising that a variety of myths and superstitions have arisen that involve preventing or curing the condition. And naturally there are practitioners of unproven alternative medical modalities that can be found claiming to be able to manage it as well. As expected, if you’ve spent any time reading Science-Based Medicine or researching the nonsensical claims of chiropractors, homeopaths and their ilk, their understanding is limited and their recommendations potentially dangerous.
But first a crash course on newborn jaundice. (more…)
As I write this post, a large outbreak of mumps is ongoing in Columbus, Ohio. The city, which on average sees a single case each year, has seen over 250 since February. To put things in further perspective, only about 440 cases are normally diagnosed in the entire United States annually. The outbreak began on the campus of Ohio State University, where about 150 cases have been identified, but no information about the index case has been reported thus far.
Although the current outbreak will likely smolder for months, the total number of cases thus far is considerably fewer than the worst of the past decade. A 2009-2010 outbreak in New York and New Jersey ended up affecting about 3,000 people. In 2006, about 6,500 college students throughout the Midwest were infected. It is unlikely we will see these kinds of numbers in Ohio, but even our worst in recent years pale in comparison to those that have occurred in England over the past decade, where there was a peak of about 56,000 documented cases in 2005.
The diagnosis of only a few hundred cases per year is a clear victory of the mumps vaccination program, which started in 1967. Prior to the widespread adoption of the vaccine, 186,000 cases were seen in the United States annually. That works out to a decrease in cases of over 99%. This reduction didn’t occur because of improved sanitation, cleaner water, or even sunspots. It occurred because of the hard work and dedication of vaccine researchers, medical professionals and the widespread public acceptance of a safe and effective vaccine.
Mumps doesn’t get the kind of press that measles outbreaks do. There are a number of reasons why this is true and reasonable. I will get into more detail, but essentially mumps, although it can result in significant morbidity, just isn’t as sexy and it isn’t a good candidate for anti-anti-vaccine poster child. Measles wins in that regard, and let’s hope it stays that way. I am terrified at the thought of HiB meningitis returning. But that doesn’t mean that mumps outbreaks can’t serve as fodder for educating the public on vaccines. First though, a primer on mumps.
Science Based Medicine last covered the increasingly common practice of laboring while immersed in water, in many cases followed by delivering the baby while still submerged, a little over four years ago. In that post, Dr. Amy Tuteur focused primarily on the contamination of the water with a variety of potentially pathogenic bacteria and the associated risk of infection. She also touched on the some of the other risks of giving birth underwater and made some excellent arguments against many of the claims made by proponents. I recommend reading that post and the ensuing comments.
This week, a new joint clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) on immersion in water during labor and delivery was published in both the April Pediatrics and on the ACOG website. The media has responded with the typical flurry of falsely dichotomous coverage, pitting maternal-fetal medicine experts against midwives and other waterbirth proponents and leaving it up to the reader to decide which side is right. This March 23rd, an NPR article by Nancy Shute is a particularly frustrating example of weak medical reporting. In the article she essentially portrays giving birth underwater as an established and safe practice and medical experts as overly focused on a few flimsy anecdotes and case reports:
“Case reports are the lowest form of evidence,” Shaw-Battista counters. She is completing a study of 1,200 women who labored or birthed in water, and says they did as well or better than women who did not. “Given the bulk of the data, I don’t think we should use case reports to reject options that women are currently enjoying.”
Earlier this month, the typical media outlets were abuzz (“Childhood nightmares may point to looming health issues“) with the results of a newly published study linking early childhood nightmares and night terrors with future psychotic experiences. Expressing little in the way of skepticism, most reports simply regurgitated the University of Warwick press release. The research, published in the quite legitimate journal Sleep, is interesting but I’m not sure it tell us anything that we don’t already know. And it certainly doesn’t support any causal relationship between sleep disorders of any variety and “delusions, hallucinations, and thought interference”. But before we delve into the specifics of the paper, I believe a quick review of sleep, and sleep problems, in children is in order.
What is sleep?
To the outside observer, sleep appears as an altered level of consciousness where response to our environment and voluntary movements are noticeably decreased. But, with a certain degree of variability, the line between sleep and wakefulness is pretty thin. This distinguishes it from the increasing stimulation required to reverse other states of altered consciousness such as lethargy, obtundation, stupor and ultimately coma, which is not acutely reversible. I don’t plan on getting too technical, but there is obviously much more to sleep than that. Physiologically our metabolic demands drop a bit, and we enter a generalized anabolic or “growth” state during which a number of beneficial processes take place, predominantly, we think, involving the brain.
Sleep is a vital aspect of human life that has appears to have both physiological and psychological purpose, and is essentially universal in the animal kingdom. All you need to do is observe a cat for more than five minutes to see that we aren’t the only animal species that both needs and seemingly enjoys sleep. In fact, if you could talk to a nematode, it would likely go on for hours about how much it enjoys sleeping in on Sundays. Humans spend roughly a third of their lives asleep, but the percentage of each day devoted to sleep is significantly higher during infancy and early childhood.
We don’t know why the need to sleep became part of the blueprint for life so early on in our evolutionary history, and researchers certainly haven’t worked out all of the nuances of why humans and other animal species continue to be so dependent on it throughout the lifespan. It is likely that its purpose has broadened over time as species branched out into new environments. There are a number of leading hypotheses, however. And barring some amazing technological or medical advance, we appear to be stuck with sleep.