User login
Who can sue docs for wrongful death? Some states are trying to expand that group
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Only a sociopath could work for a large health system,’ doc says sardonically
A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”
Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.
What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative? In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.
Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?
Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”
The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.
“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”
With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”
Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.
“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
Why some physicians suffer more
Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”
Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”
So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”
This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”
Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”
Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.
This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”
Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.
The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.
On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”
You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”
Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.
What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative? In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.
Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?
Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”
The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.
“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”
With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”
Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.
“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
Why some physicians suffer more
Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”
Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”
So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”
This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”
Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”
Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.
This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”
Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.
The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.
On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”
You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”
Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.
What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative? In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.
Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?
Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”
The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.
“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”
With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”
Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.
“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
Why some physicians suffer more
Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”
Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”
So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”
This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”
Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”
Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.
This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”
Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.
The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.
On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”
You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Don’t call me ‘Dr.,’ say some physicians – but most prefer the title
When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.
“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”
Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”
published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.
“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”
To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.
Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”
Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.
The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
Physician preferences vary
Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”
This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.
Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”
He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”
Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”
When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.
Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”
Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”
Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
How to handle informality
If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”
This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”
Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”
Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”
In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.
Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.
Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.
“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”
Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”
published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.
“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”
To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.
Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”
Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.
The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
Physician preferences vary
Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”
This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.
Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”
He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”
Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”
When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.
Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”
Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”
Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
How to handle informality
If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”
This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”
Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”
Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”
In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.
Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.
Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.
“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”
Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”
published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.
“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”
To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.
Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”
Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.
The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
Physician preferences vary
Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”
This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.
Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”
He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”
Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”
When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.
Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”
Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”
Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
How to handle informality
If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”
This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”
Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”
Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”
In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.
Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.
Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
More DOs join physician ranks as osteopathic pipeline heats up
This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.
All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.
The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.
Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.
“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
Attraction to the DO philosophy
For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.
Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”
While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”
Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”
Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.
One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”
That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”
Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.
In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”
Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
Moving forward
One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.
“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”
Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.
A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.
The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.
He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.
All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.
The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.
Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.
“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
Attraction to the DO philosophy
For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.
Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”
While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”
Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”
Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.
One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”
That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”
Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.
In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”
Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
Moving forward
One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.
“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”
Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.
A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.
The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.
He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.
All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.
The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.
Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.
“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
Attraction to the DO philosophy
For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.
Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”
While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”
Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”
Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.
One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”
That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”
Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.
In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”
Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
Moving forward
One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.
“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”
Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.
A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.
The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.
He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Docs reveal perils of giving medical advice to friends and family
Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.
Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.
Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.
But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.
“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.
When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.
Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”
“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”
Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.
“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”
This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.
When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.
Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.
How to stay safe when asked for advice
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”
What about friends or acquaintances, however?
Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”
The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”
Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?
In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.
The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”
Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.
This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.
“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”
Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”
The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:
- Politely decline.
- Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
- Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.
Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”
Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.
Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.
Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.
But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.
“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.
When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.
Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”
“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”
Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.
“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”
This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.
When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.
Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.
How to stay safe when asked for advice
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”
What about friends or acquaintances, however?
Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”
The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”
Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?
In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.
The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”
Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.
This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.
“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”
Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”
The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:
- Politely decline.
- Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
- Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.
Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”
Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.
Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.
Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.
But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.
“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.
When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.
Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”
“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”
Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.
“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”
This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.
When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.
Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.
How to stay safe when asked for advice
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”
What about friends or acquaintances, however?
Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”
The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”
Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?
In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.
The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”
Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.
This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.
“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”
Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”
The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:
- Politely decline.
- Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
- Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.
Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”
Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How old is too old to work as a doctor?
Air traffic controllers face mandatory retirement at age 56, with exceptions up to 61. Commercial airline pilots must bow out at 65; same for foreign service employees. Physicians, however, have no age limit, regardless of specialty.
As the profession rapidly ages – some 30% of the physician workforce is currently a senior, according to the American Medical Association – the topic of whether or not there should be a standard measure or age for retirement is front and center. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education formed a workgroup to look into the issue in 2015 and 2018, and in 2021, delegates adopted a set of guidelines for screening and assessing physicians, but stopped short of a mandate.
Mark Katlic, MD, chair of surgery at Lifebridge Health System, Baltimore, has devoted a decade to studying this topic. “I’m a bit of an outlier looking into this,” he says. “The public is unaware and seemingly unconcerned about the issue. Even among the medical profession, there’s been a series of fits and starts to develop a cohesive approach.”
One of the reasons guidelines – mandatory or otherwise – have been tough to come by is that aging brings with it a huge degree of variability. “If you look at a group of 80-year-olds, there will be much more variability than within a group of 40-year-olds,” Dr. Katlic pointed out.
Indeed, some 80-year-olds can easily continue to teach college courses, keep up in 10K running races, or perform delicate surgeries. Yet others in their peer group might struggle to properly button a shirt, walk a flight of stairs, or remember yesterday’s meals. Functional age is not the same as chronological age.
Frank Stockdale, MD, PhD, an 86-year-old practicing oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) University Health, counts himself in the camp opposed to age-based assessments. “It’s age discrimination,” he says. “Physicians receive assessments throughout their careers as part of the accreditation process – there’s no need to change that as doctors reach a certain age.”
Dr. Stockdale suggests that in many cases, malpractice suits are filed against mid-career doctors, not those of advanced age. “If you’re using the argument that there is an accumulation of deficits with age, the fact is that those deficits begin well before your 70s,” he said. “It’s better to have a uniform screening policy and begin at a much younger age.”
At Stanford, in fact, there was a former assessment policy that included cognitive testing, but physicians were successful in seeing that portion of testing eliminated. “It is a physical examination, by a physician of choice, certifying that for the privileges requested there is no physical or mental reason the candidate cannot safely perform them,” Dr. Stockdale explained.
In some cases, medical staffs have filed lawsuits to fight age-related testing. In New Haven, Conn., for instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit in 2020 on behalf of the Yale New Haven Hospital staff, alleging a discriminatory “late career practitioner policy.”
A similar case in Minnesota reached a settlement in 2021, providing monetary relief to staff impacted by out-of-pocket costs for the assessment, in addition to requiring that the hospital in question report to the EEOC any complaints related to age discrimination.
James Ellison, MD, MPH, chair in Memory Care and Geriatrics with ChristianaCare in Wilmington, Del., points out that aging can bring benefits for practicing physicians. “Age is very individualized and there are good and bad consequences,” he said. “Experience can build knowledge and confidence and expertise, and it does improve diagnostic accuracy.”
On the flip side, however, age-related brain changes include loss of volume and lower levels of some neurotransmitters, resulting in cognitive changes. “Functional changes occur too,” Dr. Ellison said.
“Just as some aging athletes may lose a degree of speed, strength, and flexibility, and some aging scientists may lose a part of their former cognitive speed, flexibility, and mental strength, aging health care providers can lose some of the physical coordination, strength, and visual acuity necessary to perform demanding surgical operations. They can also lose some of the processing speed, working memory, and executive function that allows them to excel in cognitive professional tasks.”
An estimated 5.8 million Americans age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.
Picking an arbitrary age for mandatory retirement isn’t the right approach for physicians, said Dr. Katlic. Rather, he said, the answer is to establish late-practitioner screening programs. “Very few hospitals have them, however,” he pointed out. “We do [at Lifebridge Health], and so do a few dozen others, but that’s out of hundreds.”
Instead, what typically plays out is that hospital staff might begin to notice a decline in a colleague. Things like a disheveled appearance or lack of hygiene, or trouble with memory, such as getting lost en route back to his or her office. Even dangerous behaviors such as nodding off during a procedure are not unheard of.
There are many examples of physician decline that fly under the radar. “Unfortunately, it’s unusual for cognitively impaired health care providers to recognize and report their own difficulties,” said Dr. Ellison. “Although peers are expected to report cognitively impaired colleagues, they often fail to do so. In some other countries, age-based assessment is an accepted policy. In the U.S., this is not a uniform policy.”
Sometimes physicians can remain on the job in spite of decline thanks to certain “props,” according to Dr. Ellison. “Good procedures, efficient supports, and various workarounds compensate,” he said, “but often are not sufficient to maintain high-quality practice.”
Most often, these situations play out slowly, until the problem becomes glaringly obvious and potentially dangerous, and someone in a position of power must step in.
“Often, it’s hearsay from a nurse or another staff member, and then a hospital president or chief of staff must make a career-affecting decision for the doctor in question,” said Dr. Katlic.
Because there is little self- or colleague policing – and barring official or binding guidelines on the aging physician issue – both Dr. Katlic and Dr. Ellison are proponents of late-career screening.
How screening can help
As it stands, Dr. Katlic maintains that the profession isn’t doing enough to ensure public safety. “We have peer review and recertification processes, but when you get down to it, we don’t police ourselves well,” he said. “All physicians are assessed throughout their careers as part of the hospital accreditation process, which is fair and adequate.”
Dr. Katlic said that there are three main benchmarks that physicians should be able to meet at an agreed upon age: a physical exam, a neurocognitive screening, and an eye exam. “At some reasonable age, I personally believe these exams should take place,” he said. “We can allow doctors to pick their own practitioners for the eye and physical exams, but the neurocognitive exam should be completed by a PhD neuropsychologist.”
At Lifebridge, for instance, these screenings begin at age 75 and take place every 2 years, during the recredentialing process. It applies to all specialties, not just surgeons. “Surgery is a little different in that it requires fine motor skills in addition to the others we test, but you want any physician to be cognitively intact,” Dr. Katlic pointed out. “All doctors need the ability to make decisions quickly, often under noisy, distracting conditions.”
Dr. Ellison supports applying the screenings to all specialties. “Let’s not forget that all physicians must be alert to the many ways in which their patients reveal what needs attention, evaluation, and treatment,” he said. “Some health care tasks could be performed without visual input; for example, perhaps psychotherapy could be provided competently by a clinician who lacks visual acuity. Auditory input might not be necessary for reading x-rays – but the information a health care provider gets from their eyes and ears is important, not just for surgeons.”
University of California San Diego has established what it calls its Physician Assessment and Clinical Education (PACE) program. One of the nation’s oldest and largest such programs, the hospital founded PACE in 1996. Most physicians taking part arrive as a requirement of disciplinary action from the state medical board, but a small percentage self-refers.
PACE involves two phases. The first is a 2-day set of tests and measures core competency knowledge. Phase 2 is more comprehensive and lasts 5 days. Here, within their specialty, physicians participate in the activities of the corresponding residency program. Faculty evaluates the physician, and a multidisciplinary team meets to review all the findings of the combined phases.
Depending on the results, doctors may face remediation steps that range from programs to address performance deficiencies to residency-level clinical experiences. According to a paper on the program published by the institution, “most physicians referred to the PACE program are found to have mild to moderate performance dyscompetence.”
In the case of the 2021 guidelines adopted by AMA delegates, there are nine principles for assessment. They should be evidence-based, ethical, relevant, accountable, fair and equitable, transparent, supportive, and nonburdensome, and should afford physicians due process protections.
Looking ahead
Even Dr. Katlic worries about the possibility of Congress intervening to establish federal-level, mandatory retirement age. “This just doesn’t make sense for our profession given the great variability we see,” he said. “My biggest hope is that more individual hospitals will institute these screenings.”
As the physician population ages – and the influx of new doctors shrinks – the slope becomes even more slippery. The AMA is predicting a physician shortage of nearly 40,000 by the year 2034. This strengthens arguments to keep existing physicians practicing for as long as possible and might make institutions less likely to screen.
It’s all a delicate balancing act and a continuing work in progress, said Dr. Ellison. “Ultimately, I believe we need to find a way to understand and address the possible implications for public safety, while at the same time protecting the privacy and dignity of our valued older physicians and other health care providers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Air traffic controllers face mandatory retirement at age 56, with exceptions up to 61. Commercial airline pilots must bow out at 65; same for foreign service employees. Physicians, however, have no age limit, regardless of specialty.
As the profession rapidly ages – some 30% of the physician workforce is currently a senior, according to the American Medical Association – the topic of whether or not there should be a standard measure or age for retirement is front and center. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education formed a workgroup to look into the issue in 2015 and 2018, and in 2021, delegates adopted a set of guidelines for screening and assessing physicians, but stopped short of a mandate.
Mark Katlic, MD, chair of surgery at Lifebridge Health System, Baltimore, has devoted a decade to studying this topic. “I’m a bit of an outlier looking into this,” he says. “The public is unaware and seemingly unconcerned about the issue. Even among the medical profession, there’s been a series of fits and starts to develop a cohesive approach.”
One of the reasons guidelines – mandatory or otherwise – have been tough to come by is that aging brings with it a huge degree of variability. “If you look at a group of 80-year-olds, there will be much more variability than within a group of 40-year-olds,” Dr. Katlic pointed out.
Indeed, some 80-year-olds can easily continue to teach college courses, keep up in 10K running races, or perform delicate surgeries. Yet others in their peer group might struggle to properly button a shirt, walk a flight of stairs, or remember yesterday’s meals. Functional age is not the same as chronological age.
Frank Stockdale, MD, PhD, an 86-year-old practicing oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) University Health, counts himself in the camp opposed to age-based assessments. “It’s age discrimination,” he says. “Physicians receive assessments throughout their careers as part of the accreditation process – there’s no need to change that as doctors reach a certain age.”
Dr. Stockdale suggests that in many cases, malpractice suits are filed against mid-career doctors, not those of advanced age. “If you’re using the argument that there is an accumulation of deficits with age, the fact is that those deficits begin well before your 70s,” he said. “It’s better to have a uniform screening policy and begin at a much younger age.”
At Stanford, in fact, there was a former assessment policy that included cognitive testing, but physicians were successful in seeing that portion of testing eliminated. “It is a physical examination, by a physician of choice, certifying that for the privileges requested there is no physical or mental reason the candidate cannot safely perform them,” Dr. Stockdale explained.
In some cases, medical staffs have filed lawsuits to fight age-related testing. In New Haven, Conn., for instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit in 2020 on behalf of the Yale New Haven Hospital staff, alleging a discriminatory “late career practitioner policy.”
A similar case in Minnesota reached a settlement in 2021, providing monetary relief to staff impacted by out-of-pocket costs for the assessment, in addition to requiring that the hospital in question report to the EEOC any complaints related to age discrimination.
James Ellison, MD, MPH, chair in Memory Care and Geriatrics with ChristianaCare in Wilmington, Del., points out that aging can bring benefits for practicing physicians. “Age is very individualized and there are good and bad consequences,” he said. “Experience can build knowledge and confidence and expertise, and it does improve diagnostic accuracy.”
On the flip side, however, age-related brain changes include loss of volume and lower levels of some neurotransmitters, resulting in cognitive changes. “Functional changes occur too,” Dr. Ellison said.
“Just as some aging athletes may lose a degree of speed, strength, and flexibility, and some aging scientists may lose a part of their former cognitive speed, flexibility, and mental strength, aging health care providers can lose some of the physical coordination, strength, and visual acuity necessary to perform demanding surgical operations. They can also lose some of the processing speed, working memory, and executive function that allows them to excel in cognitive professional tasks.”
An estimated 5.8 million Americans age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.
Picking an arbitrary age for mandatory retirement isn’t the right approach for physicians, said Dr. Katlic. Rather, he said, the answer is to establish late-practitioner screening programs. “Very few hospitals have them, however,” he pointed out. “We do [at Lifebridge Health], and so do a few dozen others, but that’s out of hundreds.”
Instead, what typically plays out is that hospital staff might begin to notice a decline in a colleague. Things like a disheveled appearance or lack of hygiene, or trouble with memory, such as getting lost en route back to his or her office. Even dangerous behaviors such as nodding off during a procedure are not unheard of.
There are many examples of physician decline that fly under the radar. “Unfortunately, it’s unusual for cognitively impaired health care providers to recognize and report their own difficulties,” said Dr. Ellison. “Although peers are expected to report cognitively impaired colleagues, they often fail to do so. In some other countries, age-based assessment is an accepted policy. In the U.S., this is not a uniform policy.”
Sometimes physicians can remain on the job in spite of decline thanks to certain “props,” according to Dr. Ellison. “Good procedures, efficient supports, and various workarounds compensate,” he said, “but often are not sufficient to maintain high-quality practice.”
Most often, these situations play out slowly, until the problem becomes glaringly obvious and potentially dangerous, and someone in a position of power must step in.
“Often, it’s hearsay from a nurse or another staff member, and then a hospital president or chief of staff must make a career-affecting decision for the doctor in question,” said Dr. Katlic.
Because there is little self- or colleague policing – and barring official or binding guidelines on the aging physician issue – both Dr. Katlic and Dr. Ellison are proponents of late-career screening.
How screening can help
As it stands, Dr. Katlic maintains that the profession isn’t doing enough to ensure public safety. “We have peer review and recertification processes, but when you get down to it, we don’t police ourselves well,” he said. “All physicians are assessed throughout their careers as part of the hospital accreditation process, which is fair and adequate.”
Dr. Katlic said that there are three main benchmarks that physicians should be able to meet at an agreed upon age: a physical exam, a neurocognitive screening, and an eye exam. “At some reasonable age, I personally believe these exams should take place,” he said. “We can allow doctors to pick their own practitioners for the eye and physical exams, but the neurocognitive exam should be completed by a PhD neuropsychologist.”
At Lifebridge, for instance, these screenings begin at age 75 and take place every 2 years, during the recredentialing process. It applies to all specialties, not just surgeons. “Surgery is a little different in that it requires fine motor skills in addition to the others we test, but you want any physician to be cognitively intact,” Dr. Katlic pointed out. “All doctors need the ability to make decisions quickly, often under noisy, distracting conditions.”
Dr. Ellison supports applying the screenings to all specialties. “Let’s not forget that all physicians must be alert to the many ways in which their patients reveal what needs attention, evaluation, and treatment,” he said. “Some health care tasks could be performed without visual input; for example, perhaps psychotherapy could be provided competently by a clinician who lacks visual acuity. Auditory input might not be necessary for reading x-rays – but the information a health care provider gets from their eyes and ears is important, not just for surgeons.”
University of California San Diego has established what it calls its Physician Assessment and Clinical Education (PACE) program. One of the nation’s oldest and largest such programs, the hospital founded PACE in 1996. Most physicians taking part arrive as a requirement of disciplinary action from the state medical board, but a small percentage self-refers.
PACE involves two phases. The first is a 2-day set of tests and measures core competency knowledge. Phase 2 is more comprehensive and lasts 5 days. Here, within their specialty, physicians participate in the activities of the corresponding residency program. Faculty evaluates the physician, and a multidisciplinary team meets to review all the findings of the combined phases.
Depending on the results, doctors may face remediation steps that range from programs to address performance deficiencies to residency-level clinical experiences. According to a paper on the program published by the institution, “most physicians referred to the PACE program are found to have mild to moderate performance dyscompetence.”
In the case of the 2021 guidelines adopted by AMA delegates, there are nine principles for assessment. They should be evidence-based, ethical, relevant, accountable, fair and equitable, transparent, supportive, and nonburdensome, and should afford physicians due process protections.
Looking ahead
Even Dr. Katlic worries about the possibility of Congress intervening to establish federal-level, mandatory retirement age. “This just doesn’t make sense for our profession given the great variability we see,” he said. “My biggest hope is that more individual hospitals will institute these screenings.”
As the physician population ages – and the influx of new doctors shrinks – the slope becomes even more slippery. The AMA is predicting a physician shortage of nearly 40,000 by the year 2034. This strengthens arguments to keep existing physicians practicing for as long as possible and might make institutions less likely to screen.
It’s all a delicate balancing act and a continuing work in progress, said Dr. Ellison. “Ultimately, I believe we need to find a way to understand and address the possible implications for public safety, while at the same time protecting the privacy and dignity of our valued older physicians and other health care providers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Air traffic controllers face mandatory retirement at age 56, with exceptions up to 61. Commercial airline pilots must bow out at 65; same for foreign service employees. Physicians, however, have no age limit, regardless of specialty.
As the profession rapidly ages – some 30% of the physician workforce is currently a senior, according to the American Medical Association – the topic of whether or not there should be a standard measure or age for retirement is front and center. The AMA’s Council on Medical Education formed a workgroup to look into the issue in 2015 and 2018, and in 2021, delegates adopted a set of guidelines for screening and assessing physicians, but stopped short of a mandate.
Mark Katlic, MD, chair of surgery at Lifebridge Health System, Baltimore, has devoted a decade to studying this topic. “I’m a bit of an outlier looking into this,” he says. “The public is unaware and seemingly unconcerned about the issue. Even among the medical profession, there’s been a series of fits and starts to develop a cohesive approach.”
One of the reasons guidelines – mandatory or otherwise – have been tough to come by is that aging brings with it a huge degree of variability. “If you look at a group of 80-year-olds, there will be much more variability than within a group of 40-year-olds,” Dr. Katlic pointed out.
Indeed, some 80-year-olds can easily continue to teach college courses, keep up in 10K running races, or perform delicate surgeries. Yet others in their peer group might struggle to properly button a shirt, walk a flight of stairs, or remember yesterday’s meals. Functional age is not the same as chronological age.
Frank Stockdale, MD, PhD, an 86-year-old practicing oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) University Health, counts himself in the camp opposed to age-based assessments. “It’s age discrimination,” he says. “Physicians receive assessments throughout their careers as part of the accreditation process – there’s no need to change that as doctors reach a certain age.”
Dr. Stockdale suggests that in many cases, malpractice suits are filed against mid-career doctors, not those of advanced age. “If you’re using the argument that there is an accumulation of deficits with age, the fact is that those deficits begin well before your 70s,” he said. “It’s better to have a uniform screening policy and begin at a much younger age.”
At Stanford, in fact, there was a former assessment policy that included cognitive testing, but physicians were successful in seeing that portion of testing eliminated. “It is a physical examination, by a physician of choice, certifying that for the privileges requested there is no physical or mental reason the candidate cannot safely perform them,” Dr. Stockdale explained.
In some cases, medical staffs have filed lawsuits to fight age-related testing. In New Haven, Conn., for instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit in 2020 on behalf of the Yale New Haven Hospital staff, alleging a discriminatory “late career practitioner policy.”
A similar case in Minnesota reached a settlement in 2021, providing monetary relief to staff impacted by out-of-pocket costs for the assessment, in addition to requiring that the hospital in question report to the EEOC any complaints related to age discrimination.
James Ellison, MD, MPH, chair in Memory Care and Geriatrics with ChristianaCare in Wilmington, Del., points out that aging can bring benefits for practicing physicians. “Age is very individualized and there are good and bad consequences,” he said. “Experience can build knowledge and confidence and expertise, and it does improve diagnostic accuracy.”
On the flip side, however, age-related brain changes include loss of volume and lower levels of some neurotransmitters, resulting in cognitive changes. “Functional changes occur too,” Dr. Ellison said.
“Just as some aging athletes may lose a degree of speed, strength, and flexibility, and some aging scientists may lose a part of their former cognitive speed, flexibility, and mental strength, aging health care providers can lose some of the physical coordination, strength, and visual acuity necessary to perform demanding surgical operations. They can also lose some of the processing speed, working memory, and executive function that allows them to excel in cognitive professional tasks.”
An estimated 5.8 million Americans age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.
Picking an arbitrary age for mandatory retirement isn’t the right approach for physicians, said Dr. Katlic. Rather, he said, the answer is to establish late-practitioner screening programs. “Very few hospitals have them, however,” he pointed out. “We do [at Lifebridge Health], and so do a few dozen others, but that’s out of hundreds.”
Instead, what typically plays out is that hospital staff might begin to notice a decline in a colleague. Things like a disheveled appearance or lack of hygiene, or trouble with memory, such as getting lost en route back to his or her office. Even dangerous behaviors such as nodding off during a procedure are not unheard of.
There are many examples of physician decline that fly under the radar. “Unfortunately, it’s unusual for cognitively impaired health care providers to recognize and report their own difficulties,” said Dr. Ellison. “Although peers are expected to report cognitively impaired colleagues, they often fail to do so. In some other countries, age-based assessment is an accepted policy. In the U.S., this is not a uniform policy.”
Sometimes physicians can remain on the job in spite of decline thanks to certain “props,” according to Dr. Ellison. “Good procedures, efficient supports, and various workarounds compensate,” he said, “but often are not sufficient to maintain high-quality practice.”
Most often, these situations play out slowly, until the problem becomes glaringly obvious and potentially dangerous, and someone in a position of power must step in.
“Often, it’s hearsay from a nurse or another staff member, and then a hospital president or chief of staff must make a career-affecting decision for the doctor in question,” said Dr. Katlic.
Because there is little self- or colleague policing – and barring official or binding guidelines on the aging physician issue – both Dr. Katlic and Dr. Ellison are proponents of late-career screening.
How screening can help
As it stands, Dr. Katlic maintains that the profession isn’t doing enough to ensure public safety. “We have peer review and recertification processes, but when you get down to it, we don’t police ourselves well,” he said. “All physicians are assessed throughout their careers as part of the hospital accreditation process, which is fair and adequate.”
Dr. Katlic said that there are three main benchmarks that physicians should be able to meet at an agreed upon age: a physical exam, a neurocognitive screening, and an eye exam. “At some reasonable age, I personally believe these exams should take place,” he said. “We can allow doctors to pick their own practitioners for the eye and physical exams, but the neurocognitive exam should be completed by a PhD neuropsychologist.”
At Lifebridge, for instance, these screenings begin at age 75 and take place every 2 years, during the recredentialing process. It applies to all specialties, not just surgeons. “Surgery is a little different in that it requires fine motor skills in addition to the others we test, but you want any physician to be cognitively intact,” Dr. Katlic pointed out. “All doctors need the ability to make decisions quickly, often under noisy, distracting conditions.”
Dr. Ellison supports applying the screenings to all specialties. “Let’s not forget that all physicians must be alert to the many ways in which their patients reveal what needs attention, evaluation, and treatment,” he said. “Some health care tasks could be performed without visual input; for example, perhaps psychotherapy could be provided competently by a clinician who lacks visual acuity. Auditory input might not be necessary for reading x-rays – but the information a health care provider gets from their eyes and ears is important, not just for surgeons.”
University of California San Diego has established what it calls its Physician Assessment and Clinical Education (PACE) program. One of the nation’s oldest and largest such programs, the hospital founded PACE in 1996. Most physicians taking part arrive as a requirement of disciplinary action from the state medical board, but a small percentage self-refers.
PACE involves two phases. The first is a 2-day set of tests and measures core competency knowledge. Phase 2 is more comprehensive and lasts 5 days. Here, within their specialty, physicians participate in the activities of the corresponding residency program. Faculty evaluates the physician, and a multidisciplinary team meets to review all the findings of the combined phases.
Depending on the results, doctors may face remediation steps that range from programs to address performance deficiencies to residency-level clinical experiences. According to a paper on the program published by the institution, “most physicians referred to the PACE program are found to have mild to moderate performance dyscompetence.”
In the case of the 2021 guidelines adopted by AMA delegates, there are nine principles for assessment. They should be evidence-based, ethical, relevant, accountable, fair and equitable, transparent, supportive, and nonburdensome, and should afford physicians due process protections.
Looking ahead
Even Dr. Katlic worries about the possibility of Congress intervening to establish federal-level, mandatory retirement age. “This just doesn’t make sense for our profession given the great variability we see,” he said. “My biggest hope is that more individual hospitals will institute these screenings.”
As the physician population ages – and the influx of new doctors shrinks – the slope becomes even more slippery. The AMA is predicting a physician shortage of nearly 40,000 by the year 2034. This strengthens arguments to keep existing physicians practicing for as long as possible and might make institutions less likely to screen.
It’s all a delicate balancing act and a continuing work in progress, said Dr. Ellison. “Ultimately, I believe we need to find a way to understand and address the possible implications for public safety, while at the same time protecting the privacy and dignity of our valued older physicians and other health care providers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Are free lunches back? Docs start seeing drug reps again
In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.
But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”
The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”
Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.
As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”
Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.
Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma.
The post-COVID paradigm shift
The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”
“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”
The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”
Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”
But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.
Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.
“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”
More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”
Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
Restrictions on drug reps became tighter
In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.
The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.
However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.
But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”
The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”
Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.
As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”
Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.
Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma.
The post-COVID paradigm shift
The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”
“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”
The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”
Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”
But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.
Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.
“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”
More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”
Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
Restrictions on drug reps became tighter
In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.
The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.
However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.
But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”
The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”
Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.
As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”
Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.
Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma.
The post-COVID paradigm shift
The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”
“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”
The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”
Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”
But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.
Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.
“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”
More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”
Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
Restrictions on drug reps became tighter
In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.
The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.
However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Aaron Rodgers’s Panchakarma ‘cleanse’ is a dangerous play
Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently made headlines when he said he finished a 12-day detoxification process that is said to cleanse the body from within.
Registered dietitians who spoke to this news organizastion about the Panchakarma cleanse were quick to debunk it.
“There is no scientific evidence that supports a cleanse,” says Jessica DeGore, a registered dietitian and owner of Pittsburgh-based Dietitian Jess. “Our kidneys, GI systems, and liver all work to keep us healthy and rid us of toxins.”
The Panchakarma cleanse has roots in the ancient Indian alternative medicine approach known as ayurveda. Its 12-day approach includes such actions as self-induced vomiting; enemas; “nasya,” which means eliminating toxins through the nose; and even bloodletting in an effort to “detoxify” the blood.
All of it is misguided, says Alyssa Pike, a registered dietitian and senior manager of nutrition communications at the International Food Information Council.
“Certainly, there are medical procedures that require a fast of some kind for an extended period, and some choose to engage in a fast for religious or spiritual reasons,” she says, “but those are both very different from doing a voluntary ‘cleanse’ or ‘detox’ diet for purported health benefits.”
In fact, the idea that our bodies are full of “toxins” is simply incorrect.
“There isn’t a real medical definition of the word ‘toxins,’” says Ms. DeGore. “If you really had toxins in your body, you’d need emergency medical care, not a cleanse.”
Harmful advice
The entire notion of cleansing, whether Mr. Rodgers’s favored method or another, has gathered steam in the past few decades as celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow peddle their favored methods for health.
“It’s easy for people to buy into these ideas when they see beautiful celebrities touting their methods for taking care of themselves,” says Ms. DeGore. “But behind the scenes, they receive support we can’t see or access to keep them well.”
Fans of Mr. Rodgers, Ms. Paltrow, and the like easily forget that these public figures have no medical credentials to support what they are pushing. And the celebrities often profit from their claims in the form of books and products related to them, leaving them anything but an unbiased resource.
In the case of Mr. Rodgers’s Panchakarma cleanse, there are real health risks in following its principles, says registered dietitian nutritionist Tiffany Godwin, director of nutrition and wellness at Connections Wellness Group.
“From a medical standpoint, engaging in activities such as induced vomiting, forced diarrhea, and enema use pose a high risk of extreme dehydration,” she says. “Dehydration can lead to fatigue, headaches, and dizziness at best. At worst, it can lead to seizures, kidney failure, coma, and death.”
Also, a cleanse that is designed to rid your body of toxins may introduce them to your body if you are using herbal medicines.
“Some of the products used in ayurvedic medicine contain herbs, metals, minerals, or other materials that may be harmful if used improperly,” Ms. Pike explains. “Ayurvedic medicines are regulated as dietary supplements rather than as drugs in the United States, so they are not required to meet the safety and efficacy standards for conventional medicines.”
When it comes to ayurveda, which is based on ancient writings that rely on a “natural” or holistic approach to physical and mental health, there is scant research or clinical trials in Western medical journals to support the approach. So people interested in following the practices should always consult with a doctor before trying them.
Mr. Rodgers’s approach includes a “nasal herbal remedy,” for instance.
“Tread very lightly with herbs and supplements,” advises Ms. DeGore. “We have the FDA to put drugs through a rigorous process before they approve them. These supplements are unregulated and don’t go through the same processes.”
Another danger is that when “cleansing,” you are starving your body of the nutrients it needs.
“When we vomit, or have diarrhea, we are not simply losing a mass amount of fluid from our bodies, but we are also losing essential electrolytes and minerals,” says Ms. Godwin.
Instead, say the registered dietitians, you can help your body by feeding it what it really needs.
“Eating plenty of fiber-rich foods such as fruits, veggies, beans, legumes, and whole grains, for example, keeps our GI tract moving and grooving, creating an ideal environment for our gut to use the useful things, and get rid of the not so useful,” says Ms. Godwin. “These systems can be compromised in different disease states, such as liver disease, kidney disease, and other GI disorders like Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis. With these disease states, however, cleanses can be even more harmful.”
Cleansing practices can also be a very slippery slope for people struggling with disordered eating.
“When celebrities promote these cleanses, they often bring in impressionable people,” says Ms. DeGore. “These approaches are stripping your body of nutritional needs and inducing disruptive behaviors. Ironically, they will slow down your metabolism, eventually leading to weight gain when you return to normal eating.”
With the Panchakarma cleanse, the 12-day length of cleansing is particularly alarming, says Ms. DeGore.
“Even after 5 days, you cannot think clearly and will have nasty side effects,” she says.
At the end of the day, whether it’s Mr. Rodgers, Ms. Paltrow, or another celebrity, all of the dietitians recommend steering clear of their advice when it comes to health and nutrition.
“Be wary of celebrities, influencers, or anyone who tries to persuade you to try an extreme cleanse or ‘too good to be true’ diet,” says Ms. Pike. “These can be dangerous for your health, physically and mentally.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently made headlines when he said he finished a 12-day detoxification process that is said to cleanse the body from within.
Registered dietitians who spoke to this news organizastion about the Panchakarma cleanse were quick to debunk it.
“There is no scientific evidence that supports a cleanse,” says Jessica DeGore, a registered dietitian and owner of Pittsburgh-based Dietitian Jess. “Our kidneys, GI systems, and liver all work to keep us healthy and rid us of toxins.”
The Panchakarma cleanse has roots in the ancient Indian alternative medicine approach known as ayurveda. Its 12-day approach includes such actions as self-induced vomiting; enemas; “nasya,” which means eliminating toxins through the nose; and even bloodletting in an effort to “detoxify” the blood.
All of it is misguided, says Alyssa Pike, a registered dietitian and senior manager of nutrition communications at the International Food Information Council.
“Certainly, there are medical procedures that require a fast of some kind for an extended period, and some choose to engage in a fast for religious or spiritual reasons,” she says, “but those are both very different from doing a voluntary ‘cleanse’ or ‘detox’ diet for purported health benefits.”
In fact, the idea that our bodies are full of “toxins” is simply incorrect.
“There isn’t a real medical definition of the word ‘toxins,’” says Ms. DeGore. “If you really had toxins in your body, you’d need emergency medical care, not a cleanse.”
Harmful advice
The entire notion of cleansing, whether Mr. Rodgers’s favored method or another, has gathered steam in the past few decades as celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow peddle their favored methods for health.
“It’s easy for people to buy into these ideas when they see beautiful celebrities touting their methods for taking care of themselves,” says Ms. DeGore. “But behind the scenes, they receive support we can’t see or access to keep them well.”
Fans of Mr. Rodgers, Ms. Paltrow, and the like easily forget that these public figures have no medical credentials to support what they are pushing. And the celebrities often profit from their claims in the form of books and products related to them, leaving them anything but an unbiased resource.
In the case of Mr. Rodgers’s Panchakarma cleanse, there are real health risks in following its principles, says registered dietitian nutritionist Tiffany Godwin, director of nutrition and wellness at Connections Wellness Group.
“From a medical standpoint, engaging in activities such as induced vomiting, forced diarrhea, and enema use pose a high risk of extreme dehydration,” she says. “Dehydration can lead to fatigue, headaches, and dizziness at best. At worst, it can lead to seizures, kidney failure, coma, and death.”
Also, a cleanse that is designed to rid your body of toxins may introduce them to your body if you are using herbal medicines.
“Some of the products used in ayurvedic medicine contain herbs, metals, minerals, or other materials that may be harmful if used improperly,” Ms. Pike explains. “Ayurvedic medicines are regulated as dietary supplements rather than as drugs in the United States, so they are not required to meet the safety and efficacy standards for conventional medicines.”
When it comes to ayurveda, which is based on ancient writings that rely on a “natural” or holistic approach to physical and mental health, there is scant research or clinical trials in Western medical journals to support the approach. So people interested in following the practices should always consult with a doctor before trying them.
Mr. Rodgers’s approach includes a “nasal herbal remedy,” for instance.
“Tread very lightly with herbs and supplements,” advises Ms. DeGore. “We have the FDA to put drugs through a rigorous process before they approve them. These supplements are unregulated and don’t go through the same processes.”
Another danger is that when “cleansing,” you are starving your body of the nutrients it needs.
“When we vomit, or have diarrhea, we are not simply losing a mass amount of fluid from our bodies, but we are also losing essential electrolytes and minerals,” says Ms. Godwin.
Instead, say the registered dietitians, you can help your body by feeding it what it really needs.
“Eating plenty of fiber-rich foods such as fruits, veggies, beans, legumes, and whole grains, for example, keeps our GI tract moving and grooving, creating an ideal environment for our gut to use the useful things, and get rid of the not so useful,” says Ms. Godwin. “These systems can be compromised in different disease states, such as liver disease, kidney disease, and other GI disorders like Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis. With these disease states, however, cleanses can be even more harmful.”
Cleansing practices can also be a very slippery slope for people struggling with disordered eating.
“When celebrities promote these cleanses, they often bring in impressionable people,” says Ms. DeGore. “These approaches are stripping your body of nutritional needs and inducing disruptive behaviors. Ironically, they will slow down your metabolism, eventually leading to weight gain when you return to normal eating.”
With the Panchakarma cleanse, the 12-day length of cleansing is particularly alarming, says Ms. DeGore.
“Even after 5 days, you cannot think clearly and will have nasty side effects,” she says.
At the end of the day, whether it’s Mr. Rodgers, Ms. Paltrow, or another celebrity, all of the dietitians recommend steering clear of their advice when it comes to health and nutrition.
“Be wary of celebrities, influencers, or anyone who tries to persuade you to try an extreme cleanse or ‘too good to be true’ diet,” says Ms. Pike. “These can be dangerous for your health, physically and mentally.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently made headlines when he said he finished a 12-day detoxification process that is said to cleanse the body from within.
Registered dietitians who spoke to this news organizastion about the Panchakarma cleanse were quick to debunk it.
“There is no scientific evidence that supports a cleanse,” says Jessica DeGore, a registered dietitian and owner of Pittsburgh-based Dietitian Jess. “Our kidneys, GI systems, and liver all work to keep us healthy and rid us of toxins.”
The Panchakarma cleanse has roots in the ancient Indian alternative medicine approach known as ayurveda. Its 12-day approach includes such actions as self-induced vomiting; enemas; “nasya,” which means eliminating toxins through the nose; and even bloodletting in an effort to “detoxify” the blood.
All of it is misguided, says Alyssa Pike, a registered dietitian and senior manager of nutrition communications at the International Food Information Council.
“Certainly, there are medical procedures that require a fast of some kind for an extended period, and some choose to engage in a fast for religious or spiritual reasons,” she says, “but those are both very different from doing a voluntary ‘cleanse’ or ‘detox’ diet for purported health benefits.”
In fact, the idea that our bodies are full of “toxins” is simply incorrect.
“There isn’t a real medical definition of the word ‘toxins,’” says Ms. DeGore. “If you really had toxins in your body, you’d need emergency medical care, not a cleanse.”
Harmful advice
The entire notion of cleansing, whether Mr. Rodgers’s favored method or another, has gathered steam in the past few decades as celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow peddle their favored methods for health.
“It’s easy for people to buy into these ideas when they see beautiful celebrities touting their methods for taking care of themselves,” says Ms. DeGore. “But behind the scenes, they receive support we can’t see or access to keep them well.”
Fans of Mr. Rodgers, Ms. Paltrow, and the like easily forget that these public figures have no medical credentials to support what they are pushing. And the celebrities often profit from their claims in the form of books and products related to them, leaving them anything but an unbiased resource.
In the case of Mr. Rodgers’s Panchakarma cleanse, there are real health risks in following its principles, says registered dietitian nutritionist Tiffany Godwin, director of nutrition and wellness at Connections Wellness Group.
“From a medical standpoint, engaging in activities such as induced vomiting, forced diarrhea, and enema use pose a high risk of extreme dehydration,” she says. “Dehydration can lead to fatigue, headaches, and dizziness at best. At worst, it can lead to seizures, kidney failure, coma, and death.”
Also, a cleanse that is designed to rid your body of toxins may introduce them to your body if you are using herbal medicines.
“Some of the products used in ayurvedic medicine contain herbs, metals, minerals, or other materials that may be harmful if used improperly,” Ms. Pike explains. “Ayurvedic medicines are regulated as dietary supplements rather than as drugs in the United States, so they are not required to meet the safety and efficacy standards for conventional medicines.”
When it comes to ayurveda, which is based on ancient writings that rely on a “natural” or holistic approach to physical and mental health, there is scant research or clinical trials in Western medical journals to support the approach. So people interested in following the practices should always consult with a doctor before trying them.
Mr. Rodgers’s approach includes a “nasal herbal remedy,” for instance.
“Tread very lightly with herbs and supplements,” advises Ms. DeGore. “We have the FDA to put drugs through a rigorous process before they approve them. These supplements are unregulated and don’t go through the same processes.”
Another danger is that when “cleansing,” you are starving your body of the nutrients it needs.
“When we vomit, or have diarrhea, we are not simply losing a mass amount of fluid from our bodies, but we are also losing essential electrolytes and minerals,” says Ms. Godwin.
Instead, say the registered dietitians, you can help your body by feeding it what it really needs.
“Eating plenty of fiber-rich foods such as fruits, veggies, beans, legumes, and whole grains, for example, keeps our GI tract moving and grooving, creating an ideal environment for our gut to use the useful things, and get rid of the not so useful,” says Ms. Godwin. “These systems can be compromised in different disease states, such as liver disease, kidney disease, and other GI disorders like Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis. With these disease states, however, cleanses can be even more harmful.”
Cleansing practices can also be a very slippery slope for people struggling with disordered eating.
“When celebrities promote these cleanses, they often bring in impressionable people,” says Ms. DeGore. “These approaches are stripping your body of nutritional needs and inducing disruptive behaviors. Ironically, they will slow down your metabolism, eventually leading to weight gain when you return to normal eating.”
With the Panchakarma cleanse, the 12-day length of cleansing is particularly alarming, says Ms. DeGore.
“Even after 5 days, you cannot think clearly and will have nasty side effects,” she says.
At the end of the day, whether it’s Mr. Rodgers, Ms. Paltrow, or another celebrity, all of the dietitians recommend steering clear of their advice when it comes to health and nutrition.
“Be wary of celebrities, influencers, or anyone who tries to persuade you to try an extreme cleanse or ‘too good to be true’ diet,” says Ms. Pike. “These can be dangerous for your health, physically and mentally.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Patient whips out smartphone and starts recording: Trouble ahead?
Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.
Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.
With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?
These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.
The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.
In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”
While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”
It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.
“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”
Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.
Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”
The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.”
There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
The age of video and telehealth
What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.
Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”
He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”
Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”
In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”
COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
How taping can help patients
Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.
“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”
Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.
This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
For better or worse
Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”
Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”
To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”
In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”
Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?”
More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.
Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.
With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?
These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.
The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.
In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”
While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”
It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.
“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”
Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.
Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”
The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.”
There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
The age of video and telehealth
What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.
Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”
He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”
Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”
In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”
COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
How taping can help patients
Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.
“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”
Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.
This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
For better or worse
Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”
Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”
To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”
In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”
Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?”
More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.
Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.
With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?
These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.
The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.
In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”
While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”
It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.
“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”
Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.
Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”
The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.”
There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
The age of video and telehealth
What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.
Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”
He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”
Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”
In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”
COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
How taping can help patients
Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.
“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”
Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.
This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
For better or worse
Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”
Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”
To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”
In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”
Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?”
More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SHM Pediatric Core Competencies get fresh update
New core competencies reflect a decade of change
Over the past 10 years, much has changed in the world of pediatric hospital medicine. The annual national PHM conference sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Academic Pediatric Association (APA) is robust; textbooks and journal articles in the field abound; and networks and training in research, quality improvement, and education are successful and ongoing.
Much of this did not exist or was in its infancy back in 2010. Since then, it has grown and greatly evolved. In parallel, medicine and society have changed. These influences on health care, along with the growth of the field over time, prompted a review and revision of the 2010 PHM Core Competencies published by SHM. With support from the society, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Special Interest Group launched the plan for revision of the PHM Core Competencies.
The selected editors included Sandra Gage, MD, PhD, SFHM, of Phoenix Children’s Hospital; Erin Stucky Fisher, MD, MHM, of UCSD/Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego; Jennifer Maniscalco, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Sofia Teferi, MD, SFHM, a pediatric hospitalist based at Bon Secours St. Mary’s Hospital in Richmond, Va. They began their work in 2017 along with six associate editors, meeting every 2 weeks via conference call, dividing the work accordingly.
Dr. Teferi served in a new and critical role as contributing editor. She described her role as a “sweeper” of sorts, bringing her unique perspective to the process. “The other three members are from academic settings, and I’m from a community setting, which is very different,” Dr. Teferi said. “I went through all the chapters to ensure they were inclusive of the community setting.”
According to Dr. Gage, “the purpose of the original PHM Core Competencies was to define the roles and responsibilities of a PHM practitioner. In the intervening 10 years, the field has changed and matured, and we have solidified our role since then.”
Today’s pediatric hospitalists, for instance, may coordinate care in EDs, provide inpatient consultations, engage or lead quality improvement programs, and teach. The demands for pediatric hospital care today go beyond the training provided in a standard pediatric residency. The core competencies need to provide the information necessary, therefore, to ensure pediatric hospital medicine is practiced at its most informed level.
A profession transformed
At the time of the first set of core competencies, there were over 2,500 members in three core societies in which pediatric hospitalists were members: the AAP, the APA, and SHM. As of 2017, those numbers have swelled as the care for children in the hospital setting has shifted away from these patients’ primary care providers.
The original core competencies included 54 chapters, designed to be used independent of the others. They provided a foundation for the creation of pediatric hospital medicine and served to standardize and improve inpatient training practices.
For the new core competencies, every single chapter was reviewed line by line, Dr. Gage said. Many chapters had content modified, and new chapters were added to reflect the evolution of the field and of medicine. “We added about 14 new chapters, adjusted the titles of others, and significantly changed the content of over half,” Dr. Gage explained. “They are fairly broad changes, related to the breadth of the practice today.”
Dr. Teferi noted that practitioners can use the updated competencies with additions to the service lines that have arisen since the last version. “These include areas like step down and newborn nursery, things that weren’t part of our portfolio 10 years ago,” she said. “This reflects the fact that often you’ll see a hospital leader who might want to add to a hospitalist’s portfolio of services because there is no one else to do it. Or maybe community pediatrics no longer want to treat babies, so we add that. The settings vary widely today and we need the competencies to address that.”
Practices within these settings can also vary widely. Teaching, palliative care, airway management, critical care, and anesthesia may all come into play, among other factors. Research opportunities throughout the field also continue to expand.
Dr. Fisher said that the editors and associate editors kept in mind the fact that not every hospital would have all the resources necessary at its fingertips. “The competencies must reflect the realities of the variety of community settings,” she said. “Also, on a national level, the majority of pediatric patients are not seen in a children’s hospital. Community sites are where pediatric hospitalists are not only advocates for care, but can be working with limited resources – the ‘lone soldiers.’ We wanted to make sure the competencies reflect that reality and environment community site or not; academic site or not; tertiary care site or not; rural or not – these are overlapping but independent considerations for all who practice pediatric hospital medicine – a Venn diagram, and the PHM core competencies try to attend to all of those.”
This made Dr. Teferi’s perspective all the more important. “While many, including other editors and associate editors, work in community sites, Dr. Teferi has this as her unique and sole focus. She brought a unique viewpoint to the table,” Dr. Fisher said.
A goal of the core competencies is to make it possible for a pediatric hospitalist to move to a different practice environment and still provide the same level of high-quality care. “It’s difficult but important to grasp the concepts and competencies of various settings,” Dr. Fisher said. “In this way, our competencies are a parallel model to the adult hospitalist competencies.”
The editors surveyed practitioners across the country to gather their input on content, and brought on topic experts to write the new chapters. “If we didn’t have an author for a specific chapter or area from the last set of competencies, we came to a consensus on who the new one should be,” Dr. Gage explained. “We looked for known and accepted experts in the field by reviewing the literature and conference lecturers at all major PHM meetings.”
Once the editors and associate editors worked with authors to refine their chapter(s), the chapters were sent to multiple external reviewers including subgroups of SHM, AAP, and APA, as well as a variety of other associations. They provided input that the editors and associate editors collated, reviewed, and incorporated according to consensus and discussion with the authors.
A preview
As far as the actual changes go, some of new chapters include four common clinical, two core skills, three specialized services, and five health care systems, with many others undergoing content changes, according to Dr. Gage.
Major considerations in developing the new competencies include the national trend of rising mental health issues among young patients. According to the AAP, over the last decade the number of young people aged 6-17 years requiring mental health care has risen from 9% to more than 14%. In outpatient settings, many pediatricians report that half or more of their visits are dedicated to these issues, a number that may spill out into the hospital setting as well.
According to Dr. Fisher, pediatric hospitalists today see increasing numbers of chronic and acute diseases accompanied by mental and behavioral health issues. “We wanted to underscore this complexity in the competencies,” she explained. “We needed to focus new attention on how to identify and treat children with behavioral or psychiatric diagnoses or needs.”
Other new areas of focus include infection care and antimicrobial stewardship. “We see kids on antibiotics in hospital settings and we need to focus on narrowing choices, decreasing use, and shortening duration,” Dr. Gage said.
Dr. Maniscalco said that, overall, the changes represent the evolution of the field. “Pediatric hospitalists are taking on far more patients with acute and complex issues,” she explained. “Our skill set is coming into focus.”
Dr. Gage added that there is an increased need for pediatric hospitalists to be adept at “managing acute psychiatric care and navigating the mental health care arena.”
There’s also the growing need for an understanding of neonatal abstinence and opioid withdrawal syndrome. “This is definitely a hot topic and one that most hospitalists must address today,” Dr. Gage said. “That wasn’t the case a decade ago.”
Hospital care for pediatrics today often means a team effort, including pediatric hospitalists, surgeons, mental health professionals, and others. Often missing from the picture today are primary care physicians, who instead refer a growing percentage of their patients to hospitalists. The pediatric hospitalist’s role has evolved and grown from what it was 10 years ago, as reflected in the competencies.
“We are very much coordinating care and collaborating today in ways we weren’t 10 years ago,” said Dr. Gage. “There’s a lot more attention on creating partnerships. While we may not always be the ones performing procedures, we will most likely take part in patient care, especially as surgeons step farther away from care outside of the OR.”
The field has also become more family centered, said Dr. Gage. “All of health care today is more astute about the participation of families in care,” she said. “We kept that in mind in developing the competencies.”
Also important in this set of competencies was the concept of high-value care using evidence-based medicine.
Into the field
How exactly the core competencies will be utilized from one hospital or setting to the next will vary, said Dr. Fisher. “For some sites, they can aid existing teaching programs, and they will most likely adapt their curriculum to address the new competencies, informing how they teach.”
Even in centers where there isn’t a formal academic role, teaching still occurs. “Pediatric hospitalists have roles on committees and projects, and giving a talk to respiratory therapists, having group meetings – these all involve teaching in some form,” Dr. Fisher said. “Most physicians will determine how they wish to insert the competencies into their own education, as well as use them to educate others.”
Regardless of how they may be used locally, Dr. Fisher anticipates that the entire pediatric hospitalist community will appreciate the updates. “The competencies address our rapidly changing health care environment,” she said. “We believe the field will benefit from the additions and changes.”
Indeed, the core competencies will help standardize and improve consistency of care across the board. Improved efficiencies, economics, and practices are all desired and expected outcomes from the release of the revised competencies.
To ensure that the changes to the competencies are highlighted in settings nationwide, the editors and associate editors hope to present about them at upcoming conferences, including at the SHM 2020 Annual Conference, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine conference, the Pediatric Academic Societies conference, and the American Pediatric Association.
“We want to present to as many venues as possible to bring people up to speed and ensure they are aware of the changes,” Dr. Teferi said. “We’ll be including workshops with visual aids, along with our presentations.”
While this update represents a 10-year evolution, the editors and the SHM Pediatric Special Interest Group do not have an exact time frame for when the core competencies will need another revision. As quickly as the profession is developing, it may be as few as 5 years, but may also be another full decade.
“Like most fields, we will continue to evolve as our roles become better defined and we gain more knowledge,” Dr. Maniscalco said. “The core competencies represent the field whether a senior pediatric hospitalist, a fellow, or an educator. They bring the field together and provide education for everyone. That’s their role.”
New core competencies reflect a decade of change
New core competencies reflect a decade of change
Over the past 10 years, much has changed in the world of pediatric hospital medicine. The annual national PHM conference sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Academic Pediatric Association (APA) is robust; textbooks and journal articles in the field abound; and networks and training in research, quality improvement, and education are successful and ongoing.
Much of this did not exist or was in its infancy back in 2010. Since then, it has grown and greatly evolved. In parallel, medicine and society have changed. These influences on health care, along with the growth of the field over time, prompted a review and revision of the 2010 PHM Core Competencies published by SHM. With support from the society, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Special Interest Group launched the plan for revision of the PHM Core Competencies.
The selected editors included Sandra Gage, MD, PhD, SFHM, of Phoenix Children’s Hospital; Erin Stucky Fisher, MD, MHM, of UCSD/Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego; Jennifer Maniscalco, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Sofia Teferi, MD, SFHM, a pediatric hospitalist based at Bon Secours St. Mary’s Hospital in Richmond, Va. They began their work in 2017 along with six associate editors, meeting every 2 weeks via conference call, dividing the work accordingly.
Dr. Teferi served in a new and critical role as contributing editor. She described her role as a “sweeper” of sorts, bringing her unique perspective to the process. “The other three members are from academic settings, and I’m from a community setting, which is very different,” Dr. Teferi said. “I went through all the chapters to ensure they were inclusive of the community setting.”
According to Dr. Gage, “the purpose of the original PHM Core Competencies was to define the roles and responsibilities of a PHM practitioner. In the intervening 10 years, the field has changed and matured, and we have solidified our role since then.”
Today’s pediatric hospitalists, for instance, may coordinate care in EDs, provide inpatient consultations, engage or lead quality improvement programs, and teach. The demands for pediatric hospital care today go beyond the training provided in a standard pediatric residency. The core competencies need to provide the information necessary, therefore, to ensure pediatric hospital medicine is practiced at its most informed level.
A profession transformed
At the time of the first set of core competencies, there were over 2,500 members in three core societies in which pediatric hospitalists were members: the AAP, the APA, and SHM. As of 2017, those numbers have swelled as the care for children in the hospital setting has shifted away from these patients’ primary care providers.
The original core competencies included 54 chapters, designed to be used independent of the others. They provided a foundation for the creation of pediatric hospital medicine and served to standardize and improve inpatient training practices.
For the new core competencies, every single chapter was reviewed line by line, Dr. Gage said. Many chapters had content modified, and new chapters were added to reflect the evolution of the field and of medicine. “We added about 14 new chapters, adjusted the titles of others, and significantly changed the content of over half,” Dr. Gage explained. “They are fairly broad changes, related to the breadth of the practice today.”
Dr. Teferi noted that practitioners can use the updated competencies with additions to the service lines that have arisen since the last version. “These include areas like step down and newborn nursery, things that weren’t part of our portfolio 10 years ago,” she said. “This reflects the fact that often you’ll see a hospital leader who might want to add to a hospitalist’s portfolio of services because there is no one else to do it. Or maybe community pediatrics no longer want to treat babies, so we add that. The settings vary widely today and we need the competencies to address that.”
Practices within these settings can also vary widely. Teaching, palliative care, airway management, critical care, and anesthesia may all come into play, among other factors. Research opportunities throughout the field also continue to expand.
Dr. Fisher said that the editors and associate editors kept in mind the fact that not every hospital would have all the resources necessary at its fingertips. “The competencies must reflect the realities of the variety of community settings,” she said. “Also, on a national level, the majority of pediatric patients are not seen in a children’s hospital. Community sites are where pediatric hospitalists are not only advocates for care, but can be working with limited resources – the ‘lone soldiers.’ We wanted to make sure the competencies reflect that reality and environment community site or not; academic site or not; tertiary care site or not; rural or not – these are overlapping but independent considerations for all who practice pediatric hospital medicine – a Venn diagram, and the PHM core competencies try to attend to all of those.”
This made Dr. Teferi’s perspective all the more important. “While many, including other editors and associate editors, work in community sites, Dr. Teferi has this as her unique and sole focus. She brought a unique viewpoint to the table,” Dr. Fisher said.
A goal of the core competencies is to make it possible for a pediatric hospitalist to move to a different practice environment and still provide the same level of high-quality care. “It’s difficult but important to grasp the concepts and competencies of various settings,” Dr. Fisher said. “In this way, our competencies are a parallel model to the adult hospitalist competencies.”
The editors surveyed practitioners across the country to gather their input on content, and brought on topic experts to write the new chapters. “If we didn’t have an author for a specific chapter or area from the last set of competencies, we came to a consensus on who the new one should be,” Dr. Gage explained. “We looked for known and accepted experts in the field by reviewing the literature and conference lecturers at all major PHM meetings.”
Once the editors and associate editors worked with authors to refine their chapter(s), the chapters were sent to multiple external reviewers including subgroups of SHM, AAP, and APA, as well as a variety of other associations. They provided input that the editors and associate editors collated, reviewed, and incorporated according to consensus and discussion with the authors.
A preview
As far as the actual changes go, some of new chapters include four common clinical, two core skills, three specialized services, and five health care systems, with many others undergoing content changes, according to Dr. Gage.
Major considerations in developing the new competencies include the national trend of rising mental health issues among young patients. According to the AAP, over the last decade the number of young people aged 6-17 years requiring mental health care has risen from 9% to more than 14%. In outpatient settings, many pediatricians report that half or more of their visits are dedicated to these issues, a number that may spill out into the hospital setting as well.
According to Dr. Fisher, pediatric hospitalists today see increasing numbers of chronic and acute diseases accompanied by mental and behavioral health issues. “We wanted to underscore this complexity in the competencies,” she explained. “We needed to focus new attention on how to identify and treat children with behavioral or psychiatric diagnoses or needs.”
Other new areas of focus include infection care and antimicrobial stewardship. “We see kids on antibiotics in hospital settings and we need to focus on narrowing choices, decreasing use, and shortening duration,” Dr. Gage said.
Dr. Maniscalco said that, overall, the changes represent the evolution of the field. “Pediatric hospitalists are taking on far more patients with acute and complex issues,” she explained. “Our skill set is coming into focus.”
Dr. Gage added that there is an increased need for pediatric hospitalists to be adept at “managing acute psychiatric care and navigating the mental health care arena.”
There’s also the growing need for an understanding of neonatal abstinence and opioid withdrawal syndrome. “This is definitely a hot topic and one that most hospitalists must address today,” Dr. Gage said. “That wasn’t the case a decade ago.”
Hospital care for pediatrics today often means a team effort, including pediatric hospitalists, surgeons, mental health professionals, and others. Often missing from the picture today are primary care physicians, who instead refer a growing percentage of their patients to hospitalists. The pediatric hospitalist’s role has evolved and grown from what it was 10 years ago, as reflected in the competencies.
“We are very much coordinating care and collaborating today in ways we weren’t 10 years ago,” said Dr. Gage. “There’s a lot more attention on creating partnerships. While we may not always be the ones performing procedures, we will most likely take part in patient care, especially as surgeons step farther away from care outside of the OR.”
The field has also become more family centered, said Dr. Gage. “All of health care today is more astute about the participation of families in care,” she said. “We kept that in mind in developing the competencies.”
Also important in this set of competencies was the concept of high-value care using evidence-based medicine.
Into the field
How exactly the core competencies will be utilized from one hospital or setting to the next will vary, said Dr. Fisher. “For some sites, they can aid existing teaching programs, and they will most likely adapt their curriculum to address the new competencies, informing how they teach.”
Even in centers where there isn’t a formal academic role, teaching still occurs. “Pediatric hospitalists have roles on committees and projects, and giving a talk to respiratory therapists, having group meetings – these all involve teaching in some form,” Dr. Fisher said. “Most physicians will determine how they wish to insert the competencies into their own education, as well as use them to educate others.”
Regardless of how they may be used locally, Dr. Fisher anticipates that the entire pediatric hospitalist community will appreciate the updates. “The competencies address our rapidly changing health care environment,” she said. “We believe the field will benefit from the additions and changes.”
Indeed, the core competencies will help standardize and improve consistency of care across the board. Improved efficiencies, economics, and practices are all desired and expected outcomes from the release of the revised competencies.
To ensure that the changes to the competencies are highlighted in settings nationwide, the editors and associate editors hope to present about them at upcoming conferences, including at the SHM 2020 Annual Conference, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine conference, the Pediatric Academic Societies conference, and the American Pediatric Association.
“We want to present to as many venues as possible to bring people up to speed and ensure they are aware of the changes,” Dr. Teferi said. “We’ll be including workshops with visual aids, along with our presentations.”
While this update represents a 10-year evolution, the editors and the SHM Pediatric Special Interest Group do not have an exact time frame for when the core competencies will need another revision. As quickly as the profession is developing, it may be as few as 5 years, but may also be another full decade.
“Like most fields, we will continue to evolve as our roles become better defined and we gain more knowledge,” Dr. Maniscalco said. “The core competencies represent the field whether a senior pediatric hospitalist, a fellow, or an educator. They bring the field together and provide education for everyone. That’s their role.”
Over the past 10 years, much has changed in the world of pediatric hospital medicine. The annual national PHM conference sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Academic Pediatric Association (APA) is robust; textbooks and journal articles in the field abound; and networks and training in research, quality improvement, and education are successful and ongoing.
Much of this did not exist or was in its infancy back in 2010. Since then, it has grown and greatly evolved. In parallel, medicine and society have changed. These influences on health care, along with the growth of the field over time, prompted a review and revision of the 2010 PHM Core Competencies published by SHM. With support from the society, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Special Interest Group launched the plan for revision of the PHM Core Competencies.
The selected editors included Sandra Gage, MD, PhD, SFHM, of Phoenix Children’s Hospital; Erin Stucky Fisher, MD, MHM, of UCSD/Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego; Jennifer Maniscalco, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Sofia Teferi, MD, SFHM, a pediatric hospitalist based at Bon Secours St. Mary’s Hospital in Richmond, Va. They began their work in 2017 along with six associate editors, meeting every 2 weeks via conference call, dividing the work accordingly.
Dr. Teferi served in a new and critical role as contributing editor. She described her role as a “sweeper” of sorts, bringing her unique perspective to the process. “The other three members are from academic settings, and I’m from a community setting, which is very different,” Dr. Teferi said. “I went through all the chapters to ensure they were inclusive of the community setting.”
According to Dr. Gage, “the purpose of the original PHM Core Competencies was to define the roles and responsibilities of a PHM practitioner. In the intervening 10 years, the field has changed and matured, and we have solidified our role since then.”
Today’s pediatric hospitalists, for instance, may coordinate care in EDs, provide inpatient consultations, engage or lead quality improvement programs, and teach. The demands for pediatric hospital care today go beyond the training provided in a standard pediatric residency. The core competencies need to provide the information necessary, therefore, to ensure pediatric hospital medicine is practiced at its most informed level.
A profession transformed
At the time of the first set of core competencies, there were over 2,500 members in three core societies in which pediatric hospitalists were members: the AAP, the APA, and SHM. As of 2017, those numbers have swelled as the care for children in the hospital setting has shifted away from these patients’ primary care providers.
The original core competencies included 54 chapters, designed to be used independent of the others. They provided a foundation for the creation of pediatric hospital medicine and served to standardize and improve inpatient training practices.
For the new core competencies, every single chapter was reviewed line by line, Dr. Gage said. Many chapters had content modified, and new chapters were added to reflect the evolution of the field and of medicine. “We added about 14 new chapters, adjusted the titles of others, and significantly changed the content of over half,” Dr. Gage explained. “They are fairly broad changes, related to the breadth of the practice today.”
Dr. Teferi noted that practitioners can use the updated competencies with additions to the service lines that have arisen since the last version. “These include areas like step down and newborn nursery, things that weren’t part of our portfolio 10 years ago,” she said. “This reflects the fact that often you’ll see a hospital leader who might want to add to a hospitalist’s portfolio of services because there is no one else to do it. Or maybe community pediatrics no longer want to treat babies, so we add that. The settings vary widely today and we need the competencies to address that.”
Practices within these settings can also vary widely. Teaching, palliative care, airway management, critical care, and anesthesia may all come into play, among other factors. Research opportunities throughout the field also continue to expand.
Dr. Fisher said that the editors and associate editors kept in mind the fact that not every hospital would have all the resources necessary at its fingertips. “The competencies must reflect the realities of the variety of community settings,” she said. “Also, on a national level, the majority of pediatric patients are not seen in a children’s hospital. Community sites are where pediatric hospitalists are not only advocates for care, but can be working with limited resources – the ‘lone soldiers.’ We wanted to make sure the competencies reflect that reality and environment community site or not; academic site or not; tertiary care site or not; rural or not – these are overlapping but independent considerations for all who practice pediatric hospital medicine – a Venn diagram, and the PHM core competencies try to attend to all of those.”
This made Dr. Teferi’s perspective all the more important. “While many, including other editors and associate editors, work in community sites, Dr. Teferi has this as her unique and sole focus. She brought a unique viewpoint to the table,” Dr. Fisher said.
A goal of the core competencies is to make it possible for a pediatric hospitalist to move to a different practice environment and still provide the same level of high-quality care. “It’s difficult but important to grasp the concepts and competencies of various settings,” Dr. Fisher said. “In this way, our competencies are a parallel model to the adult hospitalist competencies.”
The editors surveyed practitioners across the country to gather their input on content, and brought on topic experts to write the new chapters. “If we didn’t have an author for a specific chapter or area from the last set of competencies, we came to a consensus on who the new one should be,” Dr. Gage explained. “We looked for known and accepted experts in the field by reviewing the literature and conference lecturers at all major PHM meetings.”
Once the editors and associate editors worked with authors to refine their chapter(s), the chapters were sent to multiple external reviewers including subgroups of SHM, AAP, and APA, as well as a variety of other associations. They provided input that the editors and associate editors collated, reviewed, and incorporated according to consensus and discussion with the authors.
A preview
As far as the actual changes go, some of new chapters include four common clinical, two core skills, three specialized services, and five health care systems, with many others undergoing content changes, according to Dr. Gage.
Major considerations in developing the new competencies include the national trend of rising mental health issues among young patients. According to the AAP, over the last decade the number of young people aged 6-17 years requiring mental health care has risen from 9% to more than 14%. In outpatient settings, many pediatricians report that half or more of their visits are dedicated to these issues, a number that may spill out into the hospital setting as well.
According to Dr. Fisher, pediatric hospitalists today see increasing numbers of chronic and acute diseases accompanied by mental and behavioral health issues. “We wanted to underscore this complexity in the competencies,” she explained. “We needed to focus new attention on how to identify and treat children with behavioral or psychiatric diagnoses or needs.”
Other new areas of focus include infection care and antimicrobial stewardship. “We see kids on antibiotics in hospital settings and we need to focus on narrowing choices, decreasing use, and shortening duration,” Dr. Gage said.
Dr. Maniscalco said that, overall, the changes represent the evolution of the field. “Pediatric hospitalists are taking on far more patients with acute and complex issues,” she explained. “Our skill set is coming into focus.”
Dr. Gage added that there is an increased need for pediatric hospitalists to be adept at “managing acute psychiatric care and navigating the mental health care arena.”
There’s also the growing need for an understanding of neonatal abstinence and opioid withdrawal syndrome. “This is definitely a hot topic and one that most hospitalists must address today,” Dr. Gage said. “That wasn’t the case a decade ago.”
Hospital care for pediatrics today often means a team effort, including pediatric hospitalists, surgeons, mental health professionals, and others. Often missing from the picture today are primary care physicians, who instead refer a growing percentage of their patients to hospitalists. The pediatric hospitalist’s role has evolved and grown from what it was 10 years ago, as reflected in the competencies.
“We are very much coordinating care and collaborating today in ways we weren’t 10 years ago,” said Dr. Gage. “There’s a lot more attention on creating partnerships. While we may not always be the ones performing procedures, we will most likely take part in patient care, especially as surgeons step farther away from care outside of the OR.”
The field has also become more family centered, said Dr. Gage. “All of health care today is more astute about the participation of families in care,” she said. “We kept that in mind in developing the competencies.”
Also important in this set of competencies was the concept of high-value care using evidence-based medicine.
Into the field
How exactly the core competencies will be utilized from one hospital or setting to the next will vary, said Dr. Fisher. “For some sites, they can aid existing teaching programs, and they will most likely adapt their curriculum to address the new competencies, informing how they teach.”
Even in centers where there isn’t a formal academic role, teaching still occurs. “Pediatric hospitalists have roles on committees and projects, and giving a talk to respiratory therapists, having group meetings – these all involve teaching in some form,” Dr. Fisher said. “Most physicians will determine how they wish to insert the competencies into their own education, as well as use them to educate others.”
Regardless of how they may be used locally, Dr. Fisher anticipates that the entire pediatric hospitalist community will appreciate the updates. “The competencies address our rapidly changing health care environment,” she said. “We believe the field will benefit from the additions and changes.”
Indeed, the core competencies will help standardize and improve consistency of care across the board. Improved efficiencies, economics, and practices are all desired and expected outcomes from the release of the revised competencies.
To ensure that the changes to the competencies are highlighted in settings nationwide, the editors and associate editors hope to present about them at upcoming conferences, including at the SHM 2020 Annual Conference, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine conference, the Pediatric Academic Societies conference, and the American Pediatric Association.
“We want to present to as many venues as possible to bring people up to speed and ensure they are aware of the changes,” Dr. Teferi said. “We’ll be including workshops with visual aids, along with our presentations.”
While this update represents a 10-year evolution, the editors and the SHM Pediatric Special Interest Group do not have an exact time frame for when the core competencies will need another revision. As quickly as the profession is developing, it may be as few as 5 years, but may also be another full decade.
“Like most fields, we will continue to evolve as our roles become better defined and we gain more knowledge,” Dr. Maniscalco said. “The core competencies represent the field whether a senior pediatric hospitalist, a fellow, or an educator. They bring the field together and provide education for everyone. That’s their role.”