User login
Does hustling equate to success?
Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle.
The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation.
The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future.
Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true.
During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school.
However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes.
The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want.
The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part.
I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle.
The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation.
The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future.
Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true.
During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school.
However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes.
The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want.
The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part.
I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle.
The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation.
The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future.
Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true.
During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school.
However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes.
The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want.
The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part.
I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drunk, sleeping jurors during virtual malpractice trials
During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.
“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”
The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.
In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.
These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.
Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.
“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections
Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.
Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.
“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”
Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.
The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.
“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.
Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.
“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”
A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.
“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”
Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.
“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
Doc fights against virtual trial
When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.
They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.
“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”
Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.
“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”
Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.
Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.
“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?
In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.
“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”
Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.
Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.
“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
Remember these tips during virtual trials
Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.
Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.
Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.
“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”
Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.
“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.
Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.
“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?
Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.
“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”
Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.
Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.
“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.
“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”
The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.
In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.
These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.
Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.
“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections
Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.
Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.
“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”
Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.
The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.
“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.
Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.
“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”
A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.
“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”
Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.
“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
Doc fights against virtual trial
When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.
They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.
“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”
Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.
“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”
Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.
Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.
“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?
In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.
“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”
Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.
Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.
“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
Remember these tips during virtual trials
Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.
Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.
Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.
“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”
Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.
“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.
Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.
“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?
Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.
“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”
Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.
Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.
“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.
“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”
The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.
In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.
These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.
Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.
“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections
Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.
Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.
“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”
Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.
The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.
“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.
Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.
“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”
A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.
“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”
Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.
“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
Doc fights against virtual trial
When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.
They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.
“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”
Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.
“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”
Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.
Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.
“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?
In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.
“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”
Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.
Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.
“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
Remember these tips during virtual trials
Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.
Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.
Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.
“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”
Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.
“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.
Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.
“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?
Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.
“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”
Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.
Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.
“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Surgery groups push back on VARC-3 valve trial definitions
Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.
The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.
The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).
The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.
It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.
“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”
The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.
Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”
He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.
“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”
Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis
The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.
They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.
“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”
Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”
The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.
“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
MIs, bleeding, and LBBB
The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.
“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.
The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.
With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.
The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.
Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.
Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”
Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.
Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.
The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.
The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).
The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.
It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.
“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”
The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.
Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”
He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.
“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”
Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis
The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.
They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.
“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”
Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”
The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.
“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
MIs, bleeding, and LBBB
The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.
“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.
The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.
With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.
The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.
Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.
Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”
Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.
Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.
The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.
The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).
The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.
It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.
“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”
The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.
Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”
He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.
“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”
Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis
The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.
They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.
“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”
Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”
The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.
“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
MIs, bleeding, and LBBB
The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.
“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.
The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.
With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.
The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.
Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.
Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”
Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.
Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pandemic showed pediatric centers are key to aiding victims of intimate partner violence
Pediatric care centers are a significant point of access for intimate partner violence referrals, according to data from an IPV prevention program embedded in Boston Children’s Hospital.
The pediatric hospital’s embedded Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) program found an increase in IPV consults and referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for emotional abuse. Despite the shift away from in-office consultations, care was effectively delivered remotely by telehealth.
The findings highlight the importance of pediatric primary care as a point of access for IPV survivor support, the authors concluded.
”Programming for survivors (including patients, family members, and staff) of intimate partner violence is critical in the pediatric hospital setting, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Rehana Rahman, MSW, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.
Their results align with other research demonstrating an overall increase in violence against women and girls during the pandemic – a phenomenon the World Health Organization has called the “shadow pandemic.”
The challenges of accessing care during the COVID-19 restrictions demonstrate the utility of telehealth as a modality for providing assessment, support, and referrals, the authors stated.
They pointed to certain advantages in supporting IPV survivors virtually, including the ability to speak alone with the survivor, which is often not possible during in-person visits with children in the room.
Other research has documented that health care delivery via telemedicine, especially video teleconferencing, during the pandemic can be as effective as in-office visits. In fact, care providers may be able to pick up on significant visual cues on video that go unnoticed in the immediacy of the office setting.
The study
The researchers examined COVID-19–related variations in consultations and referrals in the 11 months before the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020) and those following its emergence (April 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021).
Face-to-face consults declined from 28% to 2% (P < .001) after COVID-19 emergence, while total consults increased from 240 to 295 (P < .001), primarily for emotional abuse (from 195 to 264, P = .007).
There were no significant changes in the number of consults for other reasons or in the number of reasons recorded for each consult.
Psychoeducation referrals also rose significantly from 199 to 273 (P < .001), while referrals to community resources decreased significantly from 111 to 95 (P < .001).
Primary care was the only practice setting demonstrating significant differences in the overall number of and specific reasons for consultation, as well as associated referral types before and after COVID emergence.
“We hypothesize that this increase may be attributable to the fact that, although many survivors were at home with partners who use abusive behaviors, obligatory pediatric primary care visits may have been a rare opportunity for them to leave their residence and seek support,” the investigators wrote. “Our data support the importance of a domestic violence program in pediatric hospitals and suggest that such support be available as a standard part of care.”
They further suggested that support and assessment may be effective regardless of whether that care is performed face-to-face or via telehealth.
Commentary
An accompanying editorial noted that intimate partner violence affects one in five children and has profound health effects on survivors and their children.
“The health, economic, and social ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic have created unique challenges for families experiencing IPV, by increasing isolation, decreasing available safe and secure services and spaces (e.g., schools), and compounding preexisting inequities, especially for families from marginalized communities,” wrote Maya Ragavan, MD, MS, MPH, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh.
They stressed that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the emotionally coercive control used by abusive partners during the pandemic, including social isolation, manipulating child custody, and taking stimulus money.
Dr. Ragavan and Dr. Miller agreed with the authors that pediatric health care settings can play an important role in supporting families exposed to intimate partner violence, particularly by developing partnerships with IPV aid agencies.
Many pediatric offices may not have access to a comprehensive service like AWAKE, highlighting the importance of developing partnerships with community-based IPV agencies, which have been working innovatively during the pandemic to support families experiencing IPV. “Pediatric health care providers should work to develop formalized partnerships with IPV agencies to assist with staff training, clinical protocols and policies to address IPV, including survivor-centered approaches to care when IPV is disclosed,” they wrote. “Health care settings must recognize that IPV agencies are integral to the pediatric medical home and essential collaborators in the provision of healing-centered care for IPV survivors and their children.”
Among these, Futures Without Violence, a national violence-prevention advocacy and policy organization, offers recommendations on collaboration via the IPV Health Partners website.
Matthew I. Harris, MD, a pediatric emergency physician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New York, concurred that the pediatric care setting can be an access point for IPV referrals. “Whether a child comes into our center with an ear infection or an injury, there’s a standard screening process for safety in the home,” he said in an interview. That standard filtering identifies the presence of smoking, alcohol, guns, and potential abusers. “It’s not uncommon that we discover violence or physical, verbal, or sexual abuse not only toward the child but also another family member, including IPV.”
Children’s hospitals are well positioned to identify at-risk families and refer them to appropriate protective services, Dr. Harris said. “Ultimately, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring children have a safe home environment and that involves minimizing any harmful impact on other family members, including those exposed to IPV.”
The authors received no funding for this study and reported no competing interests. Dr. Ragavan had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Miller reported royalties for writing content for UpToDate. Dr. Harris disclosed no competing interests.
This article was updated 3/25/22.
Pediatric care centers are a significant point of access for intimate partner violence referrals, according to data from an IPV prevention program embedded in Boston Children’s Hospital.
The pediatric hospital’s embedded Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) program found an increase in IPV consults and referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for emotional abuse. Despite the shift away from in-office consultations, care was effectively delivered remotely by telehealth.
The findings highlight the importance of pediatric primary care as a point of access for IPV survivor support, the authors concluded.
”Programming for survivors (including patients, family members, and staff) of intimate partner violence is critical in the pediatric hospital setting, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Rehana Rahman, MSW, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.
Their results align with other research demonstrating an overall increase in violence against women and girls during the pandemic – a phenomenon the World Health Organization has called the “shadow pandemic.”
The challenges of accessing care during the COVID-19 restrictions demonstrate the utility of telehealth as a modality for providing assessment, support, and referrals, the authors stated.
They pointed to certain advantages in supporting IPV survivors virtually, including the ability to speak alone with the survivor, which is often not possible during in-person visits with children in the room.
Other research has documented that health care delivery via telemedicine, especially video teleconferencing, during the pandemic can be as effective as in-office visits. In fact, care providers may be able to pick up on significant visual cues on video that go unnoticed in the immediacy of the office setting.
The study
The researchers examined COVID-19–related variations in consultations and referrals in the 11 months before the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020) and those following its emergence (April 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021).
Face-to-face consults declined from 28% to 2% (P < .001) after COVID-19 emergence, while total consults increased from 240 to 295 (P < .001), primarily for emotional abuse (from 195 to 264, P = .007).
There were no significant changes in the number of consults for other reasons or in the number of reasons recorded for each consult.
Psychoeducation referrals also rose significantly from 199 to 273 (P < .001), while referrals to community resources decreased significantly from 111 to 95 (P < .001).
Primary care was the only practice setting demonstrating significant differences in the overall number of and specific reasons for consultation, as well as associated referral types before and after COVID emergence.
“We hypothesize that this increase may be attributable to the fact that, although many survivors were at home with partners who use abusive behaviors, obligatory pediatric primary care visits may have been a rare opportunity for them to leave their residence and seek support,” the investigators wrote. “Our data support the importance of a domestic violence program in pediatric hospitals and suggest that such support be available as a standard part of care.”
They further suggested that support and assessment may be effective regardless of whether that care is performed face-to-face or via telehealth.
Commentary
An accompanying editorial noted that intimate partner violence affects one in five children and has profound health effects on survivors and their children.
“The health, economic, and social ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic have created unique challenges for families experiencing IPV, by increasing isolation, decreasing available safe and secure services and spaces (e.g., schools), and compounding preexisting inequities, especially for families from marginalized communities,” wrote Maya Ragavan, MD, MS, MPH, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh.
They stressed that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the emotionally coercive control used by abusive partners during the pandemic, including social isolation, manipulating child custody, and taking stimulus money.
Dr. Ragavan and Dr. Miller agreed with the authors that pediatric health care settings can play an important role in supporting families exposed to intimate partner violence, particularly by developing partnerships with IPV aid agencies.
Many pediatric offices may not have access to a comprehensive service like AWAKE, highlighting the importance of developing partnerships with community-based IPV agencies, which have been working innovatively during the pandemic to support families experiencing IPV. “Pediatric health care providers should work to develop formalized partnerships with IPV agencies to assist with staff training, clinical protocols and policies to address IPV, including survivor-centered approaches to care when IPV is disclosed,” they wrote. “Health care settings must recognize that IPV agencies are integral to the pediatric medical home and essential collaborators in the provision of healing-centered care for IPV survivors and their children.”
Among these, Futures Without Violence, a national violence-prevention advocacy and policy organization, offers recommendations on collaboration via the IPV Health Partners website.
Matthew I. Harris, MD, a pediatric emergency physician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New York, concurred that the pediatric care setting can be an access point for IPV referrals. “Whether a child comes into our center with an ear infection or an injury, there’s a standard screening process for safety in the home,” he said in an interview. That standard filtering identifies the presence of smoking, alcohol, guns, and potential abusers. “It’s not uncommon that we discover violence or physical, verbal, or sexual abuse not only toward the child but also another family member, including IPV.”
Children’s hospitals are well positioned to identify at-risk families and refer them to appropriate protective services, Dr. Harris said. “Ultimately, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring children have a safe home environment and that involves minimizing any harmful impact on other family members, including those exposed to IPV.”
The authors received no funding for this study and reported no competing interests. Dr. Ragavan had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Miller reported royalties for writing content for UpToDate. Dr. Harris disclosed no competing interests.
This article was updated 3/25/22.
Pediatric care centers are a significant point of access for intimate partner violence referrals, according to data from an IPV prevention program embedded in Boston Children’s Hospital.
The pediatric hospital’s embedded Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) program found an increase in IPV consults and referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for emotional abuse. Despite the shift away from in-office consultations, care was effectively delivered remotely by telehealth.
The findings highlight the importance of pediatric primary care as a point of access for IPV survivor support, the authors concluded.
”Programming for survivors (including patients, family members, and staff) of intimate partner violence is critical in the pediatric hospital setting, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Rehana Rahman, MSW, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.
Their results align with other research demonstrating an overall increase in violence against women and girls during the pandemic – a phenomenon the World Health Organization has called the “shadow pandemic.”
The challenges of accessing care during the COVID-19 restrictions demonstrate the utility of telehealth as a modality for providing assessment, support, and referrals, the authors stated.
They pointed to certain advantages in supporting IPV survivors virtually, including the ability to speak alone with the survivor, which is often not possible during in-person visits with children in the room.
Other research has documented that health care delivery via telemedicine, especially video teleconferencing, during the pandemic can be as effective as in-office visits. In fact, care providers may be able to pick up on significant visual cues on video that go unnoticed in the immediacy of the office setting.
The study
The researchers examined COVID-19–related variations in consultations and referrals in the 11 months before the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020) and those following its emergence (April 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021).
Face-to-face consults declined from 28% to 2% (P < .001) after COVID-19 emergence, while total consults increased from 240 to 295 (P < .001), primarily for emotional abuse (from 195 to 264, P = .007).
There were no significant changes in the number of consults for other reasons or in the number of reasons recorded for each consult.
Psychoeducation referrals also rose significantly from 199 to 273 (P < .001), while referrals to community resources decreased significantly from 111 to 95 (P < .001).
Primary care was the only practice setting demonstrating significant differences in the overall number of and specific reasons for consultation, as well as associated referral types before and after COVID emergence.
“We hypothesize that this increase may be attributable to the fact that, although many survivors were at home with partners who use abusive behaviors, obligatory pediatric primary care visits may have been a rare opportunity for them to leave their residence and seek support,” the investigators wrote. “Our data support the importance of a domestic violence program in pediatric hospitals and suggest that such support be available as a standard part of care.”
They further suggested that support and assessment may be effective regardless of whether that care is performed face-to-face or via telehealth.
Commentary
An accompanying editorial noted that intimate partner violence affects one in five children and has profound health effects on survivors and their children.
“The health, economic, and social ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic have created unique challenges for families experiencing IPV, by increasing isolation, decreasing available safe and secure services and spaces (e.g., schools), and compounding preexisting inequities, especially for families from marginalized communities,” wrote Maya Ragavan, MD, MS, MPH, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh.
They stressed that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the emotionally coercive control used by abusive partners during the pandemic, including social isolation, manipulating child custody, and taking stimulus money.
Dr. Ragavan and Dr. Miller agreed with the authors that pediatric health care settings can play an important role in supporting families exposed to intimate partner violence, particularly by developing partnerships with IPV aid agencies.
Many pediatric offices may not have access to a comprehensive service like AWAKE, highlighting the importance of developing partnerships with community-based IPV agencies, which have been working innovatively during the pandemic to support families experiencing IPV. “Pediatric health care providers should work to develop formalized partnerships with IPV agencies to assist with staff training, clinical protocols and policies to address IPV, including survivor-centered approaches to care when IPV is disclosed,” they wrote. “Health care settings must recognize that IPV agencies are integral to the pediatric medical home and essential collaborators in the provision of healing-centered care for IPV survivors and their children.”
Among these, Futures Without Violence, a national violence-prevention advocacy and policy organization, offers recommendations on collaboration via the IPV Health Partners website.
Matthew I. Harris, MD, a pediatric emergency physician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New York, concurred that the pediatric care setting can be an access point for IPV referrals. “Whether a child comes into our center with an ear infection or an injury, there’s a standard screening process for safety in the home,” he said in an interview. That standard filtering identifies the presence of smoking, alcohol, guns, and potential abusers. “It’s not uncommon that we discover violence or physical, verbal, or sexual abuse not only toward the child but also another family member, including IPV.”
Children’s hospitals are well positioned to identify at-risk families and refer them to appropriate protective services, Dr. Harris said. “Ultimately, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring children have a safe home environment and that involves minimizing any harmful impact on other family members, including those exposed to IPV.”
The authors received no funding for this study and reported no competing interests. Dr. Ragavan had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Miller reported royalties for writing content for UpToDate. Dr. Harris disclosed no competing interests.
This article was updated 3/25/22.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Does the U.S. have enough abortion providers?
A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.
Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.
But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.
The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.
“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”
For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.
The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.
The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.
Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.
Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
Restrictions looming
Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.
Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.
The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.
“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”
Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.
“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
Pivot to telehealth?
Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.
Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.
The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.
“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”
Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.
As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.
“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”
Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.
Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.
But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.
The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.
“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”
For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.
The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.
The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.
Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.
Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
Restrictions looming
Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.
Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.
The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.
“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”
Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.
“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
Pivot to telehealth?
Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.
Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.
The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.
“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”
Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.
As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.
“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”
Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.
Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.
But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.
The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.
“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”
For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.
The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.
The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.
Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.
Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
Restrictions looming
Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.
Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.
The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.
“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”
Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.
“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
Pivot to telehealth?
Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.
Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.
The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.
“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”
Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.
As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.
“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”
Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prison smuggling schemes net jail time, charges against nurses
One nurse is headed to federal prison and another faces a similar fate for participating in a pair of prison contraband schemes.
Former contract nurse Joseph Nwancha, RN, 41, of Baltimore, Maryland, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for his role in a scheme to smuggle narcotics, tobacco, cell phones, and other contraband into a state prison.
In his plea deal, Mr. Nwancha said that he was regularly the on-duty nurse during evenings and nights at Maryland Correctional Institute Jessup, which housed approximately 1,100 male inmates. This made it possible for him to have private contact with inmates without prison employees or other inmates observing the interactions.
According to court documents, beginning in September 2017, Corey Alston, an inmate at the medium-security prison, began bribing Mr. Nwancha to bring contraband into the prison. The inmate’s sister, Ashley Alston, discussed the bribe payments with Mr. Nwancha via text messages and later met with Mr. Nwancha to give him money. In his plea deal, Mr. Nwancha also admitted to having similar arrangements with other inmates.
On Nov. 28, 2017, Mr. Nwancha was stopped at MCIJ and was found to be in possession of approximately 230 g of K2, a synthetic cannabinoid, intended for Mr. Alston and other inmates, according to the court documents. A cell phone recovered from Mr. Nwancha contained text-message conversations discussing bribe payments and other details related to the smuggling operation. The next day, Mr. Nwancha fled to Dublin where he remained until his arrest and extradition, the document says.
According to the Maryland Board of Nursing, Mr. Nwancha earned his license to practice in 2013, and it expired in 2019.
The Washington Post reported that Mr. Nwancha was part of a smuggling ring involving at least 25 people, including corrections officers, in which conspirators would receive “bribes, kickbacks, and sexual favors” in exchange for smuggling contraband into the facility.
Jeane Arnette, RN, of Leavenworth, Kan., pleaded guilty to a scheme in which she used her role as a nurse to smuggle contraband, including cell phones, into the Leavenworth Detention Center.
Ms. Arnette, 61, pleaded guilty on Mach 10 to conspiracy to provide contraband to federal prison inmates. The Kansas City Star says Ms. Arnette worked at the prison from August 2020 through September 2021 and allegedly attempted to smuggle contraband on at least 15 occasions to one inmate. Investigators alleged she was paid through Cash App for the transactions.
She is scheduled to be sentenced June 9 and faces a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.
New York nurse indicted in COVID-19 vaccine card scam
A New York licensed practical nurse faces charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and conspiring to commit forgery in a scheme to distribute and sell false COVID-19 vaccination cards.
According to the indictment, Steven Rodriguez, of Long Beach, N.Y., 27, a nurse at a Hempstead, N.Y.–based clinic, conspired with Jia Liu, 26, of New York, who is a member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, to provide the fake vaccination cards. The cards were sold to unvaccinated Marine Corps reservists who did not want to comply with U.S. Department of Defense vaccination regulations.
In the scheme, Mr. Liu purchased stolen, blank COVID-19 vaccination cards from Mr. Rodriguez, then forged and distributed them for profit. Mr. Liu also directed buyers to meet Mr. Rodriguez in person at the health care clinic where, rather than administer the vaccination, Mr. Rodriguez would destroy the vial of vaccine intended for that patient, then provide a forged vaccination card. Mr. Rodriguez then made false entries in immunization databases indicating that the buyer had been vaccinated. Mr. Liu was also charged with one count of conspiring to defraud the Department of Defense, according to prosecutors.
Using code words such as “gift cards,” “Pokemon cards,” and “Cardi Bs,” the men sent messages on encrypted messaging apps and on social media to inform potential buyers of the opportunity to buy the fake cards, prosecutors said.
Overall, according to the indictment, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Liu distributed at least 300 stolen or false COVID-19 vaccination cards, created more than 70 false entries in immunization databases, and destroyed multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccine. “The defendants put military and other communities at risk of contracting a virus that has already claimed nearly one million lives in this country,” Breon Peace, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said when announcing the charges.
Mr. Rodriguez’s lawyer said in an email to The New York Times that the charges are “disturbing” but added, “This young man has no prior record and has a good family, which is why he was released on an unsecured signature bond with the consent of the government.”
Mr. Rodriguez acquired his LPN license in 2018, and it was valid as of press time, according to the New York Office of the Professions database.
Mr. Liu, who also faces charges in connection with the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, was released on a $250,000 bond to home detention with GPS monitoring, according to the same report.
If convicted, the men could each face up to 10 years in prison.
Pennsylvania nurse practitioner faces 22 felony charges
A Bradford County, Pennsylvania, nurse practitioner is facing nearly two dozen felony violations of state law.
Stephanie King, CRNP, 45, of Ulster, Pennsylvania, is accused of prescribing medicines without a collaborating physician, as well as with multiple counts of false billing.
The felony charges include three violations of the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act; two counts of insurance fraud; six counts of Medicaid fraud; six counts of forgery; two counts of tampering with public records; and three counts of theft by deception.
According to local press reports, Ms. King was the owner and operator of the Center for Holistic and Integrative Mental Health in Athens, Pa. The charging documents allege that, beginning in November 2016, Ms. King entered into a sexual relationship with a patient and billed a private insurer for their trysts. Ms. King subsequently entered a relationship with another patient. Although she discontinued medical care for this patient after the affair began, she continued to prescribe controlled substances for him, according to the indictment.
In addition, prosecutors allege that Ms. King renewed previous collaboration agreements without the knowledge of her physician collaborators. Under Pennsylvania law, nurse practitioners are required to enter into collaborative agreements with Pennsylvania-licensed physicians in order to perform medical diagnoses and prescribe controlled substances.
The investigation found that Ms. King falsely billed more than $300,000 to private insurers and $100,000 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for services that did not meet acceptable medical treatment standards. In addition, she is alleged to have written more than 3,750 prescriptions to patients during the time she did not meet the State of Pennsylvania’s requirements to prescribe.
Her license, originally obtained in 2011, was suspended on March 25, 2020.
Massachusetts nurse pleads guilty of tampering with patients’ fentanyl
A Massachusetts nurse was charged with and has agreed to plead guilty to one count of tampering with a controlled substance while working in the postsurgery recovery unit at a Massachusetts hospital as well as at an outpatient vascular surgery center.
According to the charging documents, Hugo Vieira, 41, of Berkley, Massachusetts, removed fentanyl from vials meant for patients undergoing or recovering from surgery. He then replaced the fentanyl with saline. Investigators identified 60 vials that had been tampered with at the vascular surgery center and two at the hospital.
Mr. Viera faces up to 10 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000 for the tampering charge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One nurse is headed to federal prison and another faces a similar fate for participating in a pair of prison contraband schemes.
Former contract nurse Joseph Nwancha, RN, 41, of Baltimore, Maryland, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for his role in a scheme to smuggle narcotics, tobacco, cell phones, and other contraband into a state prison.
In his plea deal, Mr. Nwancha said that he was regularly the on-duty nurse during evenings and nights at Maryland Correctional Institute Jessup, which housed approximately 1,100 male inmates. This made it possible for him to have private contact with inmates without prison employees or other inmates observing the interactions.
According to court documents, beginning in September 2017, Corey Alston, an inmate at the medium-security prison, began bribing Mr. Nwancha to bring contraband into the prison. The inmate’s sister, Ashley Alston, discussed the bribe payments with Mr. Nwancha via text messages and later met with Mr. Nwancha to give him money. In his plea deal, Mr. Nwancha also admitted to having similar arrangements with other inmates.
On Nov. 28, 2017, Mr. Nwancha was stopped at MCIJ and was found to be in possession of approximately 230 g of K2, a synthetic cannabinoid, intended for Mr. Alston and other inmates, according to the court documents. A cell phone recovered from Mr. Nwancha contained text-message conversations discussing bribe payments and other details related to the smuggling operation. The next day, Mr. Nwancha fled to Dublin where he remained until his arrest and extradition, the document says.
According to the Maryland Board of Nursing, Mr. Nwancha earned his license to practice in 2013, and it expired in 2019.
The Washington Post reported that Mr. Nwancha was part of a smuggling ring involving at least 25 people, including corrections officers, in which conspirators would receive “bribes, kickbacks, and sexual favors” in exchange for smuggling contraband into the facility.
Jeane Arnette, RN, of Leavenworth, Kan., pleaded guilty to a scheme in which she used her role as a nurse to smuggle contraband, including cell phones, into the Leavenworth Detention Center.
Ms. Arnette, 61, pleaded guilty on Mach 10 to conspiracy to provide contraband to federal prison inmates. The Kansas City Star says Ms. Arnette worked at the prison from August 2020 through September 2021 and allegedly attempted to smuggle contraband on at least 15 occasions to one inmate. Investigators alleged she was paid through Cash App for the transactions.
She is scheduled to be sentenced June 9 and faces a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.
New York nurse indicted in COVID-19 vaccine card scam
A New York licensed practical nurse faces charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and conspiring to commit forgery in a scheme to distribute and sell false COVID-19 vaccination cards.
According to the indictment, Steven Rodriguez, of Long Beach, N.Y., 27, a nurse at a Hempstead, N.Y.–based clinic, conspired with Jia Liu, 26, of New York, who is a member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, to provide the fake vaccination cards. The cards were sold to unvaccinated Marine Corps reservists who did not want to comply with U.S. Department of Defense vaccination regulations.
In the scheme, Mr. Liu purchased stolen, blank COVID-19 vaccination cards from Mr. Rodriguez, then forged and distributed them for profit. Mr. Liu also directed buyers to meet Mr. Rodriguez in person at the health care clinic where, rather than administer the vaccination, Mr. Rodriguez would destroy the vial of vaccine intended for that patient, then provide a forged vaccination card. Mr. Rodriguez then made false entries in immunization databases indicating that the buyer had been vaccinated. Mr. Liu was also charged with one count of conspiring to defraud the Department of Defense, according to prosecutors.
Using code words such as “gift cards,” “Pokemon cards,” and “Cardi Bs,” the men sent messages on encrypted messaging apps and on social media to inform potential buyers of the opportunity to buy the fake cards, prosecutors said.
Overall, according to the indictment, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Liu distributed at least 300 stolen or false COVID-19 vaccination cards, created more than 70 false entries in immunization databases, and destroyed multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccine. “The defendants put military and other communities at risk of contracting a virus that has already claimed nearly one million lives in this country,” Breon Peace, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said when announcing the charges.
Mr. Rodriguez’s lawyer said in an email to The New York Times that the charges are “disturbing” but added, “This young man has no prior record and has a good family, which is why he was released on an unsecured signature bond with the consent of the government.”
Mr. Rodriguez acquired his LPN license in 2018, and it was valid as of press time, according to the New York Office of the Professions database.
Mr. Liu, who also faces charges in connection with the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, was released on a $250,000 bond to home detention with GPS monitoring, according to the same report.
If convicted, the men could each face up to 10 years in prison.
Pennsylvania nurse practitioner faces 22 felony charges
A Bradford County, Pennsylvania, nurse practitioner is facing nearly two dozen felony violations of state law.
Stephanie King, CRNP, 45, of Ulster, Pennsylvania, is accused of prescribing medicines without a collaborating physician, as well as with multiple counts of false billing.
The felony charges include three violations of the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act; two counts of insurance fraud; six counts of Medicaid fraud; six counts of forgery; two counts of tampering with public records; and three counts of theft by deception.
According to local press reports, Ms. King was the owner and operator of the Center for Holistic and Integrative Mental Health in Athens, Pa. The charging documents allege that, beginning in November 2016, Ms. King entered into a sexual relationship with a patient and billed a private insurer for their trysts. Ms. King subsequently entered a relationship with another patient. Although she discontinued medical care for this patient after the affair began, she continued to prescribe controlled substances for him, according to the indictment.
In addition, prosecutors allege that Ms. King renewed previous collaboration agreements without the knowledge of her physician collaborators. Under Pennsylvania law, nurse practitioners are required to enter into collaborative agreements with Pennsylvania-licensed physicians in order to perform medical diagnoses and prescribe controlled substances.
The investigation found that Ms. King falsely billed more than $300,000 to private insurers and $100,000 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for services that did not meet acceptable medical treatment standards. In addition, she is alleged to have written more than 3,750 prescriptions to patients during the time she did not meet the State of Pennsylvania’s requirements to prescribe.
Her license, originally obtained in 2011, was suspended on March 25, 2020.
Massachusetts nurse pleads guilty of tampering with patients’ fentanyl
A Massachusetts nurse was charged with and has agreed to plead guilty to one count of tampering with a controlled substance while working in the postsurgery recovery unit at a Massachusetts hospital as well as at an outpatient vascular surgery center.
According to the charging documents, Hugo Vieira, 41, of Berkley, Massachusetts, removed fentanyl from vials meant for patients undergoing or recovering from surgery. He then replaced the fentanyl with saline. Investigators identified 60 vials that had been tampered with at the vascular surgery center and two at the hospital.
Mr. Viera faces up to 10 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000 for the tampering charge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One nurse is headed to federal prison and another faces a similar fate for participating in a pair of prison contraband schemes.
Former contract nurse Joseph Nwancha, RN, 41, of Baltimore, Maryland, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for his role in a scheme to smuggle narcotics, tobacco, cell phones, and other contraband into a state prison.
In his plea deal, Mr. Nwancha said that he was regularly the on-duty nurse during evenings and nights at Maryland Correctional Institute Jessup, which housed approximately 1,100 male inmates. This made it possible for him to have private contact with inmates without prison employees or other inmates observing the interactions.
According to court documents, beginning in September 2017, Corey Alston, an inmate at the medium-security prison, began bribing Mr. Nwancha to bring contraband into the prison. The inmate’s sister, Ashley Alston, discussed the bribe payments with Mr. Nwancha via text messages and later met with Mr. Nwancha to give him money. In his plea deal, Mr. Nwancha also admitted to having similar arrangements with other inmates.
On Nov. 28, 2017, Mr. Nwancha was stopped at MCIJ and was found to be in possession of approximately 230 g of K2, a synthetic cannabinoid, intended for Mr. Alston and other inmates, according to the court documents. A cell phone recovered from Mr. Nwancha contained text-message conversations discussing bribe payments and other details related to the smuggling operation. The next day, Mr. Nwancha fled to Dublin where he remained until his arrest and extradition, the document says.
According to the Maryland Board of Nursing, Mr. Nwancha earned his license to practice in 2013, and it expired in 2019.
The Washington Post reported that Mr. Nwancha was part of a smuggling ring involving at least 25 people, including corrections officers, in which conspirators would receive “bribes, kickbacks, and sexual favors” in exchange for smuggling contraband into the facility.
Jeane Arnette, RN, of Leavenworth, Kan., pleaded guilty to a scheme in which she used her role as a nurse to smuggle contraband, including cell phones, into the Leavenworth Detention Center.
Ms. Arnette, 61, pleaded guilty on Mach 10 to conspiracy to provide contraband to federal prison inmates. The Kansas City Star says Ms. Arnette worked at the prison from August 2020 through September 2021 and allegedly attempted to smuggle contraband on at least 15 occasions to one inmate. Investigators alleged she was paid through Cash App for the transactions.
She is scheduled to be sentenced June 9 and faces a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.
New York nurse indicted in COVID-19 vaccine card scam
A New York licensed practical nurse faces charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and conspiring to commit forgery in a scheme to distribute and sell false COVID-19 vaccination cards.
According to the indictment, Steven Rodriguez, of Long Beach, N.Y., 27, a nurse at a Hempstead, N.Y.–based clinic, conspired with Jia Liu, 26, of New York, who is a member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, to provide the fake vaccination cards. The cards were sold to unvaccinated Marine Corps reservists who did not want to comply with U.S. Department of Defense vaccination regulations.
In the scheme, Mr. Liu purchased stolen, blank COVID-19 vaccination cards from Mr. Rodriguez, then forged and distributed them for profit. Mr. Liu also directed buyers to meet Mr. Rodriguez in person at the health care clinic where, rather than administer the vaccination, Mr. Rodriguez would destroy the vial of vaccine intended for that patient, then provide a forged vaccination card. Mr. Rodriguez then made false entries in immunization databases indicating that the buyer had been vaccinated. Mr. Liu was also charged with one count of conspiring to defraud the Department of Defense, according to prosecutors.
Using code words such as “gift cards,” “Pokemon cards,” and “Cardi Bs,” the men sent messages on encrypted messaging apps and on social media to inform potential buyers of the opportunity to buy the fake cards, prosecutors said.
Overall, according to the indictment, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Liu distributed at least 300 stolen or false COVID-19 vaccination cards, created more than 70 false entries in immunization databases, and destroyed multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccine. “The defendants put military and other communities at risk of contracting a virus that has already claimed nearly one million lives in this country,” Breon Peace, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said when announcing the charges.
Mr. Rodriguez’s lawyer said in an email to The New York Times that the charges are “disturbing” but added, “This young man has no prior record and has a good family, which is why he was released on an unsecured signature bond with the consent of the government.”
Mr. Rodriguez acquired his LPN license in 2018, and it was valid as of press time, according to the New York Office of the Professions database.
Mr. Liu, who also faces charges in connection with the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, was released on a $250,000 bond to home detention with GPS monitoring, according to the same report.
If convicted, the men could each face up to 10 years in prison.
Pennsylvania nurse practitioner faces 22 felony charges
A Bradford County, Pennsylvania, nurse practitioner is facing nearly two dozen felony violations of state law.
Stephanie King, CRNP, 45, of Ulster, Pennsylvania, is accused of prescribing medicines without a collaborating physician, as well as with multiple counts of false billing.
The felony charges include three violations of the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act; two counts of insurance fraud; six counts of Medicaid fraud; six counts of forgery; two counts of tampering with public records; and three counts of theft by deception.
According to local press reports, Ms. King was the owner and operator of the Center for Holistic and Integrative Mental Health in Athens, Pa. The charging documents allege that, beginning in November 2016, Ms. King entered into a sexual relationship with a patient and billed a private insurer for their trysts. Ms. King subsequently entered a relationship with another patient. Although she discontinued medical care for this patient after the affair began, she continued to prescribe controlled substances for him, according to the indictment.
In addition, prosecutors allege that Ms. King renewed previous collaboration agreements without the knowledge of her physician collaborators. Under Pennsylvania law, nurse practitioners are required to enter into collaborative agreements with Pennsylvania-licensed physicians in order to perform medical diagnoses and prescribe controlled substances.
The investigation found that Ms. King falsely billed more than $300,000 to private insurers and $100,000 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for services that did not meet acceptable medical treatment standards. In addition, she is alleged to have written more than 3,750 prescriptions to patients during the time she did not meet the State of Pennsylvania’s requirements to prescribe.
Her license, originally obtained in 2011, was suspended on March 25, 2020.
Massachusetts nurse pleads guilty of tampering with patients’ fentanyl
A Massachusetts nurse was charged with and has agreed to plead guilty to one count of tampering with a controlled substance while working in the postsurgery recovery unit at a Massachusetts hospital as well as at an outpatient vascular surgery center.
According to the charging documents, Hugo Vieira, 41, of Berkley, Massachusetts, removed fentanyl from vials meant for patients undergoing or recovering from surgery. He then replaced the fentanyl with saline. Investigators identified 60 vials that had been tampered with at the vascular surgery center and two at the hospital.
Mr. Viera faces up to 10 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000 for the tampering charge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How social drivers of health lead to physician burnout
The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.
The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.
Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.
This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.
Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?
The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.
The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.
Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.
Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?
I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.
I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.
Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?
The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.
This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.
Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.
That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.
The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.
Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?
The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.
The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.
Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs.
Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?
Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.
The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.
Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.
This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.
Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?
The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.
The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.
Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.
Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?
I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.
I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.
Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?
The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.
This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.
Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.
That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.
The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.
Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?
The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.
The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.
Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs.
Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?
Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.
The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.
Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.
This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.
Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?
The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.
The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.
Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.
Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?
I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.
I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.
Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?
The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.
This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.
Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.
That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.
The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.
Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?
The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.
The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.
Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs.
Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?
Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘My boss is my son’s age’: Age differences in medical practices
Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.
“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.
Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”
The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”
After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
Getting through a delicate discussion
This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.
Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.
Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”
Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.
He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.
“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”
The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.
“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.
The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.
, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.
Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
Challenges of technology
Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.
Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.
Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.
“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”
Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.
Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.
Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.
Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.
Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.
Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”
Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.
“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
Before and after hourly caps
Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.
Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.
When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.
Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”
It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”
Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”
Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
Every generation’s No. 1 concern
For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”
Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.
“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.
Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”
The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”
After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
Getting through a delicate discussion
This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.
Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.
Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”
Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.
He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.
“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”
The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.
“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.
The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.
, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.
Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
Challenges of technology
Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.
Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.
Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.
“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”
Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.
Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.
Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.
Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.
Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.
Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”
Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.
“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
Before and after hourly caps
Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.
Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.
When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.
Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”
It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”
Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”
Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
Every generation’s No. 1 concern
For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”
Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.
“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.
Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”
The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”
After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
Getting through a delicate discussion
This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.
Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.
Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”
Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.
He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.
“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”
The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.
“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.
The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.
, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.
Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
Challenges of technology
Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.
Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.
Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.
“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”
Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.
Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.
Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.
Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.
Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.
Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”
Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.
“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
Before and after hourly caps
Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.
Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.
When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.
Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”
It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”
Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”
Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
Every generation’s No. 1 concern
For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”
Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Family Physician: Abortion care is health and primary care
I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.
People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.
Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.
While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.
Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’
Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.
Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians
For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.
In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.
There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.
In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.
As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.
I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.
People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.
Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.
While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.
Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’
Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.
Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians
For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.
In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.
There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.
In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.
As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.
I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.
People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.
Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.
While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.
Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’
Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.
Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians
For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.
In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.
There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.
In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.
As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.
As a nurse faces prison for a deadly error, her colleagues worry: Could I be next?
Four years ago, inside the most prestigious hospital in Tennessee, nurse RaDonda Vaught withdrew a vial from an electronic medication cabinet, administered the drug to a patient, and somehow overlooked signs of a terrible and deadly mistake.
The patient was supposed to get Versed, a sedative intended to calm her before being scanned in a large, MRI-like machine. But Ms. Vaught accidentally grabbed vecuronium, a powerful paralyzer, which stopped the patient’s breathing and left her brain-dead before the error was discovered.
Ms. Vaught, 38, admitted her mistake at a Tennessee Board of Nursing hearing last year, saying she became “complacent” in her job and “distracted” by a trainee while operating the computerized medication cabinet. She did not shirk responsibility for the error, but she said the blame was not hers alone.
“I know the reason this patient is no longer here is because of me,” Ms. Vaught said, starting to cry. “There won’t ever be a day that goes by that I don’t think about what I did.”
If Ms. Vaught’s story followed the path of most medical errors, it would have been over hours later, when the Board of Nursing revoked her RN license and almost certainly ended her nursing career. But Ms. Vaught’s case is different: This week she goes on trial in Nashville on criminal charges of reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult for the killing of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Dec. 27, 2017.
Prosecutors do not allege in their court filings that Ms. Vaught intended to hurt Ms. Murphey or was impaired by any substance when she made the mistake, so Fatal errors are generally handled by licensing boards and civil courts. And experts say prosecutions like Ms. Vaught’s loom large for a profession terrified of the criminalization of such mistakes — especially because her case hinges on an automated system for dispensing drugs that many nurses use every day.
The Nashville district attorney’s office declined to discuss Ms. Vaught’s trial. Ms. Vaught’s lawyer, Peter Strianse, did not respond to requests for comment. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has repeatedly declined to comment on Ms. Vaught’s trial or its procedures.
Ms. Vaught’s trial will be followed by nurses nationwide, many of whom worry a conviction may set a precedent even as the coronavirus pandemic leaves countless nurses exhausted, demoralized, and likely more prone to error.
Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nursing group with more than 600,000 members on Facebook, said the group has closely watched Ms. Vaught’s case for years out of concern for her fate — and their own.
Ms. Garner said most nurses know all too well the pressures that contribute to such an error: long hours, crowded hospitals, imperfect protocols, and the inevitable creep of complacency in a job with daily life-or-death stakes.
Ms. Garner said she once switched powerful medications just as Ms. Vaught did and caught her mistake only in a last-minute triple-check.
“In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,” Ms. Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and usually it’s because they don’t realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be RaDonda.”
As the trial begins, the Nashville DA’s prosecutors will argue that Ms. Vaught’s error was anything but a common mistake any nurse could make. Prosecutors will say she ignored a cascade of warnings that led to the deadly error.
The case hinges on the nurse’s use of an electronic medication cabinet, a computerized device that dispenses a range of drugs. According to documents filed in the case, Ms. Vaught initially tried to withdraw Versed from a cabinet by typing “VE” into its search function without realizing she should have been looking for its generic name, midazolam. When the cabinet did not produce Versed, Ms. Vaught triggered an “override” that unlocked a much larger swath of medications, then searched for “VE” again. This time, the cabinet offered vecuronium.
Ms. Vaught then overlooked or bypassed at least five warnings or pop-ups saying she was withdrawing a paralyzing medication, documents state. She also did not recognize that Versed is a liquid but vecuronium is a powder that must be mixed into liquid, documents state.
Finally, just before injecting the vecuronium, Ms. Vaught stuck a syringe into the vial, which would have required her to “look directly” at a bottle cap that read “Warning: Paralyzing Agent,” the DA’s documents state.
The DA’s office points to this override as central to Ms. Vaught’s reckless homicide charge. Ms. Vaught acknowledges she performed an override on the cabinet. But she and others say overrides are a normal operating procedure used daily at hospitals.
While testifying before the nursing board last year, foreshadowing her defense in the upcoming trial, Ms. Vaught said at the time of Ms. Murphey’s death that Vanderbilt was instructing nurses to use overrides to overcome cabinet delays and constant technical problems caused by an ongoing overhaul of the hospital’s electronic health records system.
Ms. Murphey’s care alone required at least 20 cabinet overrides in just three days, Ms. Vaught said.
“Overriding was something we did as part of our practice every day,” Ms. Vaught said. “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”
Overrides are common outside of Vanderbilt too, according to experts following Ms. Vaught’s case.
Michael Cohen, president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, and Lorie Brown, past president of the American Association of Nurse Attorneys, each said it is common for nurses to use an override to obtain medication in a hospital.
Mr. Cohen and Ms. Brown stressed that even with an override it should not have been so easy to access vecuronium.
“This is a medication that you should never, ever, be able to override to,” Ms. Brown said. “It’s probably the most dangerous medication out there.”
Mr. Cohen said that in response to Ms. Vaught’s case, manufacturers of medication cabinets modified the devices’ software to require up to five letters to be typed when searching for drugs during an override, but not all hospitals have implemented this safeguard. Two years after Ms. Vaught’s error, Mr. Cohen’s organization documented a “strikingly similar” incident in which another nurse swapped Versed with another drug, verapamil, while using an override and searching with just the first few letters. That incident did not result in a patient’s death or criminal prosecution, Mr. Cohen said.
Maureen Shawn Kennedy, the editor-in-chief emerita of the American Journal of Nursing, wrote in 2019 that Ms. Vaught’s case was “every nurse’s nightmare.”
In the pandemic, she said, this is truer than ever.
“We know that the more patients a nurse has, the more room there is for errors,” Ms. Kennedy said. “We know that when nurses work longer shifts, there is more room for errors. So I think nurses get very concerned because they know this could be them.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Four years ago, inside the most prestigious hospital in Tennessee, nurse RaDonda Vaught withdrew a vial from an electronic medication cabinet, administered the drug to a patient, and somehow overlooked signs of a terrible and deadly mistake.
The patient was supposed to get Versed, a sedative intended to calm her before being scanned in a large, MRI-like machine. But Ms. Vaught accidentally grabbed vecuronium, a powerful paralyzer, which stopped the patient’s breathing and left her brain-dead before the error was discovered.
Ms. Vaught, 38, admitted her mistake at a Tennessee Board of Nursing hearing last year, saying she became “complacent” in her job and “distracted” by a trainee while operating the computerized medication cabinet. She did not shirk responsibility for the error, but she said the blame was not hers alone.
“I know the reason this patient is no longer here is because of me,” Ms. Vaught said, starting to cry. “There won’t ever be a day that goes by that I don’t think about what I did.”
If Ms. Vaught’s story followed the path of most medical errors, it would have been over hours later, when the Board of Nursing revoked her RN license and almost certainly ended her nursing career. But Ms. Vaught’s case is different: This week she goes on trial in Nashville on criminal charges of reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult for the killing of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Dec. 27, 2017.
Prosecutors do not allege in their court filings that Ms. Vaught intended to hurt Ms. Murphey or was impaired by any substance when she made the mistake, so Fatal errors are generally handled by licensing boards and civil courts. And experts say prosecutions like Ms. Vaught’s loom large for a profession terrified of the criminalization of such mistakes — especially because her case hinges on an automated system for dispensing drugs that many nurses use every day.
The Nashville district attorney’s office declined to discuss Ms. Vaught’s trial. Ms. Vaught’s lawyer, Peter Strianse, did not respond to requests for comment. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has repeatedly declined to comment on Ms. Vaught’s trial or its procedures.
Ms. Vaught’s trial will be followed by nurses nationwide, many of whom worry a conviction may set a precedent even as the coronavirus pandemic leaves countless nurses exhausted, demoralized, and likely more prone to error.
Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nursing group with more than 600,000 members on Facebook, said the group has closely watched Ms. Vaught’s case for years out of concern for her fate — and their own.
Ms. Garner said most nurses know all too well the pressures that contribute to such an error: long hours, crowded hospitals, imperfect protocols, and the inevitable creep of complacency in a job with daily life-or-death stakes.
Ms. Garner said she once switched powerful medications just as Ms. Vaught did and caught her mistake only in a last-minute triple-check.
“In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,” Ms. Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and usually it’s because they don’t realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be RaDonda.”
As the trial begins, the Nashville DA’s prosecutors will argue that Ms. Vaught’s error was anything but a common mistake any nurse could make. Prosecutors will say she ignored a cascade of warnings that led to the deadly error.
The case hinges on the nurse’s use of an electronic medication cabinet, a computerized device that dispenses a range of drugs. According to documents filed in the case, Ms. Vaught initially tried to withdraw Versed from a cabinet by typing “VE” into its search function without realizing she should have been looking for its generic name, midazolam. When the cabinet did not produce Versed, Ms. Vaught triggered an “override” that unlocked a much larger swath of medications, then searched for “VE” again. This time, the cabinet offered vecuronium.
Ms. Vaught then overlooked or bypassed at least five warnings or pop-ups saying she was withdrawing a paralyzing medication, documents state. She also did not recognize that Versed is a liquid but vecuronium is a powder that must be mixed into liquid, documents state.
Finally, just before injecting the vecuronium, Ms. Vaught stuck a syringe into the vial, which would have required her to “look directly” at a bottle cap that read “Warning: Paralyzing Agent,” the DA’s documents state.
The DA’s office points to this override as central to Ms. Vaught’s reckless homicide charge. Ms. Vaught acknowledges she performed an override on the cabinet. But she and others say overrides are a normal operating procedure used daily at hospitals.
While testifying before the nursing board last year, foreshadowing her defense in the upcoming trial, Ms. Vaught said at the time of Ms. Murphey’s death that Vanderbilt was instructing nurses to use overrides to overcome cabinet delays and constant technical problems caused by an ongoing overhaul of the hospital’s electronic health records system.
Ms. Murphey’s care alone required at least 20 cabinet overrides in just three days, Ms. Vaught said.
“Overriding was something we did as part of our practice every day,” Ms. Vaught said. “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”
Overrides are common outside of Vanderbilt too, according to experts following Ms. Vaught’s case.
Michael Cohen, president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, and Lorie Brown, past president of the American Association of Nurse Attorneys, each said it is common for nurses to use an override to obtain medication in a hospital.
Mr. Cohen and Ms. Brown stressed that even with an override it should not have been so easy to access vecuronium.
“This is a medication that you should never, ever, be able to override to,” Ms. Brown said. “It’s probably the most dangerous medication out there.”
Mr. Cohen said that in response to Ms. Vaught’s case, manufacturers of medication cabinets modified the devices’ software to require up to five letters to be typed when searching for drugs during an override, but not all hospitals have implemented this safeguard. Two years after Ms. Vaught’s error, Mr. Cohen’s organization documented a “strikingly similar” incident in which another nurse swapped Versed with another drug, verapamil, while using an override and searching with just the first few letters. That incident did not result in a patient’s death or criminal prosecution, Mr. Cohen said.
Maureen Shawn Kennedy, the editor-in-chief emerita of the American Journal of Nursing, wrote in 2019 that Ms. Vaught’s case was “every nurse’s nightmare.”
In the pandemic, she said, this is truer than ever.
“We know that the more patients a nurse has, the more room there is for errors,” Ms. Kennedy said. “We know that when nurses work longer shifts, there is more room for errors. So I think nurses get very concerned because they know this could be them.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Four years ago, inside the most prestigious hospital in Tennessee, nurse RaDonda Vaught withdrew a vial from an electronic medication cabinet, administered the drug to a patient, and somehow overlooked signs of a terrible and deadly mistake.
The patient was supposed to get Versed, a sedative intended to calm her before being scanned in a large, MRI-like machine. But Ms. Vaught accidentally grabbed vecuronium, a powerful paralyzer, which stopped the patient’s breathing and left her brain-dead before the error was discovered.
Ms. Vaught, 38, admitted her mistake at a Tennessee Board of Nursing hearing last year, saying she became “complacent” in her job and “distracted” by a trainee while operating the computerized medication cabinet. She did not shirk responsibility for the error, but she said the blame was not hers alone.
“I know the reason this patient is no longer here is because of me,” Ms. Vaught said, starting to cry. “There won’t ever be a day that goes by that I don’t think about what I did.”
If Ms. Vaught’s story followed the path of most medical errors, it would have been over hours later, when the Board of Nursing revoked her RN license and almost certainly ended her nursing career. But Ms. Vaught’s case is different: This week she goes on trial in Nashville on criminal charges of reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult for the killing of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Dec. 27, 2017.
Prosecutors do not allege in their court filings that Ms. Vaught intended to hurt Ms. Murphey or was impaired by any substance when she made the mistake, so Fatal errors are generally handled by licensing boards and civil courts. And experts say prosecutions like Ms. Vaught’s loom large for a profession terrified of the criminalization of such mistakes — especially because her case hinges on an automated system for dispensing drugs that many nurses use every day.
The Nashville district attorney’s office declined to discuss Ms. Vaught’s trial. Ms. Vaught’s lawyer, Peter Strianse, did not respond to requests for comment. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has repeatedly declined to comment on Ms. Vaught’s trial or its procedures.
Ms. Vaught’s trial will be followed by nurses nationwide, many of whom worry a conviction may set a precedent even as the coronavirus pandemic leaves countless nurses exhausted, demoralized, and likely more prone to error.
Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nursing group with more than 600,000 members on Facebook, said the group has closely watched Ms. Vaught’s case for years out of concern for her fate — and their own.
Ms. Garner said most nurses know all too well the pressures that contribute to such an error: long hours, crowded hospitals, imperfect protocols, and the inevitable creep of complacency in a job with daily life-or-death stakes.
Ms. Garner said she once switched powerful medications just as Ms. Vaught did and caught her mistake only in a last-minute triple-check.
“In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,” Ms. Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and usually it’s because they don’t realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be RaDonda.”
As the trial begins, the Nashville DA’s prosecutors will argue that Ms. Vaught’s error was anything but a common mistake any nurse could make. Prosecutors will say she ignored a cascade of warnings that led to the deadly error.
The case hinges on the nurse’s use of an electronic medication cabinet, a computerized device that dispenses a range of drugs. According to documents filed in the case, Ms. Vaught initially tried to withdraw Versed from a cabinet by typing “VE” into its search function without realizing she should have been looking for its generic name, midazolam. When the cabinet did not produce Versed, Ms. Vaught triggered an “override” that unlocked a much larger swath of medications, then searched for “VE” again. This time, the cabinet offered vecuronium.
Ms. Vaught then overlooked or bypassed at least five warnings or pop-ups saying she was withdrawing a paralyzing medication, documents state. She also did not recognize that Versed is a liquid but vecuronium is a powder that must be mixed into liquid, documents state.
Finally, just before injecting the vecuronium, Ms. Vaught stuck a syringe into the vial, which would have required her to “look directly” at a bottle cap that read “Warning: Paralyzing Agent,” the DA’s documents state.
The DA’s office points to this override as central to Ms. Vaught’s reckless homicide charge. Ms. Vaught acknowledges she performed an override on the cabinet. But she and others say overrides are a normal operating procedure used daily at hospitals.
While testifying before the nursing board last year, foreshadowing her defense in the upcoming trial, Ms. Vaught said at the time of Ms. Murphey’s death that Vanderbilt was instructing nurses to use overrides to overcome cabinet delays and constant technical problems caused by an ongoing overhaul of the hospital’s electronic health records system.
Ms. Murphey’s care alone required at least 20 cabinet overrides in just three days, Ms. Vaught said.
“Overriding was something we did as part of our practice every day,” Ms. Vaught said. “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”
Overrides are common outside of Vanderbilt too, according to experts following Ms. Vaught’s case.
Michael Cohen, president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, and Lorie Brown, past president of the American Association of Nurse Attorneys, each said it is common for nurses to use an override to obtain medication in a hospital.
Mr. Cohen and Ms. Brown stressed that even with an override it should not have been so easy to access vecuronium.
“This is a medication that you should never, ever, be able to override to,” Ms. Brown said. “It’s probably the most dangerous medication out there.”
Mr. Cohen said that in response to Ms. Vaught’s case, manufacturers of medication cabinets modified the devices’ software to require up to five letters to be typed when searching for drugs during an override, but not all hospitals have implemented this safeguard. Two years after Ms. Vaught’s error, Mr. Cohen’s organization documented a “strikingly similar” incident in which another nurse swapped Versed with another drug, verapamil, while using an override and searching with just the first few letters. That incident did not result in a patient’s death or criminal prosecution, Mr. Cohen said.
Maureen Shawn Kennedy, the editor-in-chief emerita of the American Journal of Nursing, wrote in 2019 that Ms. Vaught’s case was “every nurse’s nightmare.”
In the pandemic, she said, this is truer than ever.
“We know that the more patients a nurse has, the more room there is for errors,” Ms. Kennedy said. “We know that when nurses work longer shifts, there is more room for errors. So I think nurses get very concerned because they know this could be them.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.