Society News

Genetic Associations and Architecture of Asthma-COPD Overlap. By Catherine John, et al.

Emerging Nonpulmonary Complications for Adults With Cystic Fibrosis. By Dr. Melanie Chin, et al.

Aspirin as a Treatment for ARDS: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. By Dr. Philip Toner, et al.

PICU in the MICU: How Adult ICUs Can Support Pediatric Care in Public Health Emergencies. By Dr. Mary A. King, et al.

Association of BMI and Change in Weight With Mortality in Patients With Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease. By Dr. Alessia Comes, et al.

Off-Label Use and Inappropriate Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cardiopulmonary Disease. By Dr. Ayman A. Hussein, et al.

Genetic Associations and Architecture of Asthma-COPD Overlap. By Catherine John, et al.

Emerging Nonpulmonary Complications for Adults With Cystic Fibrosis. By Dr. Melanie Chin, et al.

Aspirin as a Treatment for ARDS: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. By Dr. Philip Toner, et al.

PICU in the MICU: How Adult ICUs Can Support Pediatric Care in Public Health Emergencies. By Dr. Mary A. King, et al.

Association of BMI and Change in Weight With Mortality in Patients With Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease. By Dr. Alessia Comes, et al.

Off-Label Use and Inappropriate Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cardiopulmonary Disease. By Dr. Ayman A. Hussein, et al.

Genetic Associations and Architecture of Asthma-COPD Overlap. By Catherine John, et al.

Emerging Nonpulmonary Complications for Adults With Cystic Fibrosis. By Dr. Melanie Chin, et al.

Aspirin as a Treatment for ARDS: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. By Dr. Philip Toner, et al.

PICU in the MICU: How Adult ICUs Can Support Pediatric Care in Public Health Emergencies. By Dr. Mary A. King, et al.

Association of BMI and Change in Weight With Mortality in Patients With Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease. By Dr. Alessia Comes, et al.

Off-Label Use and Inappropriate Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cardiopulmonary Disease. By Dr. Ayman A. Hussein, et al.

Although attendees will be watching “The Test of the Champion” with bated breath, the upcoming Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction on June 11 in New York City is about much more than a famous horse race. It’s about community – the vibrant community of clinicians, patients, advocates, and more who support the mission to crush lung disease.

The event started small with a Sunday brunch at the home of CHEST President-Elect Doreen Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, where attendees gathered to learn more from their host about the CHEST Foundation’s many initiatives. However, over the years, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris leaned on her own community of colleagues, family, friends, and patients to build an event that now boasts hundreds of attendees. But despite all that has changed, the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction is still dedicated to raising awareness about the CHEST Foundation and fundraising for initiatives to develop patient education and improve care.

In addition to a plated dinner, silent auction, cocktail reception, and rooftop after-party, this year’s event will feature speeches from two long-time patient advocates living with chronic lung conditions, Fred Schick and Betsy Glaeser.

For Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, spotlighting that unique patient perspective is particularly meaningful because the core focus of CHEST and the CHEST Foundation is to improve care and, by extension, patients’ lives.

Visit foundation.chestnet.org to read a blog post with more information about Schick and Glaeser’s work advocating for others with lung disease, find more details about the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction, and reserve your seat for this night of philanthropy and fun.

Although attendees will be watching “The Test of the Champion” with bated breath, the upcoming Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction on June 11 in New York City is about much more than a famous horse race. It’s about community – the vibrant community of clinicians, patients, advocates, and more who support the mission to crush lung disease.

The event started small with a Sunday brunch at the home of CHEST President-Elect Doreen Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, where attendees gathered to learn more from their host about the CHEST Foundation’s many initiatives. However, over the years, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris leaned on her own community of colleagues, family, friends, and patients to build an event that now boasts hundreds of attendees. But despite all that has changed, the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction is still dedicated to raising awareness about the CHEST Foundation and fundraising for initiatives to develop patient education and improve care.

In addition to a plated dinner, silent auction, cocktail reception, and rooftop after-party, this year’s event will feature speeches from two long-time patient advocates living with chronic lung conditions, Fred Schick and Betsy Glaeser.

For Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, spotlighting that unique patient perspective is particularly meaningful because the core focus of CHEST and the CHEST Foundation is to improve care and, by extension, patients’ lives.

Visit foundation.chestnet.org to read a blog post with more information about Schick and Glaeser’s work advocating for others with lung disease, find more details about the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction, and reserve your seat for this night of philanthropy and fun.

Although attendees will be watching “The Test of the Champion” with bated breath, the upcoming Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction on June 11 in New York City is about much more than a famous horse race. It’s about community – the vibrant community of clinicians, patients, advocates, and more who support the mission to crush lung disease.

The event started small with a Sunday brunch at the home of CHEST President-Elect Doreen Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, where attendees gathered to learn more from their host about the CHEST Foundation’s many initiatives. However, over the years, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris leaned on her own community of colleagues, family, friends, and patients to build an event that now boasts hundreds of attendees. But despite all that has changed, the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction is still dedicated to raising awareness about the CHEST Foundation and fundraising for initiatives to develop patient education and improve care.

In addition to a plated dinner, silent auction, cocktail reception, and rooftop after-party, this year’s event will feature speeches from two long-time patient advocates living with chronic lung conditions, Fred Schick and Betsy Glaeser.

For Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, spotlighting that unique patient perspective is particularly meaningful because the core focus of CHEST and the CHEST Foundation is to improve care and, by extension, patients’ lives.

Visit foundation.chestnet.org to read a blog post with more information about Schick and Glaeser’s work advocating for others with lung disease, find more details about the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction, and reserve your seat for this night of philanthropy and fun.

In 2020, the CHEST Foundation embarked on a bold new initiative to build trust, identify, and remove barriers, and promote health care access for all in order to help fight lung disease. As part of that, we recognize that racial and ethnic minorities have been underrepresented in medical professions, contributing to these barriers to patient care.

We recognize that advocating for these groups and increasing the number of medical professors who represent people of color, ethnic minority groups, or who come from an historically disadvantaged community also increases the number of role models in our communities and can help stimulate greater interest among minority students in the health care professions. This year, CHEST is joining ATS and ALA in funding the Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development program, and the CHEST Foundation will be raising funds to support these fellowship recipients.

Harold Amos, PhD, was the first African American to chair a department, now the Department of Microbiology and Medical Genetics, of the Harvard Medical School. Dr. Amos worked tirelessly to recruit and mentor minority and disadvantaged students to careers in academic medicine and science. He was a founding member of the National Advisory Committee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Minority Medical Faculty Development Program in 1983 and served as the Program’s National Program Director between 1989 and 1993. Dr. Amos remained active with the program until his death in 2003.

This program exists to continue Dr. Amos’s legacy and to increase the number of faculty from historically disadvantaged backgrounds who can achieve senior rank in academic medicine, dentistry, or nursing and who will encourage and foster the development of succeeding classes of such physicians, dentists, and nurse-scientists. The impact of this program is clear.
 

Key results

• Over the past 30 years, 241 scholars had completed all 4 years of the program (as of 2012). More than three-quarters remained in academic medicine, including 57 professors, 76 associate professors, and 56 assistant professors.
• Many program alumni have earned professional honors and become influential leaders in the health care field. For example, three direct institutes at the National Institutes of Health, and 10 have been elected to the Institute of Medicine.
• Alumni have received hundreds of awards and honors, including a MacArthur Fellowship “genius” award.
• Alumni have reached positions of influence in academia that enable them to help correct the underrepresentation of minorities in the health professions and address health disparities.

Former scholars are:

• Members of admission, intern, and faculty selection committees
• On review boards for clinical protocols and research studies
• Officers of professional societies and on editorial boards of academic journals

CHEST is proud to join with ATS and ALA to support this incredible program. We recognize that the impact on the past is only the start. By supporting this initiative, we are also looking to address the challenges of the future as the health care landscape continues to evolve. Ensuring that this program reaches the right groups and continues to promote Dr. Amos’s legacy is integral not only to the success of the program but also to aid us in being able to care for our diverse and unique patient populations. The CHEST Foundation is raising funds to support future fellowship recipients. Join us at our next Viva la Vino wine tasting event on July 14 at 7:00 PM CT. All proceeds go to benefit this important initiative, and you can learn more about the work the Foundation does in a relaxed, social environment.

In 2020, the CHEST Foundation embarked on a bold new initiative to build trust, identify, and remove barriers, and promote health care access for all in order to help fight lung disease. As part of that, we recognize that racial and ethnic minorities have been underrepresented in medical professions, contributing to these barriers to patient care.

We recognize that advocating for these groups and increasing the number of medical professors who represent people of color, ethnic minority groups, or who come from an historically disadvantaged community also increases the number of role models in our communities and can help stimulate greater interest among minority students in the health care professions. This year, CHEST is joining ATS and ALA in funding the Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development program, and the CHEST Foundation will be raising funds to support these fellowship recipients.

Harold Amos, PhD, was the first African American to chair a department, now the Department of Microbiology and Medical Genetics, of the Harvard Medical School. Dr. Amos worked tirelessly to recruit and mentor minority and disadvantaged students to careers in academic medicine and science. He was a founding member of the National Advisory Committee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Minority Medical Faculty Development Program in 1983 and served as the Program’s National Program Director between 1989 and 1993. Dr. Amos remained active with the program until his death in 2003.

This program exists to continue Dr. Amos’s legacy and to increase the number of faculty from historically disadvantaged backgrounds who can achieve senior rank in academic medicine, dentistry, or nursing and who will encourage and foster the development of succeeding classes of such physicians, dentists, and nurse-scientists. The impact of this program is clear.
 

Key results

• Over the past 30 years, 241 scholars had completed all 4 years of the program (as of 2012). More than three-quarters remained in academic medicine, including 57 professors, 76 associate professors, and 56 assistant professors.
• Many program alumni have earned professional honors and become influential leaders in the health care field. For example, three direct institutes at the National Institutes of Health, and 10 have been elected to the Institute of Medicine.
• Alumni have received hundreds of awards and honors, including a MacArthur Fellowship “genius” award.
• Alumni have reached positions of influence in academia that enable them to help correct the underrepresentation of minorities in the health professions and address health disparities.

Former scholars are:

• Members of admission, intern, and faculty selection committees
• On review boards for clinical protocols and research studies
• Officers of professional societies and on editorial boards of academic journals

CHEST is proud to join with ATS and ALA to support this incredible program. We recognize that the impact on the past is only the start. By supporting this initiative, we are also looking to address the challenges of the future as the health care landscape continues to evolve. Ensuring that this program reaches the right groups and continues to promote Dr. Amos’s legacy is integral not only to the success of the program but also to aid us in being able to care for our diverse and unique patient populations. The CHEST Foundation is raising funds to support future fellowship recipients. Join us at our next Viva la Vino wine tasting event on July 14 at 7:00 PM CT. All proceeds go to benefit this important initiative, and you can learn more about the work the Foundation does in a relaxed, social environment.

In 2020, the CHEST Foundation embarked on a bold new initiative to build trust, identify, and remove barriers, and promote health care access for all in order to help fight lung disease. As part of that, we recognize that racial and ethnic minorities have been underrepresented in medical professions, contributing to these barriers to patient care.

We recognize that advocating for these groups and increasing the number of medical professors who represent people of color, ethnic minority groups, or who come from an historically disadvantaged community also increases the number of role models in our communities and can help stimulate greater interest among minority students in the health care professions. This year, CHEST is joining ATS and ALA in funding the Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development program, and the CHEST Foundation will be raising funds to support these fellowship recipients.

Harold Amos, PhD, was the first African American to chair a department, now the Department of Microbiology and Medical Genetics, of the Harvard Medical School. Dr. Amos worked tirelessly to recruit and mentor minority and disadvantaged students to careers in academic medicine and science. He was a founding member of the National Advisory Committee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Minority Medical Faculty Development Program in 1983 and served as the Program’s National Program Director between 1989 and 1993. Dr. Amos remained active with the program until his death in 2003.

This program exists to continue Dr. Amos’s legacy and to increase the number of faculty from historically disadvantaged backgrounds who can achieve senior rank in academic medicine, dentistry, or nursing and who will encourage and foster the development of succeeding classes of such physicians, dentists, and nurse-scientists. The impact of this program is clear.
 

Key results

• Over the past 30 years, 241 scholars had completed all 4 years of the program (as of 2012). More than three-quarters remained in academic medicine, including 57 professors, 76 associate professors, and 56 assistant professors.
• Many program alumni have earned professional honors and become influential leaders in the health care field. For example, three direct institutes at the National Institutes of Health, and 10 have been elected to the Institute of Medicine.
• Alumni have received hundreds of awards and honors, including a MacArthur Fellowship “genius” award.
• Alumni have reached positions of influence in academia that enable them to help correct the underrepresentation of minorities in the health professions and address health disparities.

Former scholars are:

• Members of admission, intern, and faculty selection committees
• On review boards for clinical protocols and research studies
• Officers of professional societies and on editorial boards of academic journals

CHEST is proud to join with ATS and ALA to support this incredible program. We recognize that the impact on the past is only the start. By supporting this initiative, we are also looking to address the challenges of the future as the health care landscape continues to evolve. Ensuring that this program reaches the right groups and continues to promote Dr. Amos’s legacy is integral not only to the success of the program but also to aid us in being able to care for our diverse and unique patient populations. The CHEST Foundation is raising funds to support future fellowship recipients. Join us at our next Viva la Vino wine tasting event on July 14 at 7:00 PM CT. All proceeds go to benefit this important initiative, and you can learn more about the work the Foundation does in a relaxed, social environment.

Applications are now open for the 2023 AGA Fellowship cohort. AGA is proud to formally recognize its exemplary members whose accomplishments and contributions demonstrate a deep commitment to gastroenterology through the AGA Fellows Program. Those in clinical practice, education, or research (basic or clinical) are encouraged to apply today.

Longstanding members who apply and meet the program criteria are granted the distinguished honor of AGA Fellowship and receive the following:

• The privilege of using the designation “AGAF” in professional activities. 
• An official certificate and pin denoting your status. 
• International acknowledgment at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
• A listing on the AGA website alongside esteemed peers.
• A prewritten, fill-in press release, and a digital badge to inform others of your accomplishment.

Learn more

Apply for consideration and gain recognition worldwide for your commitment to the field. The deadline is Aug. 24, 2022.

If you have any questions, contact AGA Member Relations at member@gastro.org or 301-941-2651.

Applications are now open for the 2023 AGA Fellowship cohort. AGA is proud to formally recognize its exemplary members whose accomplishments and contributions demonstrate a deep commitment to gastroenterology through the AGA Fellows Program. Those in clinical practice, education, or research (basic or clinical) are encouraged to apply today.

Longstanding members who apply and meet the program criteria are granted the distinguished honor of AGA Fellowship and receive the following:

• The privilege of using the designation “AGAF” in professional activities. 
• An official certificate and pin denoting your status. 
• International acknowledgment at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
• A listing on the AGA website alongside esteemed peers.
• A prewritten, fill-in press release, and a digital badge to inform others of your accomplishment.

Learn more

Apply for consideration and gain recognition worldwide for your commitment to the field. The deadline is Aug. 24, 2022.

If you have any questions, contact AGA Member Relations at member@gastro.org or 301-941-2651.

Applications are now open for the 2023 AGA Fellowship cohort. AGA is proud to formally recognize its exemplary members whose accomplishments and contributions demonstrate a deep commitment to gastroenterology through the AGA Fellows Program. Those in clinical practice, education, or research (basic or clinical) are encouraged to apply today.

Longstanding members who apply and meet the program criteria are granted the distinguished honor of AGA Fellowship and receive the following:

• The privilege of using the designation “AGAF” in professional activities. 
• An official certificate and pin denoting your status. 
• International acknowledgment at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
• A listing on the AGA website alongside esteemed peers.
• A prewritten, fill-in press release, and a digital badge to inform others of your accomplishment.

Learn more

Apply for consideration and gain recognition worldwide for your commitment to the field. The deadline is Aug. 24, 2022.

If you have any questions, contact AGA Member Relations at member@gastro.org or 301-941-2651.

This year’s plenary will focus on action items to eradicate health disparities in GI.

The 2022 AGA Presidential Plenary at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) is designed to highlight timely and high-impact research as it pertains to AGA and the global gastroenterology community. This year’s plenary will feature a series of invited speaker talks on the ways to integrate diversity and inclusion into the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

AGA President John M. Inadomi, MD, AGAF, will present his address titled “Don’t Talk – Act: The Relevance of DEI to Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists and the Imperative for Action.” Read our Q&A with Dr. Inadomi below for details on what you can expect from the plenary.
 

Why did you want to focus on issues around diversity, equity, and inclusion in the presidential plenary?

Most obvious is the pandemic and the social issues the pandemic has amplified have made these issues a primary concern for AGA. The pandemic forced us to reexamine ourselves and to not assume everything we’ve done in the past should be done in the future. The diversity of AGA and AGA leadership is not where we want it to be. I want to use the presidential plenary as a platform to discuss race, especially, which is only one part of DEI. I can provide perspective as an Asian American experiencing a resurgence in racism and I want to involve nationally known experts like Monica Webb Hooper who’ve done research on this and have fully formed ideas on how to frame the questions and talk about action items that we, as a society, should adopt. The time of reflection and awareness has passed, the time of simply providing awareness is past. Society needs to adopt action items to address and combat racism.

Later in the plenary, I’m pleased to be joined by Dr. Byron Cryer and Dr. Sandra Quezada who will talk about how they created/developed the AGA Equity Project and their work to implement it.
 

What do you want attendees to take home from these various talks?

We hear a lot of talk about DEI, I hear a lot about awareness, a lot of talk about education. I asked the presidential plenary speakers to move beyond that to provide action items that AGA and its members can implement to reduce disparities in health outcomes. I hope that we will be able to measure these outcomes and see improvement over time coming out of the interventions proposed during this session.

Why did you choose disparities in CRC, liver disease, and IBD specifically?

I feel like these are core parts of gastroenterology and hepatology. So much of the disparities we see in colon cancer are a microcosm of the disparities that exist across the spectrum of GI and liver disease. They illustrate the problems with access and utilization. Disparities in CRC outcomes are exacerbated by the pandemic. I chose liver disease because it’s another area where racial disparities exist and are exacerbated by the pandemic. All three are core services provided by gastroenterologists and hepatologists and represent areas where racism has caused disparities in outcomes. Greatly magnified by the pandemic.
 

Why is the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH) important?

It’s important for me to listen to people who are the target of racism and hear how they want AGA to address their concerns. I want a better understanding of why ABGH was formed and why now. I want to hear what they hope to achieve and how they believe the AGA can help.
 

The full AGA Presidential Plenary line-up

We hope you’ll join us for the AGA Presidential Plenary, taking place Monday, May 23, at 10 a.m. PT during DDW. In addition to Dr. Inadomi’s keynote address, presentations will include:

• AGA Julius Friedenwald Recognition of Timothy Wang
• AGA Equity Project: Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead
• The Genesis and Goals of the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH)
• What We Need to Overcome Racial and Ethnic Barriers to Engage in Clinical Trials
• Reducing Disparities in Colorectal Cancer
• Reducing Disparities in Liver Disease
• Reducing Disparities in IBD

This year’s plenary will focus on action items to eradicate health disparities in GI.

The 2022 AGA Presidential Plenary at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) is designed to highlight timely and high-impact research as it pertains to AGA and the global gastroenterology community. This year’s plenary will feature a series of invited speaker talks on the ways to integrate diversity and inclusion into the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

AGA President John M. Inadomi, MD, AGAF, will present his address titled “Don’t Talk – Act: The Relevance of DEI to Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists and the Imperative for Action.” Read our Q&A with Dr. Inadomi below for details on what you can expect from the plenary.
 

Why did you want to focus on issues around diversity, equity, and inclusion in the presidential plenary?

Most obvious is the pandemic and the social issues the pandemic has amplified have made these issues a primary concern for AGA. The pandemic forced us to reexamine ourselves and to not assume everything we’ve done in the past should be done in the future. The diversity of AGA and AGA leadership is not where we want it to be. I want to use the presidential plenary as a platform to discuss race, especially, which is only one part of DEI. I can provide perspective as an Asian American experiencing a resurgence in racism and I want to involve nationally known experts like Monica Webb Hooper who’ve done research on this and have fully formed ideas on how to frame the questions and talk about action items that we, as a society, should adopt. The time of reflection and awareness has passed, the time of simply providing awareness is past. Society needs to adopt action items to address and combat racism.

Later in the plenary, I’m pleased to be joined by Dr. Byron Cryer and Dr. Sandra Quezada who will talk about how they created/developed the AGA Equity Project and their work to implement it.
 

What do you want attendees to take home from these various talks?

We hear a lot of talk about DEI, I hear a lot about awareness, a lot of talk about education. I asked the presidential plenary speakers to move beyond that to provide action items that AGA and its members can implement to reduce disparities in health outcomes. I hope that we will be able to measure these outcomes and see improvement over time coming out of the interventions proposed during this session.

Why did you choose disparities in CRC, liver disease, and IBD specifically?

I feel like these are core parts of gastroenterology and hepatology. So much of the disparities we see in colon cancer are a microcosm of the disparities that exist across the spectrum of GI and liver disease. They illustrate the problems with access and utilization. Disparities in CRC outcomes are exacerbated by the pandemic. I chose liver disease because it’s another area where racial disparities exist and are exacerbated by the pandemic. All three are core services provided by gastroenterologists and hepatologists and represent areas where racism has caused disparities in outcomes. Greatly magnified by the pandemic.
 

Why is the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH) important?

It’s important for me to listen to people who are the target of racism and hear how they want AGA to address their concerns. I want a better understanding of why ABGH was formed and why now. I want to hear what they hope to achieve and how they believe the AGA can help.
 

The full AGA Presidential Plenary line-up

We hope you’ll join us for the AGA Presidential Plenary, taking place Monday, May 23, at 10 a.m. PT during DDW. In addition to Dr. Inadomi’s keynote address, presentations will include:

• AGA Julius Friedenwald Recognition of Timothy Wang
• AGA Equity Project: Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead
• The Genesis and Goals of the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH)
• What We Need to Overcome Racial and Ethnic Barriers to Engage in Clinical Trials
• Reducing Disparities in Colorectal Cancer
• Reducing Disparities in Liver Disease
• Reducing Disparities in IBD

This year’s plenary will focus on action items to eradicate health disparities in GI.

The 2022 AGA Presidential Plenary at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) is designed to highlight timely and high-impact research as it pertains to AGA and the global gastroenterology community. This year’s plenary will feature a series of invited speaker talks on the ways to integrate diversity and inclusion into the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

AGA President John M. Inadomi, MD, AGAF, will present his address titled “Don’t Talk – Act: The Relevance of DEI to Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists and the Imperative for Action.” Read our Q&A with Dr. Inadomi below for details on what you can expect from the plenary.
 

Why did you want to focus on issues around diversity, equity, and inclusion in the presidential plenary?

Most obvious is the pandemic and the social issues the pandemic has amplified have made these issues a primary concern for AGA. The pandemic forced us to reexamine ourselves and to not assume everything we’ve done in the past should be done in the future. The diversity of AGA and AGA leadership is not where we want it to be. I want to use the presidential plenary as a platform to discuss race, especially, which is only one part of DEI. I can provide perspective as an Asian American experiencing a resurgence in racism and I want to involve nationally known experts like Monica Webb Hooper who’ve done research on this and have fully formed ideas on how to frame the questions and talk about action items that we, as a society, should adopt. The time of reflection and awareness has passed, the time of simply providing awareness is past. Society needs to adopt action items to address and combat racism.

Later in the plenary, I’m pleased to be joined by Dr. Byron Cryer and Dr. Sandra Quezada who will talk about how they created/developed the AGA Equity Project and their work to implement it.
 

What do you want attendees to take home from these various talks?

We hear a lot of talk about DEI, I hear a lot about awareness, a lot of talk about education. I asked the presidential plenary speakers to move beyond that to provide action items that AGA and its members can implement to reduce disparities in health outcomes. I hope that we will be able to measure these outcomes and see improvement over time coming out of the interventions proposed during this session.

Why did you choose disparities in CRC, liver disease, and IBD specifically?

I feel like these are core parts of gastroenterology and hepatology. So much of the disparities we see in colon cancer are a microcosm of the disparities that exist across the spectrum of GI and liver disease. They illustrate the problems with access and utilization. Disparities in CRC outcomes are exacerbated by the pandemic. I chose liver disease because it’s another area where racial disparities exist and are exacerbated by the pandemic. All three are core services provided by gastroenterologists and hepatologists and represent areas where racism has caused disparities in outcomes. Greatly magnified by the pandemic.
 

Why is the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH) important?

It’s important for me to listen to people who are the target of racism and hear how they want AGA to address their concerns. I want a better understanding of why ABGH was formed and why now. I want to hear what they hope to achieve and how they believe the AGA can help.
 

The full AGA Presidential Plenary line-up

We hope you’ll join us for the AGA Presidential Plenary, taking place Monday, May 23, at 10 a.m. PT during DDW. In addition to Dr. Inadomi’s keynote address, presentations will include:

• AGA Julius Friedenwald Recognition of Timothy Wang
• AGA Equity Project: Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead
• The Genesis and Goals of the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH)
• What We Need to Overcome Racial and Ethnic Barriers to Engage in Clinical Trials
• Reducing Disparities in Colorectal Cancer
• Reducing Disparities in Liver Disease
• Reducing Disparities in IBD

You have a will, so you can rest easy, right? Not necessarily. If your will is outdated, it can cause more harm than good. Even though it can provide for some contingencies, an old will can’t cover every change that may have occurred since it was first drawn.

What if all you had to do to ensure that the AGA Research Foundation can have an impact for years to come is to write a simple sentence? Sound impossible?

The AGA Research Foundation provides a key source of funding at a critical juncture in a young investigator’s career. Securing the future of the talented investigators we serve really is as simple as one sentence. By including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will, you can support our mission tomorrow without giving away any of your assets today.

Including the AGA Research Foundation in your will is a popular gift to give because it is:

• Affordable. The actual giving of your gift occurs after your lifetime, so your current income is not affected.
• Flexible. Until your will goes into effect, you are free to alter your plans or change your mind.
• Versatile. You can give a specific item, a set amount of money, or a percentage of your estate. You can also make your gift contingent upon certain events.

We hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise, and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

Join others in donating to the AGA Research Foundation and help fill the funding gap and protect the next generation of investigators. Contact us for more information at foundation@gastro.org or visit http://gastro.planmylegacy.org.

You have a will, so you can rest easy, right? Not necessarily. If your will is outdated, it can cause more harm than good. Even though it can provide for some contingencies, an old will can’t cover every change that may have occurred since it was first drawn.

What if all you had to do to ensure that the AGA Research Foundation can have an impact for years to come is to write a simple sentence? Sound impossible?

The AGA Research Foundation provides a key source of funding at a critical juncture in a young investigator’s career. Securing the future of the talented investigators we serve really is as simple as one sentence. By including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will, you can support our mission tomorrow without giving away any of your assets today.

Including the AGA Research Foundation in your will is a popular gift to give because it is:

• Affordable. The actual giving of your gift occurs after your lifetime, so your current income is not affected.
• Flexible. Until your will goes into effect, you are free to alter your plans or change your mind.
• Versatile. You can give a specific item, a set amount of money, or a percentage of your estate. You can also make your gift contingent upon certain events.

We hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise, and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

Join others in donating to the AGA Research Foundation and help fill the funding gap and protect the next generation of investigators. Contact us for more information at foundation@gastro.org or visit http://gastro.planmylegacy.org.

You have a will, so you can rest easy, right? Not necessarily. If your will is outdated, it can cause more harm than good. Even though it can provide for some contingencies, an old will can’t cover every change that may have occurred since it was first drawn.

What if all you had to do to ensure that the AGA Research Foundation can have an impact for years to come is to write a simple sentence? Sound impossible?

The AGA Research Foundation provides a key source of funding at a critical juncture in a young investigator’s career. Securing the future of the talented investigators we serve really is as simple as one sentence. By including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will, you can support our mission tomorrow without giving away any of your assets today.

Including the AGA Research Foundation in your will is a popular gift to give because it is:

• Affordable. The actual giving of your gift occurs after your lifetime, so your current income is not affected.
• Flexible. Until your will goes into effect, you are free to alter your plans or change your mind.
• Versatile. You can give a specific item, a set amount of money, or a percentage of your estate. You can also make your gift contingent upon certain events.

We hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise, and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

Join others in donating to the AGA Research Foundation and help fill the funding gap and protect the next generation of investigators. Contact us for more information at foundation@gastro.org or visit http://gastro.planmylegacy.org.

There is a variety of ways to support the many impactful new programs the CHEST Foundation will launch in 2022, but one of the most anticipated options is the annual Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction on June 11 in New York City. This fun-filled evening will include a viewing of the 154th running of “The Championship Track,” a cocktail reception and plated dinner, a silent auction, a rooftop party, and much more.

This year, the dinner and auction will support the CHEST Foundation’s work in patient education and CHEST initiatives to improve patient care. Two areas of focus are disparities in care delivery and improving patients’ quality of life through partnerships designed to encourage earlier diagnosis and treatment.

With these goals in mind, new initiatives include an extension of the 2020 Foundation Listening Tour designed to help clinicians increase trust, equity, and access to health care for patients in traditionally marginalized communities.

In addition, CHEST is partnering with the Three Lakes Foundation on a program dedicated to shortening the time to diagnosis for pulmonary fibrosis (PF). This initiative will bring together pulmonologists and primary care physicians to develop a strategy for identifying PF more quickly, ensuring treatment can begin earlier in the disease trajectory. Early detection of PF is associated with better quality of life for patients, so improving clinicians’ understanding of the signs and symptoms of this rare disease and formulating better guidance for diagnosing it could result in drastic improvements for those living with PF.

To highlight the importance of these efforts, the evening also will include speeches from two patient advocates who have turned their own experiences with living with chronic lung disease into incredible action on behalf of patients.

To learn more about the CHEST Foundation’s initiatives in 2022 and how you can attend the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction to support these efforts, visit foundation.chestnet.org.

There is a variety of ways to support the many impactful new programs the CHEST Foundation will launch in 2022, but one of the most anticipated options is the annual Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction on June 11 in New York City. This fun-filled evening will include a viewing of the 154th running of “The Championship Track,” a cocktail reception and plated dinner, a silent auction, a rooftop party, and much more.

This year, the dinner and auction will support the CHEST Foundation’s work in patient education and CHEST initiatives to improve patient care. Two areas of focus are disparities in care delivery and improving patients’ quality of life through partnerships designed to encourage earlier diagnosis and treatment.

With these goals in mind, new initiatives include an extension of the 2020 Foundation Listening Tour designed to help clinicians increase trust, equity, and access to health care for patients in traditionally marginalized communities.

In addition, CHEST is partnering with the Three Lakes Foundation on a program dedicated to shortening the time to diagnosis for pulmonary fibrosis (PF). This initiative will bring together pulmonologists and primary care physicians to develop a strategy for identifying PF more quickly, ensuring treatment can begin earlier in the disease trajectory. Early detection of PF is associated with better quality of life for patients, so improving clinicians’ understanding of the signs and symptoms of this rare disease and formulating better guidance for diagnosing it could result in drastic improvements for those living with PF.

To highlight the importance of these efforts, the evening also will include speeches from two patient advocates who have turned their own experiences with living with chronic lung disease into incredible action on behalf of patients.

To learn more about the CHEST Foundation’s initiatives in 2022 and how you can attend the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction to support these efforts, visit foundation.chestnet.org.

There is a variety of ways to support the many impactful new programs the CHEST Foundation will launch in 2022, but one of the most anticipated options is the annual Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction on June 11 in New York City. This fun-filled evening will include a viewing of the 154th running of “The Championship Track,” a cocktail reception and plated dinner, a silent auction, a rooftop party, and much more.

This year, the dinner and auction will support the CHEST Foundation’s work in patient education and CHEST initiatives to improve patient care. Two areas of focus are disparities in care delivery and improving patients’ quality of life through partnerships designed to encourage earlier diagnosis and treatment.

With these goals in mind, new initiatives include an extension of the 2020 Foundation Listening Tour designed to help clinicians increase trust, equity, and access to health care for patients in traditionally marginalized communities.

In addition, CHEST is partnering with the Three Lakes Foundation on a program dedicated to shortening the time to diagnosis for pulmonary fibrosis (PF). This initiative will bring together pulmonologists and primary care physicians to develop a strategy for identifying PF more quickly, ensuring treatment can begin earlier in the disease trajectory. Early detection of PF is associated with better quality of life for patients, so improving clinicians’ understanding of the signs and symptoms of this rare disease and formulating better guidance for diagnosing it could result in drastic improvements for those living with PF.

To highlight the importance of these efforts, the evening also will include speeches from two patient advocates who have turned their own experiences with living with chronic lung disease into incredible action on behalf of patients.

To learn more about the CHEST Foundation’s initiatives in 2022 and how you can attend the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction to support these efforts, visit foundation.chestnet.org.

A quality educational meeting starts with a great slate of programs tailored to its audience, and CHEST 2022 is on-track to offer the highest tier of education for those in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Although planning for the meeting started after CHEST 2021 wrapped up, the real magic started to happen a few months ago when the schedule began coming together. In mid-February, members of the Scientific Planning Committee gathered both virtually and in-person at the CHEST headquarters to solidify the schedule for the upcoming CHEST 2022 meeting taking place in Nashville, TN, October 16-19.

The excitement in the room was palpable as committee members gathered for the first time in over a year to plan what will be the first in-person meeting since CHEST 2019 in New Orleans.

Chair of CHEST 2022, Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, has high expectations for the meeting and is excited for everyone to be together in Nashville. “There is something special about an in-person meeting and my goal for CHEST 2022 is to not only meet the academic needs of the attendees, but also to serve as a chance to recharge after a long haul in managing COVID-19,” says Dr. Chandra. “Many first-time CHEST attendees are fellows and, with the last two meetings being virtual, there are a lot of fellows who have yet to attend a meeting in-person, so that is a big responsibility for us and opportunity for them. We want to make sure they have a fun and productive meeting – learn from the best, understand how to apply the latest research, get to present their work, network, participate, and have fun doing it all!”

With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2022 meeting will feature over 200 sessions covering eight curriculum groups:

• Obstructive lung disease
• Sleep
• Chest infections
• Cardiovascular/pulmonary vascular disease
• Pulmonary procedures/lung cancer/cardiothoracic surgery
• Interstitial lung disease/radiology
• Interdisciplinary/practice operations/education
• Critical care

Covering a large breadth of information, the sessions will include the latest trends in COVID-19 care – recommended protocols, surge-planning and best practices; deeper looks into the latest CHEST guidelines – thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease, and the guidelines for lung cancer screening; and sessions speaking to diversity, inclusion, and equity within medicine, including how lung disease affects populations differently.

Dr. Chandra says diversity was top of mind throughout the planning process. When submitting session ideas, it was noted that “submissions with speakers representing one gender and/or one institution will not be considered,” and that “selection priority will be given to outstanding submissions with proposed speakers who represent diversity of race, ethnicity, and professional status.”

During February’s meeting, as the committee members confirmed each of the sessions, they took the time to ensure every single one had presenters from a variety of backgrounds, including diversity of gender, race, credentialing, and years of experience in medicine.

It was important to the committee that this not be a physician-only meeting, because both CHEST and Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine feature an array of team members including physicians, advance practice providers, respiratory therapists, nurses and other members of the care team and the sessions will reflect that.

When asked what she hopes attendees will gain from CHEST 2022, Dr. Chandra says, “I want attendees to feel the joy that comes from not only being together, but learning together.”

She continued, “I want this meeting to remind clinicians why they fell in love with medicine and to remember why it is that we do what we do, especially after two grueling years. Attendees should leave feeling reinvigorated and charged with the latest literature and clinical expertise ready to be implemented into practice. Most of all, I want all of the attendees to have fun, because we are there to learn, but CHEST is also about enjoying medicine and those around you. I just cannot wait.”

A quality educational meeting starts with a great slate of programs tailored to its audience, and CHEST 2022 is on-track to offer the highest tier of education for those in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Although planning for the meeting started after CHEST 2021 wrapped up, the real magic started to happen a few months ago when the schedule began coming together. In mid-February, members of the Scientific Planning Committee gathered both virtually and in-person at the CHEST headquarters to solidify the schedule for the upcoming CHEST 2022 meeting taking place in Nashville, TN, October 16-19.

The excitement in the room was palpable as committee members gathered for the first time in over a year to plan what will be the first in-person meeting since CHEST 2019 in New Orleans.

Chair of CHEST 2022, Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, has high expectations for the meeting and is excited for everyone to be together in Nashville. “There is something special about an in-person meeting and my goal for CHEST 2022 is to not only meet the academic needs of the attendees, but also to serve as a chance to recharge after a long haul in managing COVID-19,” says Dr. Chandra. “Many first-time CHEST attendees are fellows and, with the last two meetings being virtual, there are a lot of fellows who have yet to attend a meeting in-person, so that is a big responsibility for us and opportunity for them. We want to make sure they have a fun and productive meeting – learn from the best, understand how to apply the latest research, get to present their work, network, participate, and have fun doing it all!”

With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2022 meeting will feature over 200 sessions covering eight curriculum groups:

• Obstructive lung disease
• Sleep
• Chest infections
• Cardiovascular/pulmonary vascular disease
• Pulmonary procedures/lung cancer/cardiothoracic surgery
• Interstitial lung disease/radiology
• Interdisciplinary/practice operations/education
• Critical care

Covering a large breadth of information, the sessions will include the latest trends in COVID-19 care – recommended protocols, surge-planning and best practices; deeper looks into the latest CHEST guidelines – thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease, and the guidelines for lung cancer screening; and sessions speaking to diversity, inclusion, and equity within medicine, including how lung disease affects populations differently.

Dr. Chandra says diversity was top of mind throughout the planning process. When submitting session ideas, it was noted that “submissions with speakers representing one gender and/or one institution will not be considered,” and that “selection priority will be given to outstanding submissions with proposed speakers who represent diversity of race, ethnicity, and professional status.”

During February’s meeting, as the committee members confirmed each of the sessions, they took the time to ensure every single one had presenters from a variety of backgrounds, including diversity of gender, race, credentialing, and years of experience in medicine.

It was important to the committee that this not be a physician-only meeting, because both CHEST and Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine feature an array of team members including physicians, advance practice providers, respiratory therapists, nurses and other members of the care team and the sessions will reflect that.

When asked what she hopes attendees will gain from CHEST 2022, Dr. Chandra says, “I want attendees to feel the joy that comes from not only being together, but learning together.”

She continued, “I want this meeting to remind clinicians why they fell in love with medicine and to remember why it is that we do what we do, especially after two grueling years. Attendees should leave feeling reinvigorated and charged with the latest literature and clinical expertise ready to be implemented into practice. Most of all, I want all of the attendees to have fun, because we are there to learn, but CHEST is also about enjoying medicine and those around you. I just cannot wait.”

A quality educational meeting starts with a great slate of programs tailored to its audience, and CHEST 2022 is on-track to offer the highest tier of education for those in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Although planning for the meeting started after CHEST 2021 wrapped up, the real magic started to happen a few months ago when the schedule began coming together. In mid-February, members of the Scientific Planning Committee gathered both virtually and in-person at the CHEST headquarters to solidify the schedule for the upcoming CHEST 2022 meeting taking place in Nashville, TN, October 16-19.

The excitement in the room was palpable as committee members gathered for the first time in over a year to plan what will be the first in-person meeting since CHEST 2019 in New Orleans.

Chair of CHEST 2022, Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, has high expectations for the meeting and is excited for everyone to be together in Nashville. “There is something special about an in-person meeting and my goal for CHEST 2022 is to not only meet the academic needs of the attendees, but also to serve as a chance to recharge after a long haul in managing COVID-19,” says Dr. Chandra. “Many first-time CHEST attendees are fellows and, with the last two meetings being virtual, there are a lot of fellows who have yet to attend a meeting in-person, so that is a big responsibility for us and opportunity for them. We want to make sure they have a fun and productive meeting – learn from the best, understand how to apply the latest research, get to present their work, network, participate, and have fun doing it all!”

With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2022 meeting will feature over 200 sessions covering eight curriculum groups:

• Obstructive lung disease
• Sleep
• Chest infections
• Cardiovascular/pulmonary vascular disease
• Pulmonary procedures/lung cancer/cardiothoracic surgery
• Interstitial lung disease/radiology
• Interdisciplinary/practice operations/education
• Critical care

Covering a large breadth of information, the sessions will include the latest trends in COVID-19 care – recommended protocols, surge-planning and best practices; deeper looks into the latest CHEST guidelines – thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease, and the guidelines for lung cancer screening; and sessions speaking to diversity, inclusion, and equity within medicine, including how lung disease affects populations differently.

Dr. Chandra says diversity was top of mind throughout the planning process. When submitting session ideas, it was noted that “submissions with speakers representing one gender and/or one institution will not be considered,” and that “selection priority will be given to outstanding submissions with proposed speakers who represent diversity of race, ethnicity, and professional status.”

During February’s meeting, as the committee members confirmed each of the sessions, they took the time to ensure every single one had presenters from a variety of backgrounds, including diversity of gender, race, credentialing, and years of experience in medicine.

It was important to the committee that this not be a physician-only meeting, because both CHEST and Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine feature an array of team members including physicians, advance practice providers, respiratory therapists, nurses and other members of the care team and the sessions will reflect that.

When asked what she hopes attendees will gain from CHEST 2022, Dr. Chandra says, “I want attendees to feel the joy that comes from not only being together, but learning together.”

She continued, “I want this meeting to remind clinicians why they fell in love with medicine and to remember why it is that we do what we do, especially after two grueling years. Attendees should leave feeling reinvigorated and charged with the latest literature and clinical expertise ready to be implemented into practice. Most of all, I want all of the attendees to have fun, because we are there to learn, but CHEST is also about enjoying medicine and those around you. I just cannot wait.”

Physicians from every specialty have stepped up in extraordinary ways during the pandemic; however, ABIM recognizes that pulmonary disease and critical care physicians, along with hospitalists and infectious disease specialists, have been especially burdened. ABIM has heard from many pulmonary disease and critical care medicine physicians asking for greater flexibility and choice in how they can maintain their board certifications.

For that reason, ABIM has extended deadlines for all Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements to 12/31/22 and to 2023 for Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Pulmonary Disease.
 

What assessment options does ABIM offer?

If you haven’t needed to take an MOC exam for a while, you might not be aware of ABIM’s current options and how they might work for you:

• The traditional, 10-year MOC assessment (a point-in-time exam taken at a test center)
• The new Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKATM) (available in 12 specialties including Internal Medicine and Sleep Medicine now, and in Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Disease in 2023)

The 2-year Knowledge Check-In was retired at the end of 2021 with the introduction of the LKA.
 

How the new LKA works

As a longitudinal assessment, the LKA is designed to help you measure your medical knowledge over time and better melds assessment and learning. It consists of a 5-year cycle, during which you’ll be offered 30 questions each quarter, and need to open at least 500 out of 600 questions to meet the LKA Participation Requirement. You can choose not to open up to 100 questions over 5 years, allowing you to take breaks when you need them.

Once enrolled, you can take questions on your laptop, desktop, or smartphone. You’ll also be able to answer questions where and when it’s convenient for you, such as at your home or office – with no need to schedule an appointment or go to a test center. You can use all the same resources you use in practice – journals, apps, and your own personal notes—anything except another person. For most questions, you’ll find out immediately if your answer was correct or not, and you’ll receive a rationale explaining why, along with one or more references.

You’ll have 4 minutes to answer each question and can add extra time if needed by drawing from an annual 30-minute time bank. For each correct answer, you’ll earn 0.2 MOC points, and if you choose to participate in LKA for more than one of your certificates, you’ll have even more opportunities to earn points. In addition, beginning in your second year of participation, interim score reports will give you helpful information to let you know how you’re doing, so you can re-adjust your approach and focus your studies as needed. A pass/fail decision is made at the end of the 5-year cycle.
 

About eligibility

If you are currently certified in Critical Care Medicine or Pulmonary Disease and had an assessment due in 2020, 2021 or 2022, you don’t need to take an assessment this year and will be eligible to enroll in the LKA in 2023, or you can choose to take the traditional 10-year MOC exam.

Upon enrolling, you will continue to be reported as “Certified” as long as you are meeting the LKA Participation Requirement. If your next assessment isn’t due for a while, you will be able to enroll in the LKA in your assessment due year—not before then.

More information about eligibility can be found in a special section of ABIM’s website.
 

How much does it cost?

ABIM revised its MOC fees in 2022 to provide an option to pay less over time than previously, and the LKA will be included in your annual MOC fee at no additional cost. Here’s how it works:

In closing

Thousands of physicians have already started taking the LKA in 2022 and are reporting positive experiences with it. The ABIM is excited that physicians in additional disciplines, including Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Disease, will get to experience it themselves in 2023.

Physicians from every specialty have stepped up in extraordinary ways during the pandemic; however, ABIM recognizes that pulmonary disease and critical care physicians, along with hospitalists and infectious disease specialists, have been especially burdened. ABIM has heard from many pulmonary disease and critical care medicine physicians asking for greater flexibility and choice in how they can maintain their board certifications.

For that reason, ABIM has extended deadlines for all Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements to 12/31/22 and to 2023 for Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Pulmonary Disease.
 

What assessment options does ABIM offer?

If you haven’t needed to take an MOC exam for a while, you might not be aware of ABIM’s current options and how they might work for you:

• The traditional, 10-year MOC assessment (a point-in-time exam taken at a test center)
• The new Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKATM) (available in 12 specialties including Internal Medicine and Sleep Medicine now, and in Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Disease in 2023)

The 2-year Knowledge Check-In was retired at the end of 2021 with the introduction of the LKA.
 

How the new LKA works

As a longitudinal assessment, the LKA is designed to help you measure your medical knowledge over time and better melds assessment and learning. It consists of a 5-year cycle, during which you’ll be offered 30 questions each quarter, and need to open at least 500 out of 600 questions to meet the LKA Participation Requirement. You can choose not to open up to 100 questions over 5 years, allowing you to take breaks when you need them.

Once enrolled, you can take questions on your laptop, desktop, or smartphone. You’ll also be able to answer questions where and when it’s convenient for you, such as at your home or office – with no need to schedule an appointment or go to a test center. You can use all the same resources you use in practice – journals, apps, and your own personal notes—anything except another person. For most questions, you’ll find out immediately if your answer was correct or not, and you’ll receive a rationale explaining why, along with one or more references.

You’ll have 4 minutes to answer each question and can add extra time if needed by drawing from an annual 30-minute time bank. For each correct answer, you’ll earn 0.2 MOC points, and if you choose to participate in LKA for more than one of your certificates, you’ll have even more opportunities to earn points. In addition, beginning in your second year of participation, interim score reports will give you helpful information to let you know how you’re doing, so you can re-adjust your approach and focus your studies as needed. A pass/fail decision is made at the end of the 5-year cycle.
 

About eligibility

If you are currently certified in Critical Care Medicine or Pulmonary Disease and had an assessment due in 2020, 2021 or 2022, you don’t need to take an assessment this year and will be eligible to enroll in the LKA in 2023, or you can choose to take the traditional 10-year MOC exam.

Upon enrolling, you will continue to be reported as “Certified” as long as you are meeting the LKA Participation Requirement. If your next assessment isn’t due for a while, you will be able to enroll in the LKA in your assessment due year—not before then.

More information about eligibility can be found in a special section of ABIM’s website.
 

How much does it cost?

ABIM revised its MOC fees in 2022 to provide an option to pay less over time than previously, and the LKA will be included in your annual MOC fee at no additional cost. Here’s how it works:

In closing

Thousands of physicians have already started taking the LKA in 2022 and are reporting positive experiences with it. The ABIM is excited that physicians in additional disciplines, including Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Disease, will get to experience it themselves in 2023.

Physicians from every specialty have stepped up in extraordinary ways during the pandemic; however, ABIM recognizes that pulmonary disease and critical care physicians, along with hospitalists and infectious disease specialists, have been especially burdened. ABIM has heard from many pulmonary disease and critical care medicine physicians asking for greater flexibility and choice in how they can maintain their board certifications.

For that reason, ABIM has extended deadlines for all Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements to 12/31/22 and to 2023 for Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Pulmonary Disease.
 

What assessment options does ABIM offer?

If you haven’t needed to take an MOC exam for a while, you might not be aware of ABIM’s current options and how they might work for you:

• The traditional, 10-year MOC assessment (a point-in-time exam taken at a test center)
• The new Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKATM) (available in 12 specialties including Internal Medicine and Sleep Medicine now, and in Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Disease in 2023)

The 2-year Knowledge Check-In was retired at the end of 2021 with the introduction of the LKA.
 

How the new LKA works

As a longitudinal assessment, the LKA is designed to help you measure your medical knowledge over time and better melds assessment and learning. It consists of a 5-year cycle, during which you’ll be offered 30 questions each quarter, and need to open at least 500 out of 600 questions to meet the LKA Participation Requirement. You can choose not to open up to 100 questions over 5 years, allowing you to take breaks when you need them.

Once enrolled, you can take questions on your laptop, desktop, or smartphone. You’ll also be able to answer questions where and when it’s convenient for you, such as at your home or office – with no need to schedule an appointment or go to a test center. You can use all the same resources you use in practice – journals, apps, and your own personal notes—anything except another person. For most questions, you’ll find out immediately if your answer was correct or not, and you’ll receive a rationale explaining why, along with one or more references.

You’ll have 4 minutes to answer each question and can add extra time if needed by drawing from an annual 30-minute time bank. For each correct answer, you’ll earn 0.2 MOC points, and if you choose to participate in LKA for more than one of your certificates, you’ll have even more opportunities to earn points. In addition, beginning in your second year of participation, interim score reports will give you helpful information to let you know how you’re doing, so you can re-adjust your approach and focus your studies as needed. A pass/fail decision is made at the end of the 5-year cycle.
 

About eligibility

If you are currently certified in Critical Care Medicine or Pulmonary Disease and had an assessment due in 2020, 2021 or 2022, you don’t need to take an assessment this year and will be eligible to enroll in the LKA in 2023, or you can choose to take the traditional 10-year MOC exam.

Upon enrolling, you will continue to be reported as “Certified” as long as you are meeting the LKA Participation Requirement. If your next assessment isn’t due for a while, you will be able to enroll in the LKA in your assessment due year—not before then.

More information about eligibility can be found in a special section of ABIM’s website.
 

How much does it cost?

ABIM revised its MOC fees in 2022 to provide an option to pay less over time than previously, and the LKA will be included in your annual MOC fee at no additional cost. Here’s how it works:

In closing

Thousands of physicians have already started taking the LKA in 2022 and are reporting positive experiences with it. The ABIM is excited that physicians in additional disciplines, including Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Disease, will get to experience it themselves in 2023.

Since its inception, the CMS Sep-1 Core Quality Measure has been unpopular in some circles. It is now under official attack by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), along with a handful of smaller professional societies. These societies appealed the National Quality Forum’s (NQF) 2021 recommendation that the measure be renewed. The NQF is the multidisciplinary and broadly representative group of evaluators who evaluate proposals for CMS-sponsored quality improvement on behalf of the American people and of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Readers of CHEST Physician are likely familiar with core measures, in general, and with Sep-1, in particular. CMS requires hospitals to publicly report their compliance with several Core Quality Measures, and the failure to do so results in across the board reductions in Medicare payments. As of now, no penalties are levied for the degree of compliance but only for failure to report the degree of compliance.

The measure asks, in the main, for hospitals to perform what most physicians can agree should be standard care for patients with sepsis. Depending on whether shock is present, the measure requires:

1. Blood cultures before antibiotics

2. Antibiotics within 3 hours of recognition of sepsis

3. Serum lactate measurement in the first 3 hours and, if increased, a repeat measurement by 6 hours

4. If the patient is hypotensive, 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid within 3 hours, or documentation of why that is not appropriate for the patient

5. If hypotension persists, vasopressors within 6 hours

6. Repeat cardiovascular assessment within 6 hours for patients with shock

If I evaluate these criteria as a patient who has been hospitalized for a serious infection, which I am, they do not seem particularly stringent. In fact, as a patient, I would want my doctors and nurses to act substantially faster than this if I had sepsis or septic shock. If my doctor did not come back in less than 6 hours to check on my shock status, I would be disappointed, to say the least. Nevertheless, some physicians and professional societies see no reason why these should be standards and state that the data underlying them are of low quality. Meanwhile, according to CMS’ own careful evaluation, national compliance with the measures is less than 50%, while being compliant with the measures reduces absolute overall mortality by approximately 4%, from 26.3% to 22.2% (Townsend SR et al. Chest. 2022;161[2]:392-406). This would translate to between 14,000 and 15,000 fewer patients dying from sepsis per year, if all patients received bundled, measure-compliant care. These are patients I don’t care to ignore.

ACEP and IDSA point specifically to the new Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines (SSC) recommendations as evidence that the antibiotic measure is based on low quality evidence (Evans L et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:1974-82). In this regard, they are technically correct; the system of evidence review that the SSC panel uses, Grading of Assessment, Recommendations, and Evaluation (GRADE), considers that retrospective analyses, which nearly all of these studies are, can be graded no higher than low quality. Clearly, retrospective studies will never achieve the level of certainty that we achieve with randomized controlled trials, but the NQF, itself, typically views that when a number of well-performed retrospective studies point in the same direction, the level of evidence is at least moderate. After all, just as it would be inappropriate to randomize participants to decades of smoking vs nonsmoking in order prove that smoking causes lung cancer, it is not appropriate to randomize patients with sepsis to receive delayed antibiotics before we accept that such delays are harmful to them.

ACEP and IDSA also assert that the association of early antibiotics with survival is “stronger” for septic shock than for sepsis. In fact, the association is quite strong for both severities of illness. Until it progresses to septic shock, the expected mortality of sepsis is lower, and the percent reduction in mortality is less than for septic shock. However, the opportunity for lives preserved is quite large, because the number of patients with sepsis at presentation is approximately 10 times higher than the number with septic shock at presentation. Antibiotic delays are also associated with progression from infection or sepsis to septic shock (Whiles BB et al. Crit Care Med. 2017;45[4]:623-29; Bisarya R et al. Chest. 2022;161[1]:112-20). Importantly, SSC gave a strong recommendation for all patients with suspected sepsis to receive antibiotics within 3 hours of suspecting sepsis and within 1 hour of suspecting septic shock, a recommendation even stronger than that of Sep-1.

Critics opine that CMS should stop looking at the process measures and focus only on the outcomes of sepsis care. There is a certain attractiveness to this proposition. One could say that it does not matter so much how a hospital achieves lower mortality as long as they do achieve it. However, the question would then become – how low should the mortality rate be? I have a notion that whatever the number, the Sep-1 critics would find it unbearable.

There is a core principle embedded in the Sep-1 process measures, in SSC guidelines, and in the concept of early goal-directed therapy that preceded them: success is not dependent only on what we do but on when we do it. All of you have experienced this. Each of you has attended a professional school, whether medical, nursing, respiratory therapy, etc. None of you showed up unannounced on opening day of the semester and was admitted to that school. All of you garnered the grades, solicited the letters of recommendation, took the entrance exams, and submitted an application. Some of you went to an interview. All of these things were done in a timely fashion; professional schools do not accept incomplete applications or late applications. Doing the right things at the wrong time would have left us all pursuing different careers.

Very early in my career as an attending physician in the ICU, I found myself exasperated by the circumstances of many patients who we received in the ICU with sepsis. I would peruse their medical records and find that they had been septic, ie, had met criteria for severe sepsis, 1 to 2 days before their deterioration to septic shock, yet they had not been diagnosed with sepsis until shock developed. In the ICU, we began resuscitative fluids, ensured appropriate antibiotics, and started vasopressors, but it was often to no avail. The treatments we gave made no difference for many patients, because they were given too late. For me, this was career altering; much of my career since that time has focused on teaching medical personnel how to recognize sepsis, how to give timely and appropriate treatments, and how to keep the data to show when they have done that and when they have not.

Before Sep-1 many, if not most, of the hospitals in the United States had no particular strategy in place to recognize and treat patients with sepsis, even though it was and is the most common cause of death and the costliest condition in American hospitals. Now, most hospitals do have such strategies. Assertions by professional societies that it is difficult to collect the data for Sep-1 reporting are likely true. However, keeping patients safe and alive is a hospital’s primary reason for existing. As long as hospitals are tracking each antibiotic and every liter of fluid so that they can bill for them, my own ears are deaf to hearing that it is too difficult to make sure that we are doing our job. Modifying or eliminating Sep-1 for any reason except data that show we can clearly further improve the outcome for all patients with sepsis is the wrong move to make. So far, other professional societies want to remove elements of Sep-1 without evidence that it would improve our care for patients with sepsis or their outcomes. Thankfully, from the time we proposed the first criteria for diagnosing sepsis, CHEST has promoted what is best for patients, whether it is difficult or not.
 

Dr. Simpson is a pulmonologist and intensivist with an extensive background in sepsis and in critical care quality improvement, including by serving as a senior adviser to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and an author of the 2016 and 2020 updates of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. Dr. Simpson is the senior medical adviser for Sepsis Alliance, a nationwide patient information and advocacy organization. He is the immediate past president of CHEST.

Since its inception, the CMS Sep-1 Core Quality Measure has been unpopular in some circles. It is now under official attack by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), along with a handful of smaller professional societies. These societies appealed the National Quality Forum’s (NQF) 2021 recommendation that the measure be renewed. The NQF is the multidisciplinary and broadly representative group of evaluators who evaluate proposals for CMS-sponsored quality improvement on behalf of the American people and of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Readers of CHEST Physician are likely familiar with core measures, in general, and with Sep-1, in particular. CMS requires hospitals to publicly report their compliance with several Core Quality Measures, and the failure to do so results in across the board reductions in Medicare payments. As of now, no penalties are levied for the degree of compliance but only for failure to report the degree of compliance.

The measure asks, in the main, for hospitals to perform what most physicians can agree should be standard care for patients with sepsis. Depending on whether shock is present, the measure requires:

1. Blood cultures before antibiotics

2. Antibiotics within 3 hours of recognition of sepsis

3. Serum lactate measurement in the first 3 hours and, if increased, a repeat measurement by 6 hours

4. If the patient is hypotensive, 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid within 3 hours, or documentation of why that is not appropriate for the patient

5. If hypotension persists, vasopressors within 6 hours

6. Repeat cardiovascular assessment within 6 hours for patients with shock

If I evaluate these criteria as a patient who has been hospitalized for a serious infection, which I am, they do not seem particularly stringent. In fact, as a patient, I would want my doctors and nurses to act substantially faster than this if I had sepsis or septic shock. If my doctor did not come back in less than 6 hours to check on my shock status, I would be disappointed, to say the least. Nevertheless, some physicians and professional societies see no reason why these should be standards and state that the data underlying them are of low quality. Meanwhile, according to CMS’ own careful evaluation, national compliance with the measures is less than 50%, while being compliant with the measures reduces absolute overall mortality by approximately 4%, from 26.3% to 22.2% (Townsend SR et al. Chest. 2022;161[2]:392-406). This would translate to between 14,000 and 15,000 fewer patients dying from sepsis per year, if all patients received bundled, measure-compliant care. These are patients I don’t care to ignore.

ACEP and IDSA point specifically to the new Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines (SSC) recommendations as evidence that the antibiotic measure is based on low quality evidence (Evans L et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:1974-82). In this regard, they are technically correct; the system of evidence review that the SSC panel uses, Grading of Assessment, Recommendations, and Evaluation (GRADE), considers that retrospective analyses, which nearly all of these studies are, can be graded no higher than low quality. Clearly, retrospective studies will never achieve the level of certainty that we achieve with randomized controlled trials, but the NQF, itself, typically views that when a number of well-performed retrospective studies point in the same direction, the level of evidence is at least moderate. After all, just as it would be inappropriate to randomize participants to decades of smoking vs nonsmoking in order prove that smoking causes lung cancer, it is not appropriate to randomize patients with sepsis to receive delayed antibiotics before we accept that such delays are harmful to them.

ACEP and IDSA also assert that the association of early antibiotics with survival is “stronger” for septic shock than for sepsis. In fact, the association is quite strong for both severities of illness. Until it progresses to septic shock, the expected mortality of sepsis is lower, and the percent reduction in mortality is less than for septic shock. However, the opportunity for lives preserved is quite large, because the number of patients with sepsis at presentation is approximately 10 times higher than the number with septic shock at presentation. Antibiotic delays are also associated with progression from infection or sepsis to septic shock (Whiles BB et al. Crit Care Med. 2017;45[4]:623-29; Bisarya R et al. Chest. 2022;161[1]:112-20). Importantly, SSC gave a strong recommendation for all patients with suspected sepsis to receive antibiotics within 3 hours of suspecting sepsis and within 1 hour of suspecting septic shock, a recommendation even stronger than that of Sep-1.

Critics opine that CMS should stop looking at the process measures and focus only on the outcomes of sepsis care. There is a certain attractiveness to this proposition. One could say that it does not matter so much how a hospital achieves lower mortality as long as they do achieve it. However, the question would then become – how low should the mortality rate be? I have a notion that whatever the number, the Sep-1 critics would find it unbearable.

There is a core principle embedded in the Sep-1 process measures, in SSC guidelines, and in the concept of early goal-directed therapy that preceded them: success is not dependent only on what we do but on when we do it. All of you have experienced this. Each of you has attended a professional school, whether medical, nursing, respiratory therapy, etc. None of you showed up unannounced on opening day of the semester and was admitted to that school. All of you garnered the grades, solicited the letters of recommendation, took the entrance exams, and submitted an application. Some of you went to an interview. All of these things were done in a timely fashion; professional schools do not accept incomplete applications or late applications. Doing the right things at the wrong time would have left us all pursuing different careers.

Very early in my career as an attending physician in the ICU, I found myself exasperated by the circumstances of many patients who we received in the ICU with sepsis. I would peruse their medical records and find that they had been septic, ie, had met criteria for severe sepsis, 1 to 2 days before their deterioration to septic shock, yet they had not been diagnosed with sepsis until shock developed. In the ICU, we began resuscitative fluids, ensured appropriate antibiotics, and started vasopressors, but it was often to no avail. The treatments we gave made no difference for many patients, because they were given too late. For me, this was career altering; much of my career since that time has focused on teaching medical personnel how to recognize sepsis, how to give timely and appropriate treatments, and how to keep the data to show when they have done that and when they have not.

Before Sep-1 many, if not most, of the hospitals in the United States had no particular strategy in place to recognize and treat patients with sepsis, even though it was and is the most common cause of death and the costliest condition in American hospitals. Now, most hospitals do have such strategies. Assertions by professional societies that it is difficult to collect the data for Sep-1 reporting are likely true. However, keeping patients safe and alive is a hospital’s primary reason for existing. As long as hospitals are tracking each antibiotic and every liter of fluid so that they can bill for them, my own ears are deaf to hearing that it is too difficult to make sure that we are doing our job. Modifying or eliminating Sep-1 for any reason except data that show we can clearly further improve the outcome for all patients with sepsis is the wrong move to make. So far, other professional societies want to remove elements of Sep-1 without evidence that it would improve our care for patients with sepsis or their outcomes. Thankfully, from the time we proposed the first criteria for diagnosing sepsis, CHEST has promoted what is best for patients, whether it is difficult or not.
 

Dr. Simpson is a pulmonologist and intensivist with an extensive background in sepsis and in critical care quality improvement, including by serving as a senior adviser to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and an author of the 2016 and 2020 updates of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. Dr. Simpson is the senior medical adviser for Sepsis Alliance, a nationwide patient information and advocacy organization. He is the immediate past president of CHEST.

Since its inception, the CMS Sep-1 Core Quality Measure has been unpopular in some circles. It is now under official attack by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), along with a handful of smaller professional societies. These societies appealed the National Quality Forum’s (NQF) 2021 recommendation that the measure be renewed. The NQF is the multidisciplinary and broadly representative group of evaluators who evaluate proposals for CMS-sponsored quality improvement on behalf of the American people and of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Readers of CHEST Physician are likely familiar with core measures, in general, and with Sep-1, in particular. CMS requires hospitals to publicly report their compliance with several Core Quality Measures, and the failure to do so results in across the board reductions in Medicare payments. As of now, no penalties are levied for the degree of compliance but only for failure to report the degree of compliance.

The measure asks, in the main, for hospitals to perform what most physicians can agree should be standard care for patients with sepsis. Depending on whether shock is present, the measure requires:

1. Blood cultures before antibiotics

2. Antibiotics within 3 hours of recognition of sepsis

3. Serum lactate measurement in the first 3 hours and, if increased, a repeat measurement by 6 hours

4. If the patient is hypotensive, 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid within 3 hours, or documentation of why that is not appropriate for the patient

5. If hypotension persists, vasopressors within 6 hours

6. Repeat cardiovascular assessment within 6 hours for patients with shock

If I evaluate these criteria as a patient who has been hospitalized for a serious infection, which I am, they do not seem particularly stringent. In fact, as a patient, I would want my doctors and nurses to act substantially faster than this if I had sepsis or septic shock. If my doctor did not come back in less than 6 hours to check on my shock status, I would be disappointed, to say the least. Nevertheless, some physicians and professional societies see no reason why these should be standards and state that the data underlying them are of low quality. Meanwhile, according to CMS’ own careful evaluation, national compliance with the measures is less than 50%, while being compliant with the measures reduces absolute overall mortality by approximately 4%, from 26.3% to 22.2% (Townsend SR et al. Chest. 2022;161[2]:392-406). This would translate to between 14,000 and 15,000 fewer patients dying from sepsis per year, if all patients received bundled, measure-compliant care. These are patients I don’t care to ignore.

ACEP and IDSA point specifically to the new Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines (SSC) recommendations as evidence that the antibiotic measure is based on low quality evidence (Evans L et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:1974-82). In this regard, they are technically correct; the system of evidence review that the SSC panel uses, Grading of Assessment, Recommendations, and Evaluation (GRADE), considers that retrospective analyses, which nearly all of these studies are, can be graded no higher than low quality. Clearly, retrospective studies will never achieve the level of certainty that we achieve with randomized controlled trials, but the NQF, itself, typically views that when a number of well-performed retrospective studies point in the same direction, the level of evidence is at least moderate. After all, just as it would be inappropriate to randomize participants to decades of smoking vs nonsmoking in order prove that smoking causes lung cancer, it is not appropriate to randomize patients with sepsis to receive delayed antibiotics before we accept that such delays are harmful to them.

ACEP and IDSA also assert that the association of early antibiotics with survival is “stronger” for septic shock than for sepsis. In fact, the association is quite strong for both severities of illness. Until it progresses to septic shock, the expected mortality of sepsis is lower, and the percent reduction in mortality is less than for septic shock. However, the opportunity for lives preserved is quite large, because the number of patients with sepsis at presentation is approximately 10 times higher than the number with septic shock at presentation. Antibiotic delays are also associated with progression from infection or sepsis to septic shock (Whiles BB et al. Crit Care Med. 2017;45[4]:623-29; Bisarya R et al. Chest. 2022;161[1]:112-20). Importantly, SSC gave a strong recommendation for all patients with suspected sepsis to receive antibiotics within 3 hours of suspecting sepsis and within 1 hour of suspecting septic shock, a recommendation even stronger than that of Sep-1.

Critics opine that CMS should stop looking at the process measures and focus only on the outcomes of sepsis care. There is a certain attractiveness to this proposition. One could say that it does not matter so much how a hospital achieves lower mortality as long as they do achieve it. However, the question would then become – how low should the mortality rate be? I have a notion that whatever the number, the Sep-1 critics would find it unbearable.

There is a core principle embedded in the Sep-1 process measures, in SSC guidelines, and in the concept of early goal-directed therapy that preceded them: success is not dependent only on what we do but on when we do it. All of you have experienced this. Each of you has attended a professional school, whether medical, nursing, respiratory therapy, etc. None of you showed up unannounced on opening day of the semester and was admitted to that school. All of you garnered the grades, solicited the letters of recommendation, took the entrance exams, and submitted an application. Some of you went to an interview. All of these things were done in a timely fashion; professional schools do not accept incomplete applications or late applications. Doing the right things at the wrong time would have left us all pursuing different careers.

Very early in my career as an attending physician in the ICU, I found myself exasperated by the circumstances of many patients who we received in the ICU with sepsis. I would peruse their medical records and find that they had been septic, ie, had met criteria for severe sepsis, 1 to 2 days before their deterioration to septic shock, yet they had not been diagnosed with sepsis until shock developed. In the ICU, we began resuscitative fluids, ensured appropriate antibiotics, and started vasopressors, but it was often to no avail. The treatments we gave made no difference for many patients, because they were given too late. For me, this was career altering; much of my career since that time has focused on teaching medical personnel how to recognize sepsis, how to give timely and appropriate treatments, and how to keep the data to show when they have done that and when they have not.

Before Sep-1 many, if not most, of the hospitals in the United States had no particular strategy in place to recognize and treat patients with sepsis, even though it was and is the most common cause of death and the costliest condition in American hospitals. Now, most hospitals do have such strategies. Assertions by professional societies that it is difficult to collect the data for Sep-1 reporting are likely true. However, keeping patients safe and alive is a hospital’s primary reason for existing. As long as hospitals are tracking each antibiotic and every liter of fluid so that they can bill for them, my own ears are deaf to hearing that it is too difficult to make sure that we are doing our job. Modifying or eliminating Sep-1 for any reason except data that show we can clearly further improve the outcome for all patients with sepsis is the wrong move to make. So far, other professional societies want to remove elements of Sep-1 without evidence that it would improve our care for patients with sepsis or their outcomes. Thankfully, from the time we proposed the first criteria for diagnosing sepsis, CHEST has promoted what is best for patients, whether it is difficult or not.
 

Dr. Simpson is a pulmonologist and intensivist with an extensive background in sepsis and in critical care quality improvement, including by serving as a senior adviser to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and an author of the 2016 and 2020 updates of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. Dr. Simpson is the senior medical adviser for Sepsis Alliance, a nationwide patient information and advocacy organization. He is the immediate past president of CHEST.