• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
ChangingAging Logo
  • About
  • Browse Posts
    • Ageism
    • Aging Literacy
    • Community
    • Culture Change
    • Disrupting Dementia
    • Embracing Elderhood
  • Store
  • Contact
    • Booking Information
  • Ageism
  • Aging Literacy
  • Community
  • COVID Resources
  • Culture Change
  • Disrupting Dementia
  • Embracing Elderhood
  • Health and Wellness

Eric Widera

Evidence-Based Practice of Palliative Medicine

January 9, 2013 | Eric Widera

I just got my hands on a copy of a fabulous new book by Drs Goldstein and Morrison and felt compelled to write a quick review about it.  The title of the book is “Evidence-Based Practice of Palliative Medicine” and it’s 528 pages is chock-full of useful palliative care topics.

The most interesting aspect of the new book is the chapter format. The editors put together what can be best described as a detailed FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) on palliative medicine. There are 81 questions that are addressed in depth in the corresponding chapters.  Some of my favorite questions from the book include:

Symptom Management Section:

  • How should patient-controlled analgesia be used in patients with serious illness and those experiencing post-op pain?
  • Which opioids are safest and most effective in renal failure? 
  • How should methadone be started and titrated in opioid-naïve and opioid-tolerant patients? 
  • When should corticosteroids be used to manage pain? 
  • When should radiopharmaceuticals be considered for pain management? 
  • What nonopioid treatments should be used to manage dyspnea associated with COPD? 
  • What interventions are effective for relieving acute bowel obstruction in cancer and other conditions? 
  • What treatments are effective for anxiety in patients with serious illness?

Communication Section: 

  • What is a useful strategy for estimating survival for persons with advanced non-cancer related illness in palliative care settings? 
  • What do palliative care clinicians need to know about teaching communication?

Disease Specific Topics

  • What special considerations are needed for treatments patients with chronic liver disease? 
  • What special considerations are needs for individuals with ALS, MS, or Parkinson Disease? 
  • How is the patients who stops dialysis best managed? 
  • Which patients with end-stage renal disease should not be started on dialysis?

Special Topics 

  • What techniques can be used in the hospital or home setting to best manage uncontrolled bleeding? 
  • What can be done to improve outcomes for caregivers of patients with serious illness? 
  • How can palliative care be integrated into home-based primary care programs?

The other nice thing about this book is that it is pretty easy to access all the chapters online via the publishers web-portal www.expertconsult.com.

If you want to take a closer look at the book, you can find it on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

By: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Disclosure: I was an author on 2 chapters in this book, but I have not received, nor will receive, any royalties except for a copy of the book (I have though requested it be autographed by Sean and Nate).  

Comment at GeriPal.org

Continue Reading

Successful Aging Does Not Equal Aging without Disability

January 5, 2013 | Eric Widera

What does successful aging look like? In one of the more influential papers on the subject published in 1987, Rowe and Kahn describe successful aging as involving freedom from disease and disability. This definition has been adapted over time but is still being used today. Take a recent study published in CMAJ defining “successful aging” at 60 years of age or older as satisfying each of following criteria . . .

Rafael Romo, Alex Smith, and colleagues recently published a paper that further challenges the notion that “successful aging” is aging without disability.

Continue Reading

Parenteral Fluids at the End of Life

December 5, 2012 | Eric Widera

It is better to die dry than wet. At least that is the gist of traditional thinking in hospice and palliative care, where parenteral (IV or subcutaneous) fluids are often avoided at the very end of life to prevent fluid buildup in the lungs and other organs.

The problem is that delirium often complicates end of life care as well. It is one of the four most common emergency calls for individuals receiving palliative care in the home and a common reason for admissions into inpatient hospice units. Reduced oral intake, a part of the natural dying process, may result in dehydration in some but not all individuals at the end of life, and may be a factor in the development delirium. Studies in the geriatric literature suggest that early recognition of dehydration and volume repletion is an important component of delirium prevention.

So, how do we reconcile our desire to avoid the unintended consequences of IV hydration in those at the end of life with that of treating dehydration to prevent delirium?  Some argue for a greater use of parenteral fluids in these patients to improve quality of life, at the very least for those with some evidence of dehydration.  However, the question remains, does IV hydration improve quality of life and decrease incidence of delirium, or will it just worsen symptoms at the end of life?

Dr. Eduardo Bruera and colleagues from MD Anderson add some evidence to how best to manage fluids at the end of life thanks to a study recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The authors randomized 129 individuals with advanced cancer from 6 hospices to either parenteral subcutaneous hydration of 1 L per day of normal saline or placebo.  In order to maintain blinding for both patients and staff, the placebo was a 100ml a day of saline injected over a similar 4 hour period per day as the fluids in the intervention group.

Inclusion criteria included advanced cancer, reduced oral intake of fluids with evidence of mild or moderate dehydration, at least mild symptoms of fatigue, hallucinations, sedation, and myoclonus, a life expectancy of less than 1 week, , and a Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score less than 13 (i.e not severe delirium). Those with severe dehydration were excluded as were individuals with renal failure, congestive heart failure, or a history or clinical evidence of bleeding disorders.

The primary outcome was change from baseline to day 4 for the sum of four dehydration symptoms (fatigue, myoclonus, sedation and hallucinations). They also included a rather complete amount of secondary outcomes including:

  • Individual items on a symptom assessment scale – the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS)
  • Two dementia scales – the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (NuDESC) – and one agitation scale
  • A quality of life scale – the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F)
  • Dehydration assessment scale (the Dehydration Assessment Scale)
  • Labs including creatinine, urea, and electolytes
  • Overall survival.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between the IV hydration group and the placebo group at either 4 days or 7 days in regards to:

  • The sum of the four dehydration symptoms (-3.3 vs -2.8, P=0.77)
  • Individual symptom evaluation based on the ESAS
  • Overall delirium scores based on the MDAS
  • Quality of life scores
  • Dehydration assessment scores
  • Median survival

The authors did find some differences in some measures such as night-time delirium scores, which was worse in the placebo group. However, given the numerous secondary outcomes (47 of them), I wouldn’t place much weight on this, as by pure chance at least two of these outcomes will be positive using a P of 0.05.

One big limitation of the study was that it was underpowered. The planned sample size was 150 patients, but funding issues required termination of the study after 129 patients. This was likely due to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. So, you can argue that the authors didn’t find a difference because they didn’t enroll enough patients (a Type II error). This may be a classic Type II error where no significant difference between groups are reported when in fact such a difference exists.  I would be surprised though if the authors enrolled another 21 patients that a clinically significant result would have materialized for the primary outcome since it didn’t look like a trend was developing (-3.3 vs -2.8, P=0.77).

So in the end, we have some data to suggest that IV hydration of 1 liter is unlikely to provide a meaningful benefit to most hospice patients with advanced cancer with mild to moderate dehydration (but not severe).

by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comment at GeriPal.org

Continue Reading

Bereavement Does Not Immunize the Grieving Person Against Major Depression

December 4, 2012 | Eric Widera

This is a guest post by Dr. Ronald Pies in response to this week’s GeriPal post about the removal of the Bereavement Exclusion from DSM-5.  Dr. Pies is the Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Psychiatric Times, Professor of Psychiatry and Lecturer on Bioethics & Humanities at SUNY Upstate Medical University, and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts USM.

Dr. Widera is quite right: ordinary grief is not an illness, has adaptive value, and does not require professional treatment. But grieving persons are not immune to major depressive disorder (MDD), and, indeed, bereavement is a common trigger for MDD. There are, nevertheless, substantial differences between grief and MDD, and experienced clinicians will be able to tell the difference. The elimination of the bereavement exclusion from DSM-5 will not change that. Let’s consider the following scenario:

Mr. Smith is a 72-year-old retired businessman whose wife died of cancer 3 weeks ago. He visits his family doctor and says, “I feel down in the dumps and weepy every day, Doc—really lousy! I don’t get any pleasure out of anything anymore, even stuff I used to love, like watching football on TV. I wake up at 4 in the morning almost every day, and I have zero energy. I can’t keep my mind on anything. I barely eat, and I’ve lost 10 pounds since Mary passed away. I hate being around other people. Sometimes I feel like I didn’t really do enough for Mary when she was sick. God, how I miss her! I can still cook for myself, pay the bills, and so on, Doc, but I’m just going through the motions. I don’t enjoy life at all anymore.”

Though it’s still early after his wife’s death—and some clinicians may want to defer a final diagnosis for another week—all clinicians should be very concerned about Mr. Smith. He easily meets DSM-IV (and now, DSM-5) symptom and duration criteria for MDD. (A previous bout of MDD in his history would strengthen the likelihood, as would several other clinical findings I have omitted). And yet, under the present DSM-IV “rules,” Mr. Smith probably would not be diagnosed with a major depressive illness. He would simply be called “bereaved.” Why? Because he is still within the 2-month period that allows for use of the bereavement exclusion; and because Mr. Smith doesn’t have the DSM-IV features that allow the clinician to “override” use of the BE; namely, severe functional impairment, suicidal ideation, psychosis, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, or extreme guilt. It’s important to note that the DSM-IV exclusion rules did not apply to any other type of loss, such as losing one’s job or becoming homeless. Ironically, if Mr. Smith’s wife had left him for another man, he would meet MDD criteria, using current DSM-IV rules!

Many of us who have specialized in the treatment of mood disorders found the DSM-IV criteria not only illogical, but also inimical to good clinical care. We were concerned that many bereaved patients like Mr. Smith–who meet all symptom and duration criteria for MDD, but who happen to have lost a loved one within the past two months– would be shunted out of the mental health care system. In the view of many (though not all) mood disorder specialists, the risk of overlooking MDD, with its high potential for suicide, far outweighs the less serious risk of “over-calling” MDD—the so-called “false positive” scenario.

The elimination of the bereavement exclusion (BE) by the DSM-5 does not mean that “grief is now a mental disorder,” as some have claimed. Nor does it mean that anyone who is grieving within two weeks of a loved one’s death—i.e., most people!—will be diagnosed with major depressive disorder. (Two weeks is the minimum duration required for MDD, under DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria). First of all, studies have shown that most bereaved persons will not meet full DSM-5 criteria for MDD. Second: it would be extremely rare, in clinical practice, for a bereaved person to seek psychiatric care within two weeks (or even a month) of the death of a loved one, unless something very unusual or dysfunctional were going on—for example, the bereaved person has developed a psychotic-level disturbance; is severely incapacitated; or has become suicidal–in which cases, the bereavement exclusion would not apply anyway. And, contrary to the strident claims of some, nothing in the diagnosis of MDD will prevent bereaved patients with MDD from receiving the love, support, and solace of family and friends.

To be sure, physicians and other health care workers need a much better understanding of the key differences between ordinary grief and major depression. For example, bereaved persons with normal grief often experience a mixture of sadness and more pleasant emotions, as they recall memories of the deceased. Anguish and pain are usually experienced in “waves” or “pangs,” rather than continuously, as is usually true in major depression. The grieving individual typically maintains the hope that things will get better. In contrast, the clinically depressed patient’s mood is almost uniformly one of gloom, despair, and hopelessness–nearly all day, nearly every day. The bereaved individual usually maintains a strong emotional connection with friends and family, and often can be consoled by them. The person suffering a severe major depressive disorder is usually too self-focused and emotionally “cut off” to enjoy the company of others. Indeed, Dr. Kay R. Jamison has pointed out that “The capacity to be consoled is a consequential distinction between grief and depression.” My colleagues and I are now developing a screening questionnaire (the PBPI) based on these distinctions. We don’t yet know the final wording of the DSM-5 text, which we hope will emphasize and clarify the distinctions between ordinary grief and major depression.

I would urge readers of GeriPal to take a look at the excellent piece by Dr. J. Sloan Manning, in the September 7, 2012, Psychiatric Times, from which I provide a few excerpts. Dr Manning is Co-director of the Mood Disorders Clinic at the Moses Cone Family Practice Center in Greensboro, NC. Here is what he wrote:

“I write this as one in the midst of bereavement, having lost my dear mother several months ago… During the last year of her life (in rehab facilities and briefly in a nursing home) we were never closer. I still avoid driving by the nursing home. I still wake up at night occasionally tearfully thinking of her. I cook a lot of pot roasts in the old cast iron Dutch oven she made famous. I am converting a home office to a guest bedroom filled with family memories. I am not ill. I am grieving. It doesn’t look like illness. It doesn’t need to be treated like illness. I can’t believe anyone would mistake it for illness, especially an experienced clinician. But if I were ill and grieving, I would expect my health care providers to understand that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and I would expect them to offer help for my illness . . .Part of my practice is in a mood disorders clinic in a family practice residency…I cannot remember a single instance in this setting where the [bereavement exclusion] saved the day, preventing the unnecessary use of medication for a non-illness. In situations in which previous ill episodes were absent, symptoms were mild, and cognition and function were preserved, we would always choose the path of supportive and cognitive psychotherapy, and bibliotherapy or other non-pharmacological means as primary interventions. However, in patients with severe symptoms or those with documented histories of Axis I illness, we would never ignore the reality that intact affective control systems are a requirement for successful negotiation of grief.”

In conclusion: eliminating the bereavement exclusion means essentially this: the death of a loved one–a common precipitant of major depression—-will no longer be a “disqualifying” factor in diagnosing MDD, within the first few weeks after bereavement. This emphatically does not mean that we should be starting everyone with bereavement-related MDD on antidepressants! Some depressed and bereaved patients will heal and recover with “tincture of time”; some will benefit from cognitive, supportive or grief-oriented psychotherapies. More severely depressed, grieving patients–those, for example, with melancholic features or pronounced suicidality–may require concurrent medication and psychotherapy.

No, indeed: we must not “medicalize” normal grief. But neither must we “normalize” major depression, simply because it occurs in the context of bereavement.

by: Ronald Pies MD
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston

For further reading:

  • Pies R. Was the bereavement exclusion originally based on scientific data? World Psychiatry. 2012 Oct;11(3):203.
  • Pies R. Bereavement, complicated grief, and the rationale for diagnosis in psychiatry. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012 Jun;14(2):111-3.
  • Zisook S, Pies R, Corruble E. When is grief a disease? Lancet. 2012 Apr 28;379(9826):1590.
  • Zisook S, Corruble E, Duan N, et al: The bereavement exclusion and DSM-5. Depress Anxiety. 2012 May;29(5):425-43.
  • Lamb K, Pies R, Zisook S. The Bereavement Exclusion for the Diagnosis of Major Depression: To be, or not to be. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2010 Jul;7(7):19-25.
  • Zisook S, Simon NM, Reynolds CF 3rd, Pies R, Lebowitz B, Young IT, Madowitz J, Shear MK. Bereavement, complicated grief, and DSM, part 2: complicated grief. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;71(8):1097-8.
  • Zisook S, Reynolds CF 3rd, Pies R, Simon N, Lebowitz B, Madowitz J, Tal-Young I, Shear MK. Bereavement, complicated grief, and DSM, part 1: depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;71(7):955-6.
  • Pies RW. Depression and the pitfalls of causality: implications for DSM-V. J Affect Disord. 2009 Jul;116(1-2):1-3.
  • Pies R: How the Public is Being Misinformed about Grief. Psychcentral. http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/02/28/how-the-public-is-being-misinformed-about-grief/all/1/
  • Manning JS: Debate: Let the Bereavement Exclusion in DSM-5 Die. Psychiatric Times, Sept. 7, 2012. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/mdd/content/article/10168/2101417?CID=rss  
  • Dunlop BW: Debate: Is It Worth Saving the Bereavement Exclusion in DSM-5? Ringing the Bell to Save the Bereavement ExclusionPsychiatric Times, September 7, 2012 http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/mdd/content/article/10168/2101460  
  • Pies R: After Bereavement, Is It “Normal Grief” or Major Depression? The PBPI: A Potential Assessment Tool. Psychiatric Times. February 21, 2012. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/mdd/content/article/10168/2035804  
  • Jamison KR: Nothing Was the Same. Knopf, 2009. Also: an excellent video with Dr. Kay R. Jamison explains some of the key differences between grief and depression: http://bigthink.com/ideas/16707  

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Laura Dunn, MD and Sidney Zisook MD, for suggestions on earlier drafts of this blog; however, the views expressed here are my own.

Disclosure statement: Dr. Pies reports no financial or other conflicts of interest with respect to the content of this piece. He has had no official role in the DSM-5 development process, or any formal connection to the DSM-5 committees. He receives no monies from any pharmaceutical companies. A formal disclosure statement may be found at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/editorial-board

Comment at GeriPal.org

Continue Reading

DSM-5: Grieving Over the Loss of the Bereavement Exclusion

December 2, 2012 | Eric Widera

Have you been tearful and sad after the death of a loved one?  Did you notice changes in appetite, difficulty sleeping, troubles concentrating, and decreased energy for at least two weeks after the loss? Did you think that was a normal, healthy, and adaptive response to a major loss? Well, if you believe the new DSM-5 criteria approved today by The American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) board of trustees, you would be wrong, as your reaction would now fit the criteria for Major Depression.

Under the current DSM-IV criteria, you would have been right, as the bereaved would have not qualified for depression unless symptoms persisted for longer than 2 months or were characterized by marked functional impairment, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, suicidal ideation, psychotic symptoms, or psychomotor retardation.   It made sense to do this as most individuals successfully cope with the loss of a loved one without medical intervention, even though the first few weeks to months following a loss is associated with significant distress.

Times are changing though.  Even though the final manual is not out yet, the APA Board of Trustees released a statement that noted the newly approved DSM-5 will remove the “bereavement exclusion.”

Now there are some persuasive arguments for this change. Probably strongest is that there is little difference between the development of depression from that of bereavement versus other life stressors, such as being diagnosed with advanced cancer or having gone through a marital breakup.  In other words, if you have an exclusion for bereavement, shouldn’t you also have an exclusion for other significant losses in life?

In addition, grief seen in bereavement is not completely benign.  There are a minority of bereaved individuals (approximately 10-20%) in which grief can become complicated and prolonged. For these individuals, complicated grief has been shown to have a significant detrimental impact on their ability to function and quality of life.  There are also individuals who truly developed profound depressive episodes shortly after the loss of a loved one.  However, the current DSM-IV criteria clearly allows a diagnosis of Major Depression to be made in these instances, although the bar is set higher.

I can’t help but see this as a broad overreach by the APA.  Grief is not a disorder and should be considered normal even if it is accompanied by some of the same symptoms seen in depression.  Yes, uncomplicated grief may cause significant distress, but for the majority of bereaved, it is an adaptive and healthy reaction to the loss of a loved one.   Furthermore, there is no evidence that medical interventions significantly improve outcomes or symptoms in the bereaved, outside of those with prolonged or complicated grief disorders.  Most
bereaved individuals will adjust to a new life without their loved one, but this takes time – certainly longer than 2 weeks.

by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comment at GeriPal.org

Continue Reading

SNF’s – the discharge pathway of choice for those at the end of life

October 30, 2012 | Eric Widera

Few details are actually known about the proposed settlement of a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Medicare that would do away with the requirement to show a likelihood of medical or functional improvement before Medicare would pay for skilled services such as physical therapy.    However, unless there is a monumental change in how we deliver skilled care to Medicare enrollees, there are two conclusions that I feel safe in making:

  1. More individuals will be using the Medicare Skilled Nursing (SNF) benefit at the end of life
  2. The ability to provide high quality palliative care to these individuals will be diminished



Why will more individuals use Medicare SNF Benefit at the end of life?

There will be little incentive to prevent more and more individuals with limited ability to improve with skilled care to move quickly from hospitals to SNFs. It is easier, quicker, and often feels “safer” to send someone to a SNF from a hospital than it is to spend hours on having difficult discussions about a patient’s end of life preferences and goals.  And please make no mistake about it, this is a hospital to SNF problem, as SNF’s are the discharge pathway of choice for those at the end of life.

To highlight the magnitude of the problem, I’d like to share some of the findings of a recent study published by some of our GeriPal colleagues: Katherine Aragon, Ken Covinsky, MD, Yinghui Miao,
John Boscardin, Lynn Flint, and Alex Smith.

The authors of the study used data from Medicare claims and the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to look at the prevalence of use of the Medicare SNF benefit in the last 6 months of life. Data from the 5,163 HRS respondents who were 65 years or older and had died between 1994 and 2007 revealed that:

  • The vast majority (88%) of SNF stays originated from the hospital 
  • Nearly a third (31%) of decedents had used the SNF benefit in the last 6 months of life
  • One in every 11 (9%) decedents died while receiving the SNF benefit.

The 1990’s showed a dramatic increase in SNF benefit at the end of life among community dwellers, increasing from 20% to 31%. Since then, things have been somewhat stable in regards to SNF use in the last 6 months of life, hovering in the low 30%’s.

Why will the ability to provide high quality palliative care to these individuals be diminished?

This one is easy.  Most patients enrolled in the SNF benefit are not eligible to receive concurrent hospice care, and furthermore, they likely would not have access to any other form of palliative care.

Medicare regulations prohibit dual enrollment in both the SNF benefit and the hospice benefit for the same diagnosis. Occasionally individuals can receive both benefits if the SNF care is for a diagnosis unrelated to the hospice diagnosis, but this is a rarity. It also means that the hospice benefit will likely lose out if someone is considering which one to enroll in, as Medicare will pay for room and board with the SNF Benefit as well as reimburse the nursing home at a higher rate.  No such luck with hospice care.

Data from the above study confirm this as they found:

  • only 0.5% of all decedents were enrolled in hospice during their SNF stay, although 9% of decedents died while enrolled in the SNF benefit.

What about other forms of palliative care? This study does not address whether these patients were receiving other forms of palliative care, but it is unlikely considering the low penetrance of high quality palliative care into skilled nursing settings.

What Will Need to Be Done to Address this Problem?

Considering it is election season, I’m going to end this post with a simple two point plan.  Presidential candidates, feel free to steal these ideas:

  1. Increase palliative care expertise in SNF’s by first passing the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (PCHETA) into law
  2. Rethink whether the hospice benefit and the SNF benefit should continue to be mutually exclusive.

by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comment at GeriPal.org

Continue Reading

COO of the American Geriatrics Society @nlundebjerg on Twitter

October 16, 2012 | Eric Widera

It’s time to up the ante on the push to get more GeriPal readers on twitter. Today, we have Nancy Lundebjerg (@nlundebjerg), Deputy Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Geriatrics Society, answering some questions on why twitter matters. She also just gave me word that all Reynolds Grantees Attending #DWRF12 can win an iPad by tweeting and successfully answering short daily questions via @theBlueCast (for more info on the game check out AGS’s website here.

Widera: In your opinion, why should we get on twitter?

Lundebjerg: It’s a very powerful tool for getting the word out about geriatrics and palliative care You can use it to communicate to the world and with each other. Most politicians are on twitter and we have not yet begun to tap the power of including a mention of them in our twitter messages.

Widera: Can you give an example of an interesting way twitter can be used in geriatrics or palliative care?

Lundebjerg : There are two debates left to go – use it to message about what needs to happen in care for older adults.

Romney says best plan is Massachusetts plan – the basis of Obamacare…
— Louise Aronson (@LouiseAronson) October 4, 2012



Widera: Do you use twitter during national meetings? If so, how and why?

Lundebjerg: Yes. I use it to bring some personality to the meeting (see Where in the World is Jim Pacala) and to share inspiring statements from speakers with peers who are not in attendance.

Widera: How do you find the time to read and respond to all those tweets?

Lundebjerg: I follow an eclectic bunch of people on twitter – making it a great news feed. I generally pop in about 3-4 times a day to see what is going on. Retweeting something takes a nanosecond and modifying a tweet takes slightly longer. You don’t have to respond to everything nor do you need to read everything.

Widera: Do you use twitter to talk about something other than geriatrics or palliative medicine?

Lundebjerg: Yes, I’ve used it to get refunds for terrible service. Right now I use it mostly for work but plan to transition to include tweets from my blog or Pinterest. Some people have more than one handle and I’ll probably do that for when I want to tweet about my personal blog or Pinterest. By the by, I am waiting for someone to crack the mystery of Pinterest when it comes to family caregiving. The demographic is exactly right but anything remotely serious seems to go just go thud.

Widera: Any tips for someone new to twitter?

Lundebjerg: Following others is a great way to build up a follower base. People will generally follow you back if you follow them. Don’t use the approval process for letting people follow you – it’s pretty easy to weed someone out if they are inappropriate. Start by retweeting and build your original tweet muscle up slowly – it does take practice to get to where you can say something pithy in 140 characters but you will get there. Have fun!

Widera: Who do you follow?

Lundebjerg: I follow you (@ewidera), Ken Covinsky (@geri_doc), Diane Meier (everyone follows Diane!) and am now following any Reynolds attendee (go to @TheBlueCast for a list of those folks). I also follow a bunch of tech folks, the usual suspects in terms of organizations, reporters that cover health and Washington politics, and a number of medical journals.

Widera: You keep on mentioning @TheBlueCast.  What is it and what are you trying to do with it?

Lundebjerg: Our Titter team grappled for a while with what handle to use and decided that because we are running a special contest for Reynolds attendees, we would create a new handle. From there, it was a question of whether we wanted to do something a little mysterious with the potential to go viral (we dream of being Big Bird here at AGS!) and TheBlueCast was born. The interesting thing about the handle is that it could easily be used to illustrate problems with activities of daily living throughout the year so the handle may live on beyond the meeting!

by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comment at GeriPal.org

Continue Reading

Christian Sinclair on Why We Should Get on Twitter

October 11, 2012 | Eric Widera

Are you still not convinced that you should sign-up for twitter?  Will take more than a “genius” for you to understand the value of a 140 character haiku?  Well, maybe Christian Sinclair can convince you as part of our second installment in o…

Continue Reading
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to Next Page »
browse all posts
Or search for a post here:

ChangingAging Newsletter

Join 30,636 subscribers and stay updated on all things ChangingAging

No charge. No Spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ChangingAging - Speech Bubble Logo

#ChangingAging - Explore what's next!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

© 2023 ChangingAging™ - The Center for Growing and Becoming

  • Post Guidelines
  • Contact