Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Translations
    • Topics A-Z
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Translations
    • Topics A-Z
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Issues
  • Practice Current
  • Practice Buzz

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology Clinical Practice
Home
A peer-reviewed clinical neurology journal for the practicing neurologist
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Issues
  • Practice Current
  • Practice Buzz

Share

December 2011; 1 (1) Eye on Practice

Global imperatives and challenges facing the practice of neurology

Robert C. Griggs, Bertrand Fontaine, Gen Sobue
First published December 1, 2011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0b013e31823b4e83
Robert C. Griggs
Department of Neurology (RCG), University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris (BF), Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France, and Université Pierre et Marie Curie-INSERM-CNRS (BF), UMR 975-7225, Institut Cerveau Moelle-ICM, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris; and Department of Neurology (GS), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bertrand Fontaine
Department of Neurology (RCG), University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris (BF), Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France, and Université Pierre et Marie Curie-INSERM-CNRS (BF), UMR 975-7225, Institut Cerveau Moelle-ICM, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris; and Department of Neurology (GS), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gen Sobue
Department of Neurology (RCG), University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris (BF), Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France, and Université Pierre et Marie Curie-INSERM-CNRS (BF), UMR 975-7225, Institut Cerveau Moelle-ICM, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris; and Department of Neurology (GS), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Global imperatives and challenges facing the practice of neurology
Robert C. Griggs, Bertrand Fontaine, Gen Sobue
Neurol Clin Pract Dec 2011, 1 (1) 49-54; DOI: 10.1212/CPJ.0b013e31823b4e83

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
1029

Share

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

Summary

The change in the practice of neurology from a diagnostic to a therapeutic specialty has empowered neurologists to make increasingly important decisions and recommendations for patients. With better understanding of disease pathogenesis and treatment has come the need to focus on disease prevention and the avoidance of treatment side effects. An increasingly automated and mechanized health care system has challenged us to integrate vast amounts of data that have a direct effect on patient risks and treatment, and to develop systems that avoid medical errors and allocate resources appropriately. It is imperative that we reaffirm the wisdom of clinical experience and judgment to inform our use of new technologies lest we lose the art of listening to and caring for the patient.

Embedded Image

In the years since the 3 of us began to practice, our specialty has changed from a largely diagnostic to a therapy-focused discipline. And as our diagnostic skills and technologies have improved, new opportunities and challenges have confronted us. Neurologists are able to make a definitive diagnosis for most of our patients, but now have new charges: to develop the approach to presymptomatic “disease” in order to prevent predictable diseases; to decide among 2 or more treatment options; and most challenging and troubling, to decide whether a patient “deserves” expensive treatments. We must learn how to contend with vast amounts of data and, in the process, yield some of our cherished autonomy to develop and implement systems of care that detect and prevent errors. The practicing neurologist has the opportunity to contribute to clinical research that will develop evidence-based neurology and quality indicators that can inform the assessments of how well we are doing as clinicians. Participation in such research serves to improve clinical skills and quality of care. Set against the almost unlimited opportunities available to neurologists is the need to develop and promote approaches that will conserve resources, so that neurologic breakthroughs are affordable.

Embedded Image

Neurologic practice must adapt to information overload, integration of bioinformatic data, and coordination of multiple providers in an increasingly mobile society.

Incidentalomas and other presymptomatic diseases

Neurologists were often the “gatekeepers” for expensive technologies such as MRI scanning and genetic testing. As test availability has expanded and associated costs have decreased, such testing may be ordered by non-neurologists before their history and examination have framed a question that the study is, ideally, designed to answer. “Disease,” such as an incidental, small tumor, unrelated to the patient's symptoms, is often detected by MRI,1,2 and 1, 2, or more genetic diseases may be “diagnosed” by whole genome sequencing3,4 at a time when there is as yet no evidence for symptoms (or treatments). Protecting patients from unnecessary “treatment” and from disclosure of such information to employers, insurance agencies, and others is an increasing challenge. Moreover, in such situations the neurologist's challenge is often to convince the patient and referring physician that the finding is not relevant to the patient's symptoms (difficult) or that the actual diagnosis is a disease process invisible by imaging or undetectable by molecular testing (sometimes virtually impossible). The old adage, “never order a test until you've decided what it will show” still guides neurologists but is alien territory to our non-neurologist colleagues.

Disease prevention

We already know how to prevent some neurologic diseases. Examples include many infectious diseases; stroke by primary and secondary prevention; anticonvulsant adverse effects, by testing for genetic risk factors; and traumatic brain injury by appropriate protection strategies. As we learn more about the environmental factors that trigger or accelerate genetic diseases we will soon have the ability to delay or prevent the development of these diseases. Eventually, gene-based therapies will enable us to prevent or delay the onset of malignancies, metabolic disorders, and many degenerative diseases.

Challenges for disease prevention

We know how to prevent vascular diseases of the heart and brain.5 Preventing atherosclerosis in patients who have not had a stroke (primary prevention) is the responsibility of all physicians but not the specific purview of neurologists. Preventing the progression of vascular disease and recurrent stroke in a patient who has had a brain infarction is the neurologist's job (secondary prevention). We have recognized this; we have examined how well we have done at implementing secondary prevention strategies,6 but we have only begun to think about how we change patient behaviors to adopt a healthier lifestyle. The current American Heart Association (AHA) campaign to promote “Life's Simple Seven” (table) is currently championed by AHA President and neurologist Ralph Sacco, MD, FAAN. Dr. Sacco has emphasized that only 1 in 200 people in the United States actually adopt these guidelines and change their lifestyle.5 The challenge for neurologists is not only that of changing patient behavior but also changing physician behavior (neurologist and primary care physicians) to focus on and learn how to improve our success at secondary stroke prevention.7 Primary care physicians have invested in research on ways to change physician and patient behavior and to implement the approaches that work, and translated those results into reimbursement and recommendations and standards for patient care.8 Neurologists are just beginning to recognize and accept the challenge.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table

Primary prevention of stroke: Life's Simple Seven

Addressing health care disparities

Our 3 countries—the United States, France, and Japan—have excellent but different health care systems. However, within the United States and France there are segments of society that differ widely in their access to and implementation of neurologic treatments. Looking at the neurologic care in low income countries in Africa, South America, and Asia, standard treatments for many neurologic diseases have not reached most of the population. Current world leaders of neurology have recognized and begun to focus on improving this situation. Moreover, the next generation of neurologists has tackled the challenges of going to low income areas to assess directly and begin to address the neurologic health care needs. The subspecialty of “international” or “global neurology” is a large and growing interest of medical students and residents entering our field.9,10 Our countries have the responsibility to help create the approaches and resources that will support their interests.

Practice guidelines, quality indicators, and patient outcomes

The neurologist has always been the specialist that can listen to a patient's history and arrive at a diagnosis that eluded other physicians. The advent of new diagnostic tests has made this skill even more important even as they have made it possible to identify previously undetectable lesions or diseases. Clinical acumen and intuition have been our survival skill. However, we now confront an increasingly well-informed and sometimes hostile public who demand that we standardize diagnostic testing, develop treatment algorithms, and pursue “evidence-based medicine” to the exclusion of less standardized treatments. The American Academy of Neurology has committed to the development of practice guidelines to standardize treatment of as many neurologic diseases as possible11 and is rapidly introducing quality indicators for common diseases such as epilepsy, stroke, and Parkinson disease.12 These quality indicators will soon be integrated and coordinated with outcome measures that assess our ability to give optimal care. This prospect is not appealing to physicians in general and neurologists in particular. Physicians resist efforts to standardize care despite evidence that the introduction of checklists improve patient outcomes13 and that reporting comparative data on outcomes improves patient survival.14

Protecting patients from unnecessary “treatment” and from disclosure of such information to employers, insurance agencies, and others is an increasing challenge.

Systems engineering of medicine

The prevention of errors in practice has now become a focus of the American Academy of Neurology's energies. The development and engineering of standardized systems has enabled the airline industry to reduce errors and plane crashes dramatically.15 While patients are not airplanes, physicians are not airline pilots, and hospitals are not airports, the arguments for developing systematic approaches to error prevention are compelling. Neurologic practice must adapt to information overload, integration of bioinformatic data, and coordination of multiple providers in an increasingly mobile society.

Deciding when and whom to treat

Will we be able to afford the new treatments for neurologic diseases? There is a major difference in the costs of health care in the United States, France, and Japan. The United States spends 16% of GDP on health care, a percentage that is increasing rapidly, while France and Japan spend less. Their costs, as ours, are becoming unaffordable. In the United States, up to 31% of the health care dollar goes to the for-profit segment of health care16 and as much as 10% may be devoted to prevention of tort actions.17 However, even if these costs can be reduced, the relentless increase in health care costs will likely become unsustainable. Expensive treatments such as IV immunoglobulin for neuromuscular diseases are beginning to be subject to standardized guidelines for use that control payment in France and Japan.18 Such prioritization of resource allocation is obviously essential, and will need to include discontinuation of medications when they are no longer effective. The practicing neurologist will also need to focus on other steps to control costs: 1) avoiding unnecessary testing; 2) devising lower cost care systems that prevent or shorten expensive in-hospital care; and 3) basing treatment decisions on metrics that reflect patient quality of life and avoiding futile but expensive interventions. As we have become skilled at treating diseases we have also created an increasing number of resource-intensive, less able people. Providing for these persons imposes still another cost on society, even though these costs are not considered “health care.”

Training the next generation of practicing neurologists

It remains of the greatest importance for senior clinician/educators to teach the next generation the skill of listening to the patient and letting the history and examination tell us the diagnosis. This must be coupled with the ability to question the relevance of unpredicted laboratory findings to the patient's problems. The next generation also needs to be trained in clinical research methods, in communication skills, and in cost/benefit decision-making. Practicing neurologists (and their patients) benefit from participation in clinical research in many ways: 1) participation in trials contributes to the care of patients with conditions for which there are still suboptimal treatment options; 2) involvement in research serves to make the investigator familiar with advances in the field; 3) the quality of patient care is improved when the physician is involved in clinical research; and 4) the funding of the research often subsidizes the poorly reimbursed cognitive care that makes up the bulk of a neurologist's practice. Current and future residents will be sufficiently sophisticated in information technology that they will have relatively little difficulty making optimum use of the electronic health record and adapting to the system engineering it will facilitate. But they, like we ourselves, will need constant reminders that what patients crave is an attentive listener, focused on them as a person, tailoring treatment and advice to their specific complaints. As argued passionately and eloquently by AAN past-President Steve Sergay, “&doctoring faces many challenges&, all potentially imperiling our professional soul or ethos of life as doctors.” Dr. Sergay further asserts that, “We must return our principal attention to humanity to ensure that ill humans will always be more than integers on an economic chart.”19 This advice from the consummate practicing neurologist cannot be overemphasized.

DISCLOSURES

Dr. Griggs serves as Chair of the Executive Committee of the Muscle Study Group, which receives support from pharmaceutical companies; has served on scientific advisory boards for The National Hospital Queen Square and PTC Therapeutics, Inc.; serves on the editorial boards of NeuroTherapeutics and Current Treatment Opinions in Neurology and as Correspondence Editor for Neurology®; is immediate Past President of the American Academy of Neurology; receives royalties from the publication of Andreoli and Carpenter's Cecil Essentials of Medicine, Eighth Edition (W.B. Saunders Company, 2000, 2004, 2007, and 2010) and Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 24th Edition (Saunders, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2010, in press); and has received research support from Taro Pharmaceuticals and the NIH/NINDS, the FDA, and the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Dr. Fontaine serves on the editorial board of Gene and Immunity and receives research support from sanofi-aventis, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Association Française contre les Myopathies, and Association pour la Recherche sur la Sclérose en Plaques. Dr. Sobue has served on scientific advisory boards for Kanae Science Foundation for the Promotion of Medical Science and Naito Science Foundation; serves on the advisory board of Brain and the editorial board of Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease; and receives research support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Labor of Japan, and the Japan Science and Technology Agency, Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology.

Figure
  • Copyright © 2011 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Katzman GL,
    2. Dagher AP,
    3. Patronas NJ
    . Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 100 asymptomatic volunteers. JAMA 1999;282:36–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Grossman JI,
    2. Bernat JL
    . Incidental research imaging findings: Pandora's costly box. Neurology 2004;62:849–850.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Laloui K,
    2. Wary C,
    3. Carlier RY,
    4. Hogrel JY,
    5. Caillaud C,
    6. Laforet P
    . Making diagnosis of Pompe disease at a presymptomatic stage: to treat or not to treat? Neurology 2011;77:594–595.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kwon JM,
    2. Steiner RD
    . “I'm fine; I'm just waiting for my disease”: the new and growing class of presymptomatic patients. Neurology 2011;77:522–523.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Sacco RL
    . Achieving ideal cardiovascular and brain health: opportunity amid crisis: Presidential Address at the American Heart Association 2010 Scientific Sessions. Circulation 2011;123:2653–2657.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Holloway RG,
    2. Benesch C,
    3. Rush SR
    . Stroke prevention: narrowing the evidence-practice gap. Neurology 2000;54:1899–1906.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bushnell CD,
    2. Olson DM,
    3. Zhao X,
    4. et al
    . Secondary preventive medication persistence and adherence 1 year after stroke. Neurology 2011;77:1182–1190.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Flodgren G,
    2. Eccles MP,
    3. Shepperd S,
    4. Scott A,
    5. Parmelli E,
    6. Beyer FR
    . An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database System Review 2011;7:CD009255.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Galetta SL,
    2. Jozefowicz RF,
    3. Avitzur O
    . Advances in neurological education: a time to share. Ann Neurol 2006;59:583–590.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Dahodwala N
    . Neurology education and global health: my rotation in Botswana. Neurology 2007:68;E15–E16.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Getchius TSD,
    2. Moses LK,
    3. French J,
    4. Gronseth GS,
    5. England JD,
    6. Miyasaki J
    . AAN guidelines: a benefit to the neurologist. Neurology 2010;75:1126–1127.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cheng EM,
    2. Tonn S,
    3. Swain-Eng R,
    4. et al
    . Quality improvement in neurology: AAN Parkinson's disease quality measures. Neurology 2010;75:2021–2027.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Haynes AB,
    2. Weiser TG,
    3. Berry WR,
    4. et al
    . A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009;360:491–499.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Gawande A
    . The bell curve. In: Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance. New York: Metropolitan Books; 2007: 201–230.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Gawande A
    . The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right, edition 1. New York: Picador; 2011.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Woolhandler S,
    2. Campbell T,
    3. Himmelstein DU
    . Costs of health care administration in the United State and Canada. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:768–775.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Issue Brief I: Malpractice liability, defensive medicine, and health care costs: VITA Advisors, LLC, 2009. Available at: http://vitaadvisors.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Malpractice-A.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2011.
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ikegami N,
    2. Campbell JC
    . Health care reform in Japan: the virtues of muddling through. Health Affairs 1999;18:56–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Sergay SM
    . Doctoring 2009: embracing the challenge. Neurology 2009;73:1234–1239.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text

The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Summary
    • DISCLOSURES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Preferences and User Experiences of Wearable Devices in Epilepsy A Systematic Review and Mixed-Methods Synthesis

Dr. Daniel Friedman and Dr. Sharon Chiang

► Watch

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Topics Discussed

  • All Practice Management
  • Models of care
  • Professional conduct and ethics
  • Medical care

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published
Neurology: Clinical Practice: 13 (1)

Articles

  • Articles
  • Issues
  • Popular Articles

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Education
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology: Clinical Practice |  Print ISSN: 2163-0402
Online ISSN: 2163-0933

© 2023 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise