I am seeing a 52-year-old male in my jail medical clinic who
was booked yesterday on a felony DUI charge.
He says he drinks “a lot of beer” but denies having a drinking problem. He is cranky and not really cooperative. He does not want to be here. However, the deputies tell me that he did not
sleep much last night and did not eat breakfast. I note that he has a mild hand tremor and a
heart rate of 108. According to the
clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol–revised version (the most
common tool used in the United States to assess the severity of alcohol
withdrawal since 1989) my patient needs no treatment for alcohol withdrawal. But this is wrong! In actuality, my patient is experiencing
moderate withdrawal and should be treated immediately and aggressively.
Using CIWA is like
using a wrench to pound in a nail. It
can be done, but it is not really efficient or accurate. A different tool (a hammer) could drive the nail
much more quickly and effectively. CIWA is simply not the right tool to assess
alcohol withdrawal. We should be using
I recently published the official position paper of the American College of Correctional Physicians (ACCP) on the treatment of Hepatitis C in incarcerated patients (found here). However, some state legislatures (and others who which authorize funds for inmate medical care), have been reluctant to fully fund Hepatitis C treatment. Because of this, ACCP has formally approved the following Position Paper to encourage full funding of HepC treatment among incarcerated inmates.
“We’ve got another one,” My nurse told me on the phone. “He
says he was exposed to Covid.”
Ever since Covid-19 came to my town, many people being
arrested have begun to say that they have Covid or have been exposed; the
thought being that “If I have Covid, they can’t put me in jail.” Of course, it doesn’t work that way. They go to jail anyway.
Recently (just before the Covid-19 tsunami hit) I was privileged to chair the American College of Correctional Physicians (ACCP) committee tasked with writing an official position paper on the treatment of Hepatitis C infection in corrections. The exact wording of the paper required some delicacy because treating Hepatitis C in incarcerated inmates can be controversial. No one disagrees that patients with Hepatitis C infection should be treated, whether incarcerated or in the free world, but because the drugs used to treat Hepatitis C are so horrifically expensive. Some state legislatures, which authorize funds for inmate medical care in their prison systems, have been reluctant to fully fund Hepatitis C treatment. More on this in a future post. In the meantime. I believe this is an important document that all correctional medical professionals should read.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you have been hearing about the threat of a Corona virus pandemic. Every day, the evening news anchor breathlessly gives an update of the number of new cases, the number of new countries affected and the number of new deaths. You probably already know that this disease was originally found in China. What you may not know (but you should if you work in corrections) is that Chinese prisons were especially hard hit. This disease spreads most rapidly where people are enclosed together, like nursing homes, cruise ships and prisons. If this disease gets a foothold in the United States, correctional institutions are likely to suffer.
Patients are dying in correctional facilities from
benzodiazepine withdrawal! This is not
just a theoretical observation; this really is happening. This fact bothers me since
benzo withdrawal deaths are preventable.
Benzodiazepine withdrawal is easy to treat! It is certainly easier to treat benzo
withdrawal than the other two potentially deadly withdrawal states, alcohol and
opioids. By far, the most common cause of
benzodiazepine deaths is, of course, not treating it!
So, is your facility at risk to have a patient die of
benzodiazepine withdrawal? To find out, compare
your policies to the following Rules for the Treatment of Benzodiazepine Withdrawal.
At one of my recent jail medical clinics, three patients in a row requested prescriptions for gabapentin. One was a patient newly arrived from the Idaho Department of Corrections to be housed at my jail due to prison overcrowding. He had already been prescribed gabapentin at the prison for complaints of low back pain radiating to one leg and wanted me to continue it–forever. The second patient was prescribed gabapentin by his outside practitioner for a boxer’s fracture that had been surgically repaired years ago. The third was prescribed gabapentin at a previous jail due to “nerve damage” from an old gunshot wound to the upper arm (he had a large scar but no functional disability or decreased sensation).
Gabapentin prescriptions for nonspecific musculoskeletal pain have clearly become common in the community and in corrections. These three patients represent only a fraction of the similar cases I see in my jails! I suspect that this gabapentin-mania is being driven by a belief that gabapentin is preferable to prescribing narcotics (though I would not think any of the three patients above would be candidates for narcotics). Gabapentin, in fact, is often prescribed for musculoskeletal pain in my community first line—before NSAIDS and Tylenol, even—and many, like these three patients, subsequently believe that gabapentin is something they will need to take for the rest of their lives.
The problem is that prescribing gabapentin for
musculoskeletal pain is not evidence-based and (in my opinion) bad medicine.
Penicillin is miraculous. It was discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming (founding the modern era of antibiotic medicine) and is still the most common antibiotic prescribed in my jails. The dentist and I use Penicillin VK as our preferred initial agent for dental infections. I prescribe PCN VK, as well, for strep throats. I use amoxicillin occasionally for sinus infections and UTIs and even amoxicillin/clavulanate (Augmentin) occasionally.
Because penicillin is so useful (and inexpensive), I hate to hear the words “I’m allergic to penicillin.” If a patient with a dental infection can’t take penicillin, for example, the dentist commonly prescribes clindamycin, which is expensive, a pain to administer three times a day and has potentially bad side effects. I have seen more than one patient who developed C. difficile after getting a broad-spectrum antibiotic because of a reported penicillin allergy–probably unnecessarily!
This problem is pretty common since about 10% of the adult population will report a penicillin allergy. However, research has shown that, when tested, more than 90-95% of patients who state that they have a penicillin allergy really do not. These patients can be harmed by giving them an inferior antibiotic more likely to cause them harm than plain old penicillin.
The test most commonly used to gauge true allergic status is Penicillin Skin Testing (PST). No jail or prison that I know of does skin prick tests. We also don’t refer patients reporting penicillin allergy to an allergist for testing. We just groan and prescribe an inferior antibiotic.
However, this could potentially change based on research published this year on the safety and efficacy of “Direct Challenge” penicillin allergy testing. Direct challenge means giving a low-risk (this is important) patient an oral dose of whatever penicillin you want to prescribe and observing them for an hour for an allergic reaction. This has been done in studies and has been reported to be safe and effective.