Mastodon Pallimed

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Hospice Doctor Admits This Work is Very Sad


(We hope you enjoyed our April Fool's jokes this year. Look for more of our past April Fool's posts here. - Ed.)

April 1, 2012

by Abe R Feaulx, Pallimed Special Reporter

On a cross-country plane flight, Dr. Arya Kidenmee finally admitted to her seatmate, an unabashedly handsome young shower curtain salesman, what the public has known all this time. "I finally had to tell him that hospice work is very sad. I'm not sure why people in hospice and palliative care always say it is rewarding.  We have meetings every week where we just sit and cry the entire time, it is absolutely emotionally paralyzing to try and help people with advanced illness."

When reached for comment, seatmate Brock Montgomery noted, "I knew it.  I run into people in health care all the time and people who work for hospice always appear so friendly and outgoing, but I knew there could not be anything rewarding in helping people who were in great pain feel better.  I'm glad she finally told the truth."

Dr. Kidenmee noted that she has struggled for years in talking at dinner parties and other social gatherings when asked about what she does for a living.  "If only I could take people with me and show them how utterly sad my everyday job is, then maybe they would understand that research that shows resilience and a strong purpose to work in palliative care was all a bunch of baloney. Yes I said it, baloney."

Update: It was later discovered after this story was published that Dr. Arya Kidenmee is not really a physician and clearly from her comments has no experience in hospice.  She was just trying to get Brock to feel bad for her and ask for her number.

Happy April Fools Day 2012 from Pallimed

Sunday, April 1, 2012 by Abe R Feaulx ·

Monday, March 26, 2012

Blogs to Boards: Question 2


This is the first in a series of 41 posts from both GeriPal and Pallimed to get our physician readers ready for the hospice and palliative medicine boards. Every week GeriPal and Pallimed will alternate publishing a new question, as well as a discussion of possible answers to the question (click here for the full list of questions).  

We welcome comments about any aspects of the questions or the answers/discussions.  The feedback that we hope to get in the comment sections of the post will help us all learn important aspects for the boards. We also welcome an interdisciplinary viewpoint when answering these questions, so even if you are not taking the medical boards, your input is still very much welcome.

Walking into a room at your hospice inpatient unit you see a tired appearing female patient lying in bed with soft moaning, holding her abdomen. She has end stage CHF and no history of cancer. Review of your notes show decreasing oral intake and increased time in bed. Her nurse reports she disimpacted her yesterday after suppositories and enemas were ineffective for worsening constipation.

Medications include: Fentanyl 50mcg patch (on for several weeks), Senna 2 tabs BID, Colace daily, Recent enema, and docusate suppository
Exam: Cachectic female, Scaphoid abdomen, hypoactive bowel sounds, formed (but not hard) stool on rectal exam.

What is the next best step?
a) Write an order for methylnaltrexone 8mg subcutaneously x1 now.
b) Switch her from a fentanyl patch to a morphine pump so you can better manage her abdominal pain.
c) Write an order for octreotide 200mcg subcutaneously twice daily for three days.
d) Place an NG and give her polyethylene glycol daily until she has a bowel movement or regains ability to swallow and you can remove the NG tube

Discussion:

Monday, March 26, 2012 by Christian Sinclair ·

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Blogs to Boards - AAHPM 2012

For those who attended our blogs to boards session - here is the link to the PDF's posted on Slideshare (Questions + Answers; Questions Only)






If you didn't get the chance to attend, don't fret.  We plan to post a question a week on both GeriPal and Pallimed to get everyone ready of the 2012 palliative care boards.

Thursday, March 8, 2012 by Christian Sinclair ·

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The 3rd Annual Pallimed/GeriPal Meet-and-Greet at the AAHPM/HPNA Annual Assembly

As seen on GeriPal...It is on - the 3rd annual Pallimed/GeriPal Meet-and-Greet during the AAHPM / HPNA Annual Assembly!



This year's party will be held at the Tarantula Billiards Bar and Grill on Thursday, March 8th. We will plan to start around 9:30 PM. We are working on reserving the four Billiards tables in the back, so look for us there.

Tarantula Billiards Bar and Grill is one block away from the convention center. The address is 1520 Stout St. Denver, CO.

The party is open to all, so drop on by.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 by Brian McMichael, M.D. ·

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

More Echoes of Temel et al.

This week the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published a new Provisional Clinical Opinion (PCO) as an early release article online, The Integration of Palliative Care into Standard Oncology Care. Seven published RCTs formed the basis of the "Panel’s expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden."

The Oncology Report published a background piece on this PCO, which highlights the impetus of this paradigmatic shift in comprehensive cancer care as the Temel et al., article in the NEJM in July 2010. Pallimed contributors have posted more or less directly on the reverberations here, here, here, here, here, here and most recently here, where Lyle presaged this development. The background piece also highlights barriers to implementation including resource limitations such as the lack of clinic-based palliative care and community-based non-hospice palliative care, Stark law restrictions, reimbursement structures, more traditional oncology culture, and palliative care workforce limitations. The piece anticipates support and direction from payers as well as cultural changes among up-and-coming practitioners.

One unnerving thing that I noticed among the selected quotes in the background piece was an apparent, persistent confusion between palliative care and hospice, which I perceive as a barrier to effective integration. I face it fairly frequently in my polite chit chat with other residents, fellows and attendings about my training and career trajectory. This issue of confusion and naming has been remarked upon at Pallimed in the past, e.g., here, here and more humorously here.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 by Brian McMichael, M.D. ·

Friday, February 3, 2012

Drug Shortages in the US and Abroad

World Cancer Day is February 4th, and in honor of this day, I'm posting about a critical issue we have written about on Pallimed before... access to medications. There are three developments in the last few days I think are worth knowing about...

Read more »

Friday, February 3, 2012 by Holly Yang, MD ·

Monday, January 16, 2012

The Prognostic Frame of Healthcare for Older Adults (and Everyone Else)

I have a 1 in 542 chance of dying in the next year. In other words, for every 542 men who are the same age as me, one will die in 2012. For those of us who survive until 2017, the probability of death during that year will be 1 in 364. This probability will increase fairly predictably over the years. Gompertz Law of human mortality suggests that the rate doubles every eight years. Supposedly, this law stands the test of time and across populations.


I'm certain actuarialists routinely figure out probabilities that a man my age will become seriously ill or disabled as well. Statistics put mathematical meat onto a mild, chronic anxiety about dying or becoming ill. It's something that most of us feel and I don't trust people who say that they don't have any anxiety about it.

Source: Meandering Through Mathematics
What does one do with that anxiety? Prepare. Prepare for the "worst case" scenarios. Name a surrogate. Talk to that surrogate about theoretical scenarios and make sure they know what you value most. Put it in writing. Get life insurance. Learn to respond to the anxiety you have. If you make it through this next year, the chances are lower that you'll make it through the subsequent year, so you might as well get ready.

Don't be superstitious. Acknowledging death does not make it happen.

Live your life. There is a 99.8% chance that you'll live through the next year if you are my age and your life expectancy going forward is an additional 40 years. Save for retirement. Anticipate being around to pay for your kids' college education. Exercise. Eat well. Seek appropriate preventative healthcare. Find what you love to do and do it. Breathe.

And if you live long enough, you'll likely develop a chronic disease. People are remarkably resilient and can adjust, so don't worry about this too much. With illness, you'll likely develop a greater awareness of your own mortality. Hopefully, you've prepared. If not, it's never too late.

But you'll go to your doctor with the expectation that he'll help improve your quality of life in the face of the chronic disease and also that he'll know what to do to help you avoid death. You've seen the ads on TV for such and such a pill which will improve your vigor. You'll look ten years younger than the average person with your condition, be able to win the stuffed animal for your grandkid, and the lights will go off in your bedroom a full 30-45 minutes before you plan on going to sleep. You imagine it to be so perfect that if a life-threatening condition arises and your doctor doesn't have a pill to fix the problem, you'll think, "This is the year 20XX, why don't they have a pill for this?"

This is the generic frame for the typical clinic visit for patients in the early 21st century. You know that doctors can't fix everything. Your doctor knows she can't fix everything. Both facts frequently go unspoken between the four walls of the clinic room as both sides labor to prevent a "premature" death. It's a noble and worthy goal but Gompertz Law remains. It occasionally crosses your mind: What would it be like to get sick, what type of interventions will you have to go through, what will happen if you become ill and don't have enough support to remain at home? It's crossed your doctor's mind, too. She's seen others go through it, but it's easier to talk about A1C's, LDL's, and holiday plans so concerns go unspoken. Advance care planning in the office remains challenging for multiple reasons, but the frame of the visit does not easily permit acknowledgement of death or other difficult outcomes.

Enter ePrognosis. Researchers from UCSF (including colleagues from Geripal) reviewed prognostic indices for older adults in JAMA last week. The research and the slick new ePrognosis website with easy to use prognostic indices has been widely publicized (all the way around Le Monde!). Their review identified several indices for predicting prognosis in community dwelling, hospitalized, or nursing home bound older adults. The indices aren't perfect. For instance, most need more testing for validity in heterogeneous populations. (See Ken Covinksy's wise analysis at Geripal.) If you're looking for an "expiration date" (who would do that?), then don't hold your breath. We can look at actuarial data or Gompertz Law to get a general sense of prognosis. The tools on ePrognosis sharpen the lens based on variables related to disease state, functional status, etc.

I've written about the importance of framing for discussions about code status in hospitalized patients. In that setting, it's helpful for the patient and doctor to have a common understanding of the patient's prognosis before discussing the code status decision. The same principle applies to the outpatient setting in a non-terminally ill population. My hope is that ePrognosis will help providers prepare the frame for the advance care planning discussion. As Carol Levine points out in her comment below Ken's Geripal post, ePrognosis may unintentionally turn into a "parlor game" for the general population. Even though ePrognosis is intended for provider use, I'm not convinced that use amongst the general population is a bad thing. It may be quite the opposite, as long as you can go "talk to your doctor" about it!

It's always appropriate to prepare for multiple scenarios. Explicit discussion of prognosis, while not an absolute prerequisite, can serve as an entree to discuss the possible scenarios. The healthy young man looks at his probability of death and buys life insurance but prepares at the same time for life as a 50, 60, and 70 year old. In old age, it's still appropriate to prepare for multiple scenarios. If you are an 80 year old with a Mazzaglia Index score is 3, then you have an 8% chance of dying in the next 15 months and a 30% risk of being hospitalized, it makes sense to do some preparation for those events. However, you also have a 92% chance of NOT dying in the next 15 months. What then? What will it take for you to age in place? What happens if frailty or other circumstances make this impossible? Prepare for the most likely and worst case scenarios. It should be your expectation that your healthcare team can help you prepare.

In the JAMA article, the authors suggest using the indices to guide discussions about preventative care (such as whether to pursue a screening colonoscopy in a woman with advanced COPD and comorbidities). This use of the indices makes sense. Colonoscopy, while generally safe, is not without risk of complications, especially in older adults with comorbidities. It's appropriate for physicians to use the indices along with their clinical judgment to guide their recommendations. This has brought about accusations of bedside rationing, which is really a separate discussion. Medicare covers screening colonoscopy once every ten years. I wouldn't anticipate physicians refusing to order a colonoscopy for a non-terminally ill elderly patient based on a prognostic score.

It remains to be seen whether ePrognosis will increase awareness of prognosis in non-terminal, older adults or whether this will impact clinical decisions. I think it will. Time will tell.

(See also this recent NEJM perspective piece and related Geripal commentary.)

Monday, January 16, 2012 by Lyle Fettig ·

Monday, January 2, 2012

The Alignment of HPM and Oncology: Palliative Care Influence on Chemotherapy Use in Metastatic NSCLC

We continue to learn more from the landmark randomized controlled trial conducted by Temel et al from NEJM which demonstrated that outpatient palliative care consultation for patients with newly diagnosed Stage IV lung cancer improves quality of life and may also improve survival by a few months.

Although the survival advantage was a secondary outcome in the original NEJM study, it remains the headliner outcome.  For many who were stuck in an old paradigm of considering palliative medicine as the option of last resort after all other therapies have failed, there was a strong association (mentally, not scientifically) with an idea that hospice and palliative care for patients with cancer meant “letting go of the rope” (i.e. stopping chemotherapy) and that when the transition was made, the patient would go into a free fall towards their death as a result of “letting go.”  Although some lesser quality studies had already suggested that hospice and related interventions might not shorten life and may even prolong it, it was still pleasantly surprising (and for some, inexplicable) when this randomized controlled trial demonstrated a survival advantage for patients seen by a palliative care team. 

"Aikido" from
Wikimedia Commons

As with any result in a clinical trial, it helps to have a plausible mechanism of action to explain the result.  Since this was a “bundled” intervention, it may be difficult to tease out the exact reason why palliative care patients lived longer. Many explanations have been proposed.  Chemotherapy definitely has a role for life-prolongation but has side effects.  Could it be that palliative care helps patients with those side effects, allowing them to receive more of it?  Conversely, could palliative care “protect” patients from toxic chemotherapy near the end of life when chemo may do more harm than good?  Alternatively, is there something intrinsic to palliative care which prolongs life irrespective of chemotherapy?

Last week, the Journal of Clinical Oncology released a secondary analysis of the data from the initial NEJM study data which further elucidates the differences in chemotherapy utilization between the palliative care and standard groups to try to help answer some of these questions.  The authors also reexamined healthcare utilization at the end of life.  Here are some bottom lines.  The palliative care wing did not appear to receive more chemotherapy.  The two groups did not differ with respect to initial anti-cancer therapy (and only one patient…in the standard care wing, incidentally.... didn’t receive anti-cancer therapy at the onset of the trial).  They examined the use of multiple lines of chemotherapy (first, second, third, fourth, and beyond).  Once again, there was no difference between the groups nor was there any difference in how much time it took for the groups to arrive at the next line of chemo. 

How did the two groups differ, then?
  • Days between last IV chemotherapy dose until death (Palliative care group median 64 days vs. Standard Care median 40 days, p=.02).  For oral chemo, the results were 27 days and 17 days respectively but this was not statistically significant.
  • Chemotherapy use in last 60 days of life (Palliative care group 52.5% vs. 70% in the Standard Care group, p=0.05).  A trend towards less chemo use in last 30 and last 14 days of life as well but not statistically significant.
  • Hospice utilization:  While there was no difference between groups with respect to the percentage of patients utilizing hospice, the palliative care group received hospice services longer (median of 24 days vs. 9.5 days in the standard care group).  In the palliative care group, 60% of patients received hospice >7 days before death compared to 33% in the standard care group.  (More on this below.)
When examining location of death, a slightly greater proportion of the palliative care group died at home compared to an inpatient hospice, hospital, or nursing facility, but this was not statistically significant.

It should be noted that the study was not powered to look at many of these outcomes such as chemo use in the last month and 14 days of life as well as location of death.  For instance, with a larger sample size, it’s possible that the increased incidence of home death in the palliative care group might have risen to statistical significance.  However, the lack of statistically significant difference here is not surprising.  While hospital based palliative care can prepare patients/families for the challenges which may come near the end of life, the provision of adequate care within the home to ensure a peaceful death involves many factors which may be outside the purview of the intervention described in the study (e.g. the development of unpredictable symptoms which are difficult to manage at home, capability of caregivers, capacity of the home hospice, etc). 

The study still doesn’t definitively answer the survival mechanism of action question, it only suggests that aggressive chemo at the end of life is not the reason.  The median survival advantage in the original study was about 2.7 months.  In this study, patients receiving the palliative care intervention were free from IV chemo 24 days longer at the end of life and received 14 days more of hospice which doesn’t add up to 2.7 months.  Avoidance of toxic chemo near the end of life and provision of supportive hospice likely play a role, but in the shadows, there appears to be a survival benefit which is unrelated to chemo avoidance or hospice. Improved symptom control and psychological well-being, perhaps?  In Temel et al, the primary outcome was improved QOL 12 weeks after initiation of the intervention.

While we are talking about the study being underpowered, I do have to point out that there was a statistically insignificant trend towards the palliative care group having a longer time from first to second line and from second to third line chemo (0.8 months longer in each case).  This result came about only when participants were censored at time of analysis--when the numbers were crunched censoring participants at either date of death or date of analysis, there was no difference between groups in time to next line of chemo.  I'm not sure which method is better for detecting a difference between groups, but this does suggest that with greater power, the study might have detected a statistically significant difference.  In other words, we still can't rule out the possibility that palliative care helped patients receive more chemo early on in the course of their cancer therapy.

It was never my hypothesis that palliative care helped patients receive more chemo, thus resulting in the survival advantage.  I've always thought that the benefits of excellent symptom/psychosocial support and avoidance of chemo near the end of life were more plausible explanations.  Don’t confuse this with a bias against chemotherapy for patients with advanced lung cancer.  I fully embrace the role for chemotherapy in advanced lung cancer and the palliative care practitioners in this study were obviously not chemotherapy obstructionists.  I am familiar enough with oncology clinical trials (without being an oncologist) to know they lend more guidance to oncologists regarding when to start the agents and less guidance regarding when to stop. While sometimes the decision to stop is clear cut (patient has catastrophic complication or documented progression of disease on imaging with performance status slipping to ECOG 3), there are other times when the decision is more arbitrary.

For example, consider a patient in the middle of third line chemo who is experiencing more fatigue whose ECOG slips from 1 to 2 where everyone is suspecting progression but it may be just as easy to continue with the status quo until the next scan or until a complication comes up.  At this point, many patients may be thinking that pushing forward with chemo isn't worth it to them, but what's next?  That question is often wrought with fear.  Palliative care might help “tip the scales” towards discontinuation in this circumstance a couple of ways.  Through advance care planning discussions, "what next" becomes clearer: The role of hospice may be better understood and end of life fears already addressed.  Even if hospice isn’t initiated immediately, palliative care is already part of the status quo, perhaps enabling either the oncologist or the patient to be more proactive with saying “hey, this (chemo) doesn’t seem like it’s working” with less of a feeling that they are “giving up.”

One of the most frequently noted caveats to this study is the fact that it's a single institution. Other institutions vary with respect to patient population, oncology practice, and palliative care team practice.   The palliative care intervention brought the median hospice length of stay just above the national median (21.1 days in 2009) and 60% of the palliative care patients received hospice >7 days which is below the national rate of 65%. (Source: NHPCO Facts and Figures).   It's worth remembering that the palliative care intervention followed guidelines from the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care. Adherence to those guidelines at other institutions should also mean that patients will see many of the same benefits even if the results of Temel et al and the present study couldn't be exactly replicated.
It’s notable that the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is looking carefully at the quality of end of life care within oncology programs (quote from present study):
“With accumulating evidence for the benefits of earlier referral to hospice for patients with terminal cancer, leaders in oncology have established guidelines for quality end-of-life care. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative has delineated several key metrics for determining high-quality treatment near death, such as no chemotherapy within the last 2 weeks of life, referral to hospice, and enrollment in hospice care more than 1 week before death.  Palliative care clinicians, who are accustomed to practicing within a multidisciplinary team, are ideally suited to support oncology providers, patients, and families in discussing and planning for such treatment at the end of life. To date, to our knowledge, no studies have shown the utility of these services for altering the quality of end-of-life care.”
The QOPI measures are worth reviewing.  As palliative care programs track metrics and achieve TJC certification, it's only natural that we should work with our oncology colleagues to help with the end of life QOPI metrics as well.  The results of this study indicate that our work helps oncologists with those measures. 

Lastly, a friendly editorial which accompanies the study is also worth a read. 

Monday, January 2, 2012 by Lyle Fettig ·

Friday, December 16, 2011

Christopher Hitchens: Dying as an Atheist

Image credit: Wikipedia
Christopher Hitchens, noted author and philosopher died December 15, 2011 leaving behind many essays, books, and other writings as well as contributing to several lectures, ethics/religion debates, and TV talk shows.  His acerbic style often ruffled feathers as he attacked religious dogmatism.

As one of the most famous outspoken atheists of this era, his thoughts on being diagnosed with an incurable disease would be a powerful insight into how atheists might approach illness and death.  Where others might retreat from the public spotlight, Hitchens attacked his cancer through writing.

As a doctor caring for patients facing their own mortality, understanding their spirituality becomes an important part of caring for the whole person.  I have seen many caring family members and friends inquire to me if their was enough time to get the appropriate clergy to help a patient convert or be saved.  A person dying as an agnostic/atheist or even not the right religion becomes a very important focus for some people.  Some have asked me or chaplains if we have ever seen any 'deathbed conversions' or someone who died without being saved.  I never really expected this before I became a palliative medicine fellow.

What surprises me about the inside peek that Hitchens gives us with his writings is that many of his feelings, thoughts and experiences are really about the human condition and I have seen and heard similar things from religious patients as well.  In reading his articles it helps me understand that despite all our differences we are all human and as we die our experience is both unique and universal.

I wanted to share a few choice quotes from his articles here.  Any one of them would be a good review for your team or learners on discussing the different approaches to dying that our patients experience.

The quotes come from the following Vanity Fair articles:
Unanswerable Prayers - Oct 2010
Miss Manners and the Big C - Dec 2010
Unspoken Truths - June 2011
Trial of the Will - January 2012 (published posthumously)

On stories about any possible deathbed conversions:
In which case, why not cancer of the brain? As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be “me.” (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.) 

On holding hope and realism:
The absorbing fact about being mortally sick is that you spend a good deal of time preparing yourself to die with some modicum of stoicism (and provision for loved ones), while being simultaneously and highly interested in the business of survival. 
On losing his voice:
Now, if I want to enter a conversation, I have to attract attention in some other way, and live with the awful fact that people are then listening “sympathetically.” At least they don’t have to pay attention for long: I can’t keep it up and anyway can’t stand to.
On sharing stories about other people's cancer:
...your narrative may fail to grip if you haven’t taken any care to find out how well or badly your audience member is faring (or feeling).
On a false cliche (What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.):
After all, if it were otherwise, then each attack, each stroke, each vile hiccup, each slime assault, would collectively build one up and strengthen resistance. And this is plainly absurd. So we are left with something quite unusual in the annals of unsentimental approaches to extinction: not the wish to die with dignity but the desire to have died. 
On pain:
It’s probably a merciful thing that pain is impossible to describe from memory. It’s also impossible to warn against. If my proton doctors had tried to tell me up front, they might perhaps have spoken of “grave discomfort” or perhaps of a burning sensation. I only know that nothing at all could have readied or steadied me for this thing that seemed to scorn painkillers and to attack me in my core.

Friday, December 16, 2011 by Christian Sinclair ·

Palliative Drug Shortages

There was a time when I heard about chemo shortages, and I thought that must really force some tough choices for patients and physicians.  But thankfully (I thought) drug shortages for generic non cutting edge medications that have been around for a long time like the ones commonly used for symptom control would probably be relatively immune.

But in the past 2 weeks I began hearing rumblings from our pharmacists about a possible shortage of IV lorazepam.  As I researched this more it appears to be a much bigger problem.  It wasn't just local or even regional but national.  Thanks to the American Society of Health System Pharmacist (ASHP) website I could find out lots of info that is up to date on the supply chain of key meds for hospice patients.  They have a drug shortage page which a pharmacist (Mick Schroeder) turned into an app for iPhone and Android.


Quick quiz: How many medications do you think are on the current drug shortage list? (Answer at the end of the post)

But the thing about the lorazepam shortage is that the other benzodiazepines you might consider for conversion are also involved in this shortage.  The reasons for the shortage are (via ASHP):

  • Bedford discontinued lorazepam in May, 2011 to concentrate on the manufacturing of other products.
  • West-Ward acquired Baxter’s lorazepam injection products in May, 2011. The company cannot provide a reason for the shortage.
  • Hospira states lorazepam vials are on shortage due to increased demand. The 1 mL iSecure syringes were discontinued in September 2011.
Converting patients to other benzos seems appropriate but midazolam and diazepam are also listed as having drug shortages on ASHP.  And even if you do have them in your pharmacy supply chain, without injectable lorazepam there is bound to be a run on these other two injectables thereby increasing the strain.  

While home hospice patients may do fine with PO/SL lorazepam, inpatient units and hospitals may depend more heavily on injectable benzos.  I am curious to see what other hospice and palliative clinicians are doing to handle this shortage that apparently is expected to last until February or March.  Please share your thoughts in the comment section.  

(Related: Outcome Resources blog has a post on the lorazepam injection shortage as well.)


Quick Quiz Answer: Approximately 210 drugs are listed as currently being in short supply.  I thought it was going to be 30.  Yikes!

by Christian Sinclair ·

Pallimed | Blogger Template adapted from Mash2 by Bloggermint