AGA President Brings Forth “Message Of Inclusivity”

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 13:04

Gastroenterologist and new AGA president Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, initially thought he would pursue a career in health policy.

“I was always interested in medicine. From a relatively early age I thought that’s what I would be doing,” said Dr. Kim. When his father became disillusioned with his own career as a pathologist, he encouraged his son to look in other directions. 

Dr. Lawrence Kim



“In college I had the opportunity to study and learn broadly and I became interested in public policy and eventually majored in that discipline,” he said. 

The mentorship of the late Uwe Reinhardt, a well-respected health economist at Princeton University, had a major impact on Dr. Kim during his senior year of college. Reinhardt told him that physicians are afforded a special position in society. “They have a moral responsibility to take the lead in terms of guiding and shaping healthcare. His message made a big impression upon me,” said Dr. Kim. 

Ultimately, he decided to go into clinical medicine, but maintained his interest in healthcare policy. Experiences outside of the standard approach to medicine “helped me stay in the big picture of healthcare, to make a difference beyond just my individual patients. And that’s played a big part in keeping me involved in organized medicine,” said Dr. Kim, who began his term as AGA president in May 2025. 

Dr. Kim is also a partner at South Denver Gastroenterology, a 33-provider, independent gastroenterology practice in Colorado. As the first physician in Colorado with fellowship training in endoscopic ultrasound, he introduced this service line into South Denver’s advanced endoscopy practice.

Dr. Kim has served in numerous roles with AGA, among them the co-director of the AGA Clinical Congress, the Partners in Quality program, and the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant Course. He is a Digestive Disease Week® abstract reviewer, has served as AGA representative to the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care and to the Alliance of Specialty Medicine. He has also served on the AGA Governing Board as clinical private practice councilor and secretary treasurer.

He discussed the high points of his career in an interview, revealing his plans as AGA president for unifying the sectors of GI medicine and fostering GI innovation and technology. 

 

As the new AGA president, what are your goals for the society?

Dr. Kim: I want to put out a message of inclusivity. I think what’s special about AGA is that we’re the society for all gastroenterologists. Among all the other GI organizations, I think we really have the biggest tent and we work to unite clinicians, educators, and researchers – all gastroenterologists, regardless of their individual practice situation. These days, there is a tendency toward tribalism. People are starting to gravitate toward limiting their interactions to others that are from the same backgrounds. But as gastroenterologists we have more that unites us than divides us. It’s only by working together that we can make things better for everyone.

The Kim family, from left: Larry, Rachel, Alex, and Nhung.

I think the second point is that we’re on the cusp of some important transformations in gastroenterology. The screening colonoscopy model that has sustained our specialty for decades is rapidly evolving. In addition, there is an increasing ability for patients as consumers to direct their own care through advances in technology, such as virtual health platforms. We’re seeing this as patients increasingly adopt things like complementary and alternative medicine outside of the standard model of physician-directed healthcare. These are two important trends that gastroenterologists need to be aware of and learn how to manage and to adapt to. I think AGA’s role is to help guide that evolution and to give physicians the tools to be able to respond. 

We want to focus on innovation and we want to focus on practical solutions. 

In terms of fostering innovation in gastroenterology, we’re the first medical professional society to create an incubator for new technologies. Not only do we provide that resource to our members, but we’re also putting our money where our mouth is. Through venture capital initiatives such as our GI Opportunity Fund, we directly invest in companies that we’re helping to develop. 

On the practice side, we have been engaging directly with payers to foster improved communication and address pain points on both sides. I think we’re the only medical society that’s taking this type of approach and moving away from the traditional adversarial approach to dealing with payers. Recently, we had a very productive discussion with UnitedHealthcare around some of their upcoming formulary changes for inflammatory bowel disease. We used that opportunity to highlight how nonmedical switching between existing therapies can adversely impact patients, as well as increasing burden of red tape for practices. 

 

Your practice was one of the original groups that formed the Digestive Health Physicians Association (DPHA). What accomplishments of the association are you most proud of?

Dr. Kim: DHPA formed about 10 years ago as an advocacy organization to combat a specific perceived threat, which was the in-office ancillary exception. This is the legislative pathway that allows gastroenterologists to provide ancillary services within their practice. An example of this is pathology for endoscopic procedures, which is an incredible value to patients and improves quality of care. This was under a significant legislative threat at that time. As independent physicians, DHPA took the lead in advocating against eliminating that exception.

Dr. Larry Kim and his wife Nhung.

I think the larger accomplishment was it demonstrated that gastroenterologists, specifically independent community practice gastroenterologists, could come together successfully and advocate for issues that were of importance to our specialty. AGA and DHPA have worked very well together, collaborating on shared policy interests and have worked closely on both legislative as well as regulatory issues. We’ve sponsored joint meetings that we’ve programmed together and we’re looking forward to continuing a robust partnership.

 

You have introduced several new clinical practice and practice management models. Can you discuss the part-time partnership model and what it has achieved?

Dr. Kim: Like many practices, South Denver Gastroenterology historically required physician partners to work full time. This conflicted with our desire and our need to attract more women gastroenterologists into our practice. The process involved careful analysis of our direct and indirect expenses, but more importantly it required a negotiation and a meeting of the minds among our partners. A lot of this ultimately came down to trust. It helped a great deal that our practice has always had strong cohesiveness. That helped us to build that trust that partners would stay engaged in the practice even if they worked part time.

Our practice has also always prioritized work-life balance. We were able to come up with a formula that allows partners to work three days per week, retaining their partnership interest and their participation in practice decisions. They stay involved but are also financially sustainable for the practice. It’s been very successful. It’s been a big draw, not just for women, but it has allowed us to create a situation where women are fully one third of our partnership. It’s something we’re all extremely proud of.

 

How did you get involved in AGA?

Dr. Kim: One of the first projects I participated in was the Roadmap to the Future of GI Practice. This was an initiative to help prepare GI practices for value-based care. We did things like develop quality measure sets for GI conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease and hepatitis C. We published a bundled payment model for screening colonoscopies. We also created a model for obesity management by gastroenterologists. This was 15 years ago, and I think it was about 15 years ahead of its time! It’s interesting to see how many of these changes in GI practice that we envisioned are slowly coming to pass.

I saw that AGA was interested in me as a community-based clinician. They focused on trying to develop those practical tools to help me succeed. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed engaged.

 

What is your approach to patient communication and education?

Dr. Kim: There are two things that I always tell both my staff as well as young people who come to me asking for advice. I think the first and most important is that you should always strive to treat your patients the way that you would want your family treated. Of course, we’re not perfect, but when that doesn’t happen, look at your behavior, the way that you’re interacting, but also the way the system is treating your patients and try to improve things within your own practice. And then the other thing that I tell folks is try to spend more time listening to your patients than talking or speaking at them.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about GI?

Dr. Kim: We’re not just about colonoscopies! I went into GI not just because I enjoy performing procedures, but because our specialty covers such a broad spectrum of physiology and diseases. We also have the ability as gastroenterologists to develop long-term relationships with our patients. I’ve been in practice now more than 25 years, and the greatest satisfaction in my career doesn’t come from the endoscopy center, although I still enjoy performing procedures. It comes from the clinic; it comes from the patients whom I’ve known for decades, and the interaction and conversations that I can have with them, the ability to see their families, their parents, and now in some cases their kids or even their grandkids. It’s incredibly satisfying. It makes my job fun.

When Dr. Kim is not taking care of patients, he prefers to be out on the slopes.

What advice would you give to aspiring medical students?

Dr. Kim: One of the things I would say is stay involved in organized medicine. As physicians, we are endowed with great trust. We also have a great responsibility to help shape our healthcare care system. If we work together, we really can make a difference, not just for our profession, but also for society at large and for the patients whom we serve.

I really hope that young people don’t lose their optimism. We hear a lot these days about how much negativity and pessimism there is about the future, especially among young people in our society. But I think it’s a great time to be in medicine. Advances in medical science have made huge strides in our ability to make real differences for our patients. And the pace of technology progress is only going to continue to accelerate. Sure, there are lots of shortcomings in the practice of medicine, but honestly, that’s always been the case. I have faith that as a profession, we are smart people, we’re committed people, and we will be successful in overcoming those challenges. That’s the message that I have for young folks.

Lightning Round

Coffee or tea?

Coffee, black

What’s one hobby you’d like to pick up?

Anything except pickleball

What’s your favorite season of the year?

Winter, I’m a skier

What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?

Doing anything outside

If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?

Ben Franklin

What’s your go-to karaoke song?

You don’t want to hear me sing

What’s one thing on your bucket list?

Skiing in South America

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

Follow your heart

Publications
Topics
Sections

Gastroenterologist and new AGA president Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, initially thought he would pursue a career in health policy.

“I was always interested in medicine. From a relatively early age I thought that’s what I would be doing,” said Dr. Kim. When his father became disillusioned with his own career as a pathologist, he encouraged his son to look in other directions. 

Dr. Lawrence Kim



“In college I had the opportunity to study and learn broadly and I became interested in public policy and eventually majored in that discipline,” he said. 

The mentorship of the late Uwe Reinhardt, a well-respected health economist at Princeton University, had a major impact on Dr. Kim during his senior year of college. Reinhardt told him that physicians are afforded a special position in society. “They have a moral responsibility to take the lead in terms of guiding and shaping healthcare. His message made a big impression upon me,” said Dr. Kim. 

Ultimately, he decided to go into clinical medicine, but maintained his interest in healthcare policy. Experiences outside of the standard approach to medicine “helped me stay in the big picture of healthcare, to make a difference beyond just my individual patients. And that’s played a big part in keeping me involved in organized medicine,” said Dr. Kim, who began his term as AGA president in May 2025. 

Dr. Kim is also a partner at South Denver Gastroenterology, a 33-provider, independent gastroenterology practice in Colorado. As the first physician in Colorado with fellowship training in endoscopic ultrasound, he introduced this service line into South Denver’s advanced endoscopy practice.

Dr. Kim has served in numerous roles with AGA, among them the co-director of the AGA Clinical Congress, the Partners in Quality program, and the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant Course. He is a Digestive Disease Week® abstract reviewer, has served as AGA representative to the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care and to the Alliance of Specialty Medicine. He has also served on the AGA Governing Board as clinical private practice councilor and secretary treasurer.

He discussed the high points of his career in an interview, revealing his plans as AGA president for unifying the sectors of GI medicine and fostering GI innovation and technology. 

 

As the new AGA president, what are your goals for the society?

Dr. Kim: I want to put out a message of inclusivity. I think what’s special about AGA is that we’re the society for all gastroenterologists. Among all the other GI organizations, I think we really have the biggest tent and we work to unite clinicians, educators, and researchers – all gastroenterologists, regardless of their individual practice situation. These days, there is a tendency toward tribalism. People are starting to gravitate toward limiting their interactions to others that are from the same backgrounds. But as gastroenterologists we have more that unites us than divides us. It’s only by working together that we can make things better for everyone.

The Kim family, from left: Larry, Rachel, Alex, and Nhung.

I think the second point is that we’re on the cusp of some important transformations in gastroenterology. The screening colonoscopy model that has sustained our specialty for decades is rapidly evolving. In addition, there is an increasing ability for patients as consumers to direct their own care through advances in technology, such as virtual health platforms. We’re seeing this as patients increasingly adopt things like complementary and alternative medicine outside of the standard model of physician-directed healthcare. These are two important trends that gastroenterologists need to be aware of and learn how to manage and to adapt to. I think AGA’s role is to help guide that evolution and to give physicians the tools to be able to respond. 

We want to focus on innovation and we want to focus on practical solutions. 

In terms of fostering innovation in gastroenterology, we’re the first medical professional society to create an incubator for new technologies. Not only do we provide that resource to our members, but we’re also putting our money where our mouth is. Through venture capital initiatives such as our GI Opportunity Fund, we directly invest in companies that we’re helping to develop. 

On the practice side, we have been engaging directly with payers to foster improved communication and address pain points on both sides. I think we’re the only medical society that’s taking this type of approach and moving away from the traditional adversarial approach to dealing with payers. Recently, we had a very productive discussion with UnitedHealthcare around some of their upcoming formulary changes for inflammatory bowel disease. We used that opportunity to highlight how nonmedical switching between existing therapies can adversely impact patients, as well as increasing burden of red tape for practices. 

 

Your practice was one of the original groups that formed the Digestive Health Physicians Association (DPHA). What accomplishments of the association are you most proud of?

Dr. Kim: DHPA formed about 10 years ago as an advocacy organization to combat a specific perceived threat, which was the in-office ancillary exception. This is the legislative pathway that allows gastroenterologists to provide ancillary services within their practice. An example of this is pathology for endoscopic procedures, which is an incredible value to patients and improves quality of care. This was under a significant legislative threat at that time. As independent physicians, DHPA took the lead in advocating against eliminating that exception.

Dr. Larry Kim and his wife Nhung.

I think the larger accomplishment was it demonstrated that gastroenterologists, specifically independent community practice gastroenterologists, could come together successfully and advocate for issues that were of importance to our specialty. AGA and DHPA have worked very well together, collaborating on shared policy interests and have worked closely on both legislative as well as regulatory issues. We’ve sponsored joint meetings that we’ve programmed together and we’re looking forward to continuing a robust partnership.

 

You have introduced several new clinical practice and practice management models. Can you discuss the part-time partnership model and what it has achieved?

Dr. Kim: Like many practices, South Denver Gastroenterology historically required physician partners to work full time. This conflicted with our desire and our need to attract more women gastroenterologists into our practice. The process involved careful analysis of our direct and indirect expenses, but more importantly it required a negotiation and a meeting of the minds among our partners. A lot of this ultimately came down to trust. It helped a great deal that our practice has always had strong cohesiveness. That helped us to build that trust that partners would stay engaged in the practice even if they worked part time.

Our practice has also always prioritized work-life balance. We were able to come up with a formula that allows partners to work three days per week, retaining their partnership interest and their participation in practice decisions. They stay involved but are also financially sustainable for the practice. It’s been very successful. It’s been a big draw, not just for women, but it has allowed us to create a situation where women are fully one third of our partnership. It’s something we’re all extremely proud of.

 

How did you get involved in AGA?

Dr. Kim: One of the first projects I participated in was the Roadmap to the Future of GI Practice. This was an initiative to help prepare GI practices for value-based care. We did things like develop quality measure sets for GI conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease and hepatitis C. We published a bundled payment model for screening colonoscopies. We also created a model for obesity management by gastroenterologists. This was 15 years ago, and I think it was about 15 years ahead of its time! It’s interesting to see how many of these changes in GI practice that we envisioned are slowly coming to pass.

I saw that AGA was interested in me as a community-based clinician. They focused on trying to develop those practical tools to help me succeed. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed engaged.

 

What is your approach to patient communication and education?

Dr. Kim: There are two things that I always tell both my staff as well as young people who come to me asking for advice. I think the first and most important is that you should always strive to treat your patients the way that you would want your family treated. Of course, we’re not perfect, but when that doesn’t happen, look at your behavior, the way that you’re interacting, but also the way the system is treating your patients and try to improve things within your own practice. And then the other thing that I tell folks is try to spend more time listening to your patients than talking or speaking at them.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about GI?

Dr. Kim: We’re not just about colonoscopies! I went into GI not just because I enjoy performing procedures, but because our specialty covers such a broad spectrum of physiology and diseases. We also have the ability as gastroenterologists to develop long-term relationships with our patients. I’ve been in practice now more than 25 years, and the greatest satisfaction in my career doesn’t come from the endoscopy center, although I still enjoy performing procedures. It comes from the clinic; it comes from the patients whom I’ve known for decades, and the interaction and conversations that I can have with them, the ability to see their families, their parents, and now in some cases their kids or even their grandkids. It’s incredibly satisfying. It makes my job fun.

When Dr. Kim is not taking care of patients, he prefers to be out on the slopes.

What advice would you give to aspiring medical students?

Dr. Kim: One of the things I would say is stay involved in organized medicine. As physicians, we are endowed with great trust. We also have a great responsibility to help shape our healthcare care system. If we work together, we really can make a difference, not just for our profession, but also for society at large and for the patients whom we serve.

I really hope that young people don’t lose their optimism. We hear a lot these days about how much negativity and pessimism there is about the future, especially among young people in our society. But I think it’s a great time to be in medicine. Advances in medical science have made huge strides in our ability to make real differences for our patients. And the pace of technology progress is only going to continue to accelerate. Sure, there are lots of shortcomings in the practice of medicine, but honestly, that’s always been the case. I have faith that as a profession, we are smart people, we’re committed people, and we will be successful in overcoming those challenges. That’s the message that I have for young folks.

Lightning Round

Coffee or tea?

Coffee, black

What’s one hobby you’d like to pick up?

Anything except pickleball

What’s your favorite season of the year?

Winter, I’m a skier

What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?

Doing anything outside

If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?

Ben Franklin

What’s your go-to karaoke song?

You don’t want to hear me sing

What’s one thing on your bucket list?

Skiing in South America

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

Follow your heart

Gastroenterologist and new AGA president Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, initially thought he would pursue a career in health policy.

“I was always interested in medicine. From a relatively early age I thought that’s what I would be doing,” said Dr. Kim. When his father became disillusioned with his own career as a pathologist, he encouraged his son to look in other directions. 

Dr. Lawrence Kim



“In college I had the opportunity to study and learn broadly and I became interested in public policy and eventually majored in that discipline,” he said. 

The mentorship of the late Uwe Reinhardt, a well-respected health economist at Princeton University, had a major impact on Dr. Kim during his senior year of college. Reinhardt told him that physicians are afforded a special position in society. “They have a moral responsibility to take the lead in terms of guiding and shaping healthcare. His message made a big impression upon me,” said Dr. Kim. 

Ultimately, he decided to go into clinical medicine, but maintained his interest in healthcare policy. Experiences outside of the standard approach to medicine “helped me stay in the big picture of healthcare, to make a difference beyond just my individual patients. And that’s played a big part in keeping me involved in organized medicine,” said Dr. Kim, who began his term as AGA president in May 2025. 

Dr. Kim is also a partner at South Denver Gastroenterology, a 33-provider, independent gastroenterology practice in Colorado. As the first physician in Colorado with fellowship training in endoscopic ultrasound, he introduced this service line into South Denver’s advanced endoscopy practice.

Dr. Kim has served in numerous roles with AGA, among them the co-director of the AGA Clinical Congress, the Partners in Quality program, and the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant Course. He is a Digestive Disease Week® abstract reviewer, has served as AGA representative to the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care and to the Alliance of Specialty Medicine. He has also served on the AGA Governing Board as clinical private practice councilor and secretary treasurer.

He discussed the high points of his career in an interview, revealing his plans as AGA president for unifying the sectors of GI medicine and fostering GI innovation and technology. 

 

As the new AGA president, what are your goals for the society?

Dr. Kim: I want to put out a message of inclusivity. I think what’s special about AGA is that we’re the society for all gastroenterologists. Among all the other GI organizations, I think we really have the biggest tent and we work to unite clinicians, educators, and researchers – all gastroenterologists, regardless of their individual practice situation. These days, there is a tendency toward tribalism. People are starting to gravitate toward limiting their interactions to others that are from the same backgrounds. But as gastroenterologists we have more that unites us than divides us. It’s only by working together that we can make things better for everyone.

The Kim family, from left: Larry, Rachel, Alex, and Nhung.

I think the second point is that we’re on the cusp of some important transformations in gastroenterology. The screening colonoscopy model that has sustained our specialty for decades is rapidly evolving. In addition, there is an increasing ability for patients as consumers to direct their own care through advances in technology, such as virtual health platforms. We’re seeing this as patients increasingly adopt things like complementary and alternative medicine outside of the standard model of physician-directed healthcare. These are two important trends that gastroenterologists need to be aware of and learn how to manage and to adapt to. I think AGA’s role is to help guide that evolution and to give physicians the tools to be able to respond. 

We want to focus on innovation and we want to focus on practical solutions. 

In terms of fostering innovation in gastroenterology, we’re the first medical professional society to create an incubator for new technologies. Not only do we provide that resource to our members, but we’re also putting our money where our mouth is. Through venture capital initiatives such as our GI Opportunity Fund, we directly invest in companies that we’re helping to develop. 

On the practice side, we have been engaging directly with payers to foster improved communication and address pain points on both sides. I think we’re the only medical society that’s taking this type of approach and moving away from the traditional adversarial approach to dealing with payers. Recently, we had a very productive discussion with UnitedHealthcare around some of their upcoming formulary changes for inflammatory bowel disease. We used that opportunity to highlight how nonmedical switching between existing therapies can adversely impact patients, as well as increasing burden of red tape for practices. 

 

Your practice was one of the original groups that formed the Digestive Health Physicians Association (DPHA). What accomplishments of the association are you most proud of?

Dr. Kim: DHPA formed about 10 years ago as an advocacy organization to combat a specific perceived threat, which was the in-office ancillary exception. This is the legislative pathway that allows gastroenterologists to provide ancillary services within their practice. An example of this is pathology for endoscopic procedures, which is an incredible value to patients and improves quality of care. This was under a significant legislative threat at that time. As independent physicians, DHPA took the lead in advocating against eliminating that exception.

Dr. Larry Kim and his wife Nhung.

I think the larger accomplishment was it demonstrated that gastroenterologists, specifically independent community practice gastroenterologists, could come together successfully and advocate for issues that were of importance to our specialty. AGA and DHPA have worked very well together, collaborating on shared policy interests and have worked closely on both legislative as well as regulatory issues. We’ve sponsored joint meetings that we’ve programmed together and we’re looking forward to continuing a robust partnership.

 

You have introduced several new clinical practice and practice management models. Can you discuss the part-time partnership model and what it has achieved?

Dr. Kim: Like many practices, South Denver Gastroenterology historically required physician partners to work full time. This conflicted with our desire and our need to attract more women gastroenterologists into our practice. The process involved careful analysis of our direct and indirect expenses, but more importantly it required a negotiation and a meeting of the minds among our partners. A lot of this ultimately came down to trust. It helped a great deal that our practice has always had strong cohesiveness. That helped us to build that trust that partners would stay engaged in the practice even if they worked part time.

Our practice has also always prioritized work-life balance. We were able to come up with a formula that allows partners to work three days per week, retaining their partnership interest and their participation in practice decisions. They stay involved but are also financially sustainable for the practice. It’s been very successful. It’s been a big draw, not just for women, but it has allowed us to create a situation where women are fully one third of our partnership. It’s something we’re all extremely proud of.

 

How did you get involved in AGA?

Dr. Kim: One of the first projects I participated in was the Roadmap to the Future of GI Practice. This was an initiative to help prepare GI practices for value-based care. We did things like develop quality measure sets for GI conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease and hepatitis C. We published a bundled payment model for screening colonoscopies. We also created a model for obesity management by gastroenterologists. This was 15 years ago, and I think it was about 15 years ahead of its time! It’s interesting to see how many of these changes in GI practice that we envisioned are slowly coming to pass.

I saw that AGA was interested in me as a community-based clinician. They focused on trying to develop those practical tools to help me succeed. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed engaged.

 

What is your approach to patient communication and education?

Dr. Kim: There are two things that I always tell both my staff as well as young people who come to me asking for advice. I think the first and most important is that you should always strive to treat your patients the way that you would want your family treated. Of course, we’re not perfect, but when that doesn’t happen, look at your behavior, the way that you’re interacting, but also the way the system is treating your patients and try to improve things within your own practice. And then the other thing that I tell folks is try to spend more time listening to your patients than talking or speaking at them.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about GI?

Dr. Kim: We’re not just about colonoscopies! I went into GI not just because I enjoy performing procedures, but because our specialty covers such a broad spectrum of physiology and diseases. We also have the ability as gastroenterologists to develop long-term relationships with our patients. I’ve been in practice now more than 25 years, and the greatest satisfaction in my career doesn’t come from the endoscopy center, although I still enjoy performing procedures. It comes from the clinic; it comes from the patients whom I’ve known for decades, and the interaction and conversations that I can have with them, the ability to see their families, their parents, and now in some cases their kids or even their grandkids. It’s incredibly satisfying. It makes my job fun.

When Dr. Kim is not taking care of patients, he prefers to be out on the slopes.

What advice would you give to aspiring medical students?

Dr. Kim: One of the things I would say is stay involved in organized medicine. As physicians, we are endowed with great trust. We also have a great responsibility to help shape our healthcare care system. If we work together, we really can make a difference, not just for our profession, but also for society at large and for the patients whom we serve.

I really hope that young people don’t lose their optimism. We hear a lot these days about how much negativity and pessimism there is about the future, especially among young people in our society. But I think it’s a great time to be in medicine. Advances in medical science have made huge strides in our ability to make real differences for our patients. And the pace of technology progress is only going to continue to accelerate. Sure, there are lots of shortcomings in the practice of medicine, but honestly, that’s always been the case. I have faith that as a profession, we are smart people, we’re committed people, and we will be successful in overcoming those challenges. That’s the message that I have for young folks.

Lightning Round

Coffee or tea?

Coffee, black

What’s one hobby you’d like to pick up?

Anything except pickleball

What’s your favorite season of the year?

Winter, I’m a skier

What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?

Doing anything outside

If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?

Ben Franklin

What’s your go-to karaoke song?

You don’t want to hear me sing

What’s one thing on your bucket list?

Skiing in South America

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

Follow your heart

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 07/10/2025 - 10:36
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 07/10/2025 - 10:36
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 07/10/2025 - 10:36
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Thu, 07/10/2025 - 10:36

Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 09/24/2024 - 13:12

 

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care
Dr. Samyukta Mullangi

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

  • Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
  • Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
  • Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship
Sharon Gentry



Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

 

 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care
Dr. Samyukta Mullangi

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

  • Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
  • Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
  • Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship
Sharon Gentry



Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

 

 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care
Dr. Samyukta Mullangi

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

  • Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
  • Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
  • Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship
Sharon Gentry



Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

 

 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Tue, 09/17/2024 - 19:11
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 09/17/2024 - 19:11
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 09/17/2024 - 19:11
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Tue, 09/17/2024 - 19:11

Special Report II: Tackling Burnout

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/03/2019 - 10:27

Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences. 

From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus. 

From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout. 

Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.

There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.

2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated. 

3)  Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.

How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model? 
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:

  • Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting. 
  • Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
  • The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
  • Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
  • Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.

The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation. 

*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP  Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5

Publications
Topics
Sections

Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences. 

From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus. 

From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout. 

Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.

There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.

2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated. 

3)  Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.

How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model? 
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:

  • Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting. 
  • Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
  • The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
  • Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
  • Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.

The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation. 

*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP  Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5

Last month, we introduced the epidemic of burnout and the adverse consequences for both our vascular surgery patients and ourselves. Today we will outline a framework for addressing these issues. The foundation of this framework is informed by the social and neurosciences. 

From the perspective of the social scientist: Christina Maslach, the originator of the widely used Maslach Burnout Inventory, theorized that burnout arises from a chronic mismatch between people and their work setting in some or all of the following domains: Workload (too much, wrong kind); control (lack of autonomy, or insufficient control over resources); reward (insufficient financial or social rewards commensurate with achievements); community (loss of positive connection with others); fairness (lack of perceived fairness, inequity of work, pay, or promotion); and values (conflict of personal and organizational values). The reality of practicing medicine in today’s business milieu – of achieving service efficiencies by meeting performance targets – brings many of these mismatches into sharp focus. 

From the perspective of the neuroscientist: Recent advances, including functional MRI, have demonstrated that the human brain is hard wired for compassion. Compassion is the deep feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering, coupled with a strong desire to alleviate that suffering. There are at least two neural pathways: one activated during empathy, having us experience another’s pain; and the other activated during compassion, resulting in our sense of reward. Thus, burnout is thought to occur when you know what your patient needs but you are unable to deliver it. Compassionate medical care is purposeful work, which promotes a sense of reward and mitigates burnout. 

Because burnout affects all caregivers (anyone who touches the patient), a successful program addressing workforce well-being must be comprehensive and organization wide, similar to successful patient safety, CPI [continuous process improvement] and LEAN [Six Sigma] initiatives.

There are no shortcuts. Creating a culture of compassionate, collaborative care requires an understanding of the interrelationships between the individual provider, the unit or team, and organizational leadership.
1) The individual provider: There is evidence to support the use of programs that build personal resilience. A recently published meta-analysis by West and colleagues concluded that while no specific physician burnout intervention has been shown to be better than other types of interventions, mindfulness, stress management, and small-group discussions can be effective approaches to reducing burnout scores. Strategies to build individual resilience, such as mindfulness and meditation, are easy to teach but place the burden for success on the individual. No amount of resilience can withstand an unsupportive or toxic workplace environment, so both individual and organizational strategies in combination are necessary.

2) The unit or team: Scheduling time for open and honest discussion of social and emotional issues that arise in caring for patients helps nourish caregiver to caregiver compassion. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare is a national nonprofit leading the movement to bring compassion to every patient-caregiver interaction. More than 425 health care organization are Schwartz Center members and conduct Schwartz Rounds™ to bring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers together to discuss the human side of health care. (www.theschwartzcenter.org). Team member to team member support is essential for navigating the stressors of practice. With having lunch in front of your computer being the norm, and the disappearance of traditional spaces for colleagues to connect (for example, nurses’ lounge, physician dining rooms), the opportunity for caregivers to have a safe place to escape, a place to have their own humanity reaffirmed, a place to offer support to their peers, has been eliminated. 

3)  Organizational Leadership: Making compassion a core value, articulating it, and establishing metrics whereby it can be measured, is a good start. The barriers to a culture of compassion are related to our systems of care. There are burgeoning administrative and documentation tasks to be performed, and productivity expectations that turn our clinics and hospitals into assembly lines. No, we cannot expect the EMR [electronic medical records] to be eliminated, but workforce well-being cannot be sustainable in the context of inadequate resources. A culture of compassionate collaborative care requires programs and policies that are implemented by the organization itself. Examples of organization-wide initiatives that support workforce well-being and provider engagement include: screening for caregiver burnout, establishing policies for managing adverse events with an eye toward the second victim, and most importantly, supporting systems that preserve work control autonomy of physicians and nurses in clinical settings. The business sector has long recognized that workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control that person has over his or her responsibilities. The business community has also recognized that the experience of the worker (provider) drives the experience of the customer (patient). In a study of hospital compassionate practices and HCAHPS [the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems], McClelland and Vogus reported that how well a hospital compassionately supports it employees and rewards compassionate acts is significantly and positively is associated with that hospital’s ratings and likelihood of patients recommending it.

How does the Society of Vascular Surgery, or any professional medical/nursing society for that matter, fit into this model? 
We propose that the SVS find ways to empower their members to be agents for culture change within their own health care organizations. How might this be done:

  • Teach organizational leadership skills, starting with the SVS Board of Directors, the presidential line, and the chairs of committees. Offer leadership courses at the Annual Meeting. 
  • Develop a community of caregivers committed to creating a compassionate collaborative culture. The SVS is a founding member of the Schwartz Center Healthcare Society Leadership Council, and you, as members of the SVS benefit from reduced registration at the Annual Compassion in Action Healthcare Conference, June 24-27, 2017 in Boston. (http://compassioninactionconference.org) This conference is designed to be highly experiential, using a hands-on “how to do it” model.
  • The SVS should make improving the overall wellness of its members a specific goal and find specific metrics to monitor our progress towards this goal. Members can be provided with the tools to identify, monitor, and measure burnout and compassion. Each committee and council of the SVS can reexamine their objectives through the lens of reducing burnout and improving the wellness of vascular surgeons.
  • Provide members with evidence-based programs that build personal resilience. This will not be a successful initiative unless our surgeons recognize and acknowledge the symptoms of burnout, and are willing to admit vulnerability. Without doing so, it is difficult to reach out for help.
  • Redesign postgraduate resident and fellowship education. Standardizing clinical care may reduce variation and promote efficiency. However, when processes such as time-limited appointment scheduling, EMR templates, and protocols that drive physician-patient interactions are embedded in Resident and Fellowship education, the result may well be inflexibility in practice, reduced face time with patients, and interactions that lack compassion; all leading to burnout. Graduate Medical Education leaders must develop programs that support the learner’s ability to connect with patients and families, cultivate and role-model skills and behaviors that strengthen compassionate interactions, and strive to develop clinical practice models that increase Resident and Fellow work control autonomy.

The SVS should work proactively to optimize workload, fairness, and reward on a larger scale for its members as it relates to the EMR, reimbursement, and systems coverage. While we may be relatively small in size, as leaders, we are perfectly poised to address these larger, global issues. Perhaps working within the current system (i.e., PAC and APM task force) and considering innovative solutions at a national leadership scale, the SVS can direct real change!
Changing culture is not easy, nor quick, nor does it have an easy-to-follow blueprint. The first step is recognizing the need. The second is taking a leadership role. The third is thinking deeply about implementation. 

*The authors extend their thanks and appreciation for the guidance, resources and support of Michael Goldberg, MD, scholar in residence, Schwartz Center for Compassionate Care, Boston and clinical professor of orthopedics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

REFERENCES
1. J Managerial Psychol. (2007) 22:309-28
2. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2012) 35:1-23
3. Medicine. (2016) 44:583-5
4. J Health Organization Manag. (2015) 29:973-87
5. De Zulueta P Developing compassionate leadership in health care: an integrative review. J Healthcare Leadership. (2016) 8:1-10
6. Dolan ED, Morh D, Lempa M et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometry evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:582-7
7. Karasek RA Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly (1979) 24: 285-308
8. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, et al. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med. (2016) 91:338-44
9. Linzer M, Levine R, Meltzer D, et al. 10 bold steps to prevent burnout in general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2013) 29:18-20
10. Lown BA, Manning CF The Schwartz Center Rounds: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med. (2010) 85:1073-81
11. Lown BA, Muncer SJ, Chadwick R Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale. Patient Education and Counseling (2015) 98:1005-10
12. Lown BA, McIntosh S, Gaines ME, et. al. Integrating compassionate collaborative care (“the Triple C”) into health professional education to advance the triple aim of health care. Acad Med (2016) 91:1-7
13. Lown BA A social neuroscience-informed model for teaching and practicing compassion in health care. Medical Education (2016) 50: 332-342
14. Maslach C, Schaufeli WG, Leiter MP Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol (2001) 52:397-422
15. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ Compassion practices and HCAHPS: Does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? HSR: Health Serv Res. (2014) 49:1670-83
16. Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH Executive leadership and physician well-being: Nine organizational strategies to promote engagement and reduce burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 6:1-18
17. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP  Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. JAMA (2017) 317:901-2
18. Singer T, Klimecki OM Empathy and compassion Curr Biol. (2014) 24: R875-8
19. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV et. al. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. (2012) 27:1445-52
20. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, et al. Interventions to address and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2016) 388:2272-81
21. Wuest TK, Goldberg MJ, Kelly JD Clinical faceoff: Physician burnout-Fact, fantasy, or the fourth component of the triple aim? Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2016) doi: 10.1007/5-11999-016-5193-5

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Ready for post-acute care?

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:58
As PAC expands, hospital medicine’s role – and leadership – will be key.

 

The definition of “hospitalist,” according to the SHM website, is a clinician “dedicated to delivering comprehensive medical care to hospitalized patients.” For years, the hospital setting was the specialties’ identifier. But as hospitalists’ scope has expanded, and post-acute care (PAC) in the United States has grown, more hospitalists are extending their roles into this space.

PAC today is more than the traditional nursing home, according to Manoj K. Mathew, MD, SFHM, national medical director of Agilon Health in Los Angeles.

Manoj K. Mathew
Dr. Manoj K. Mathew
“Previously, physicians considered post-acute care only within the limited scope of what’s in their own care universe – such as skilled nursing facilities [SNFs], inpatient rehabilitation facilities [IRFs], long-term acute-care hospitals [LTACHs], and home health visits,” Dr. Mathew says. “But in today’s world, PAC goes well beyond these types of facilities to include other types: postdischarge clinics, palliative care programs, chronic-care/high-risk clinics, home care, and telehealth.”

Many of those expanded settings Dr. Mathew describes emerged as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Since its enactment in 2010, the ACA has heightened providers’ focus on the “Triple Aim” of improving the patient experience (including quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of healthcare.Vishal Kuchaculla, MD, New England regional post-acute medical director of Knoxville,Tenn.-based TeamHealth, says new service lines also developed as Medicare clamped down on long-term inpatient hospital stays by giving financial impetus to discharge patients as soon as possible.

“Over the last few years, there’s been a major shift from fee-for-service to risk-based payment models,” Dr. Kuchaculla says. “The government’s financial incentives are driving outcomes to improve performance initiatives.”

Dr. Sean Muldoon
Another reason for increased Medicare spending on PAC stems from the fact that patients no longer need to be hospitalized before going to a PAC setting.

“Today, LTACHs can be used as substitutes for short-term acute care,” says Sean R. Muldoon, MD, MPH, FCCP, chief medical officer of Kindred Healthcare in Louisville, Ky., and former chair of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Committee. “This means that a patient can be directly admitted from their home to an LTACH. In fact, many hospice and home-care patients are referred from physicians’ offices without a preceding hospitalization.”
 

Hospitalists can fill a need

More hospitalists are working in PACs for a number of reasons. Dr. Mathew says PAC facilities and services have “typically lacked the clinical structure and processes to obtain the results that patients and payors expect.

“These deficits needed to be quickly remedied as patients discharged from hospitals have increased acuity and higher disease burdens,” he adds. “Hospitalists were the natural choice to fill roles requiring their expertise and experience.”

Dr. Muldoon considers the expanded scope of practice into PACs an additional layer to hospital medicine’s value proposition to the healthcare system.

“As experts in the management of inpatient populations, it’s natural for hospitalists to expand to other facilities with inpatient-like populations,” he says, noting SNFs are the most popular choice, with IRFs and LTACHs also being common places to work. Few hospitalists work in home care or hospice.

PAC settings are designed to help patients who are transitioning from an inpatient setting back to their home or other setting.

“Many patients go home after a SNF stay, while others will move to a nursing home or other longer-term care setting for the first time,” says Tiffany Radcliff, PhD, a health economist in the department of health policy and management at Texas A&M University School of Public Health in College Station. “With this in mind, hospitalists working in PAC have the opportunity to address each patient’s ongoing care needs and prepare them for their next setting. Hospitalists can manage medication or other care regimen changes that resulted from an inpatient stay, reinforce discharge instructions to the patient and their caregivers, and identify any other issues with continuing care that need to be addressed before discharge to the next care setting.”

Transitioning Care

Even if a hospitalist is not employed at a PAC, it’s important that they know something about them.

“As patients are moved downstream earlier, hospitalists are being asked to help make a judgment regarding when and where an inpatient is transitioned,” Dr. Muldoon says. As organizations move toward becoming fully risk capable, it is necessary to develop referral networks of high-quality PAC providers to achieve the best clinical outcomes, reduce readmissions, and lower costs.2“Therefore, hospitalists should have a working knowledge of the different sites of service as well as some opinion on the suitability of available options in their community,” Dr. Muldoon says. “The hospitalist can also help to educate the hospitalized patient on what to expect at a PAC.”

If a patient is inappropriately prepared for the PAC setting, it could lead to incomplete management of their condition, which ultimately could lead to readmission.

“When hospitalists know how care is provided in a PAC setting, they are better able to ensure a smoother transition of care between settings,” says Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, SFHM, chair of family medicine at Northwell Health in Long Island, N.Y. “This will ultimately prevent unnecessary readmissions.”

Further, the quality metrics that hospitals and thereby hospitalists are judged by no longer end at the hospital’s exit.

“The ownership of acute-care outcomes requires extending the accountability to outside of the institution’s four walls,” Dr. Mathew says. “The inpatient team needs to place great importance on the transition of care and the subsequent quality of that care when the patient is discharged.”

Robert W. Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of Plano, Texas–based Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions and former SHM president, says the health system landscapes are pushing HM beyond the hospitals’ walls.

Dr. Robert Harrington
“We’re headed down a path that will mandate and incentivize all of us to provide more-coordinated, more-efficient, higher-quality care,” he says. “We need to meet patients at the level of care that they need and provide continuity through the entire episode of care from hospital to home.”
 

 

 

How PAC settings differ from hospitals

Practicing in PAC has some important nuances that hospitalists from short-term acute care need to get accustomed to, Dr. Muldoon says. Primarily, the diagnostic capabilities are much more limited, as is the presence of high-level staffing. Further, patients are less resilient to medication changes and interventions, so changes need to be done gradually.

“Hospitalists who try to practice acute-care medicine in a PAC setting may become frustrated by the length of time it takes to do a work-up, get a consultation, and respond to a patient’s change of condition,” Dr. Muldoon says. “Nonetheless, hospitalists can overcome this once recognizing this mind shift.”

According to Dr. Harrington, another challenge hospitalists may face is the inability of the hospital’s and PAC facility’s IT platforms to exchange electronic information.

“The major vendors on both sides need to figure out an interoperability strategy,” he says. “Currently, it often takes 1-3 days to receive a new patient’s discharge summary. The summary may consist of a stack of paper that takes significant time to sort through and requires the PAC facility to perform duplicate data entry. It’s a very highly inefficient process that opens up the doors to mistakes and errors of omission and commission that can result in bad patient outcomes.”

Arif Nazir, MD, CMD, FACP, AGSF, chief medical officer of Signature HealthCARE and president of SHC Medical Partners, both in Louisville, Ky., cites additional reasons the lack of seamless communication between a hospital and PAC facility is problematic. “I see physicians order laboratory tests and investigations that were already done in the hospital because they didn’t know they were already performed or never received the results,” he says. “Similarly, I see patients continue to take medications prescribed in the hospital long term even though they were only supposed to take them short term. I’ve also seen patients come to a PAC setting from a hospital without any formal understanding of their rehabilitative period and expectations for recovery.”

Despite some frustrations cited by others, James D. Tollman, MD, FHM, president of Boxford, Mass.–based Essex Inpatient Physicians, believes working in a PAC setting can be a less-demanding environment for a hospitalist than an inpatient facility. “They have much more flexibility with their schedule,” he says. “In the hospital, hospitalists have longer, more physically demanding shifts. At SNFs, the level of decision making is often easier; usually they house lower-acuity patients. However, there might be more challenges with disposition, family issues, and follow-ups. Plus, you have to do more to coordinate care.”
 

What’s ahead?

Looking to the future, Surafel Tsega, MD, clinical instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, says he thinks there will be a move toward greater collaboration among inpatient and PAC facilities, particularly in the discharge process, given that hospitals have an added incentive to ensure safe transitions because reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is tied to readmissions and there are penalties for readmission. This involves more comprehensive planning regarding “warm handoffs” (e.g., real-time discussions with PAC providers about a patient’s hospital course and plan of care upon discharge), transferring of information, and so forth.

And while it can still be challenging to identify high-risk patients or determine the intensity and duration of their care, Dr. Mathew says risk-stratification tools and care pathways are continually being refined to maximize value with the limited resources available. In addition, with an increased emphasis on employing a team approach to care, there will be better integration of non-medical services to address the social determinants of health, which play significant roles in overall health and healing.

“Working with community-based organizations for this purpose will be a valuable tool for any of the population health–based initiatives,” he says.

Dr. Muldoon says he believes healthcare reform will increasingly view an inpatient admission as something to be avoided.

“If hospitalization can’t be avoided, then it should be shortened as much as possible,” he says. “This will shift inpatient care into LTACHs, SNFs, and IRFs. Hospitalists would be wise to follow patients into those settings as traditional inpatient census is reduced. This will take a few years, so hospitalists should start now in preparing for that downstream transition of individuals who were previously inpatients.”
 

The cost of care, and other PAC facts and figures

The amount of money that Medicare spends on post-acute care (PAC) has been increasing. In 2012, 12.6% of Medicare beneficiaries used some form of PAC, costing $62 billion.2 That amounts to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spending close to 25% of Medicare beneficiary expenses on PAC, a 133% increase from 2001 to 2012. Among the different types, $30.4 billion was spent on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), $18.6 billion on home health, and $13.1 billion on long-term acute care (LTAC) and acute-care rehabilitation.2

 

 

It’s also been reported that after short-term acute-care hospitalization, about one in five Medicare beneficiaries requires continued specialized treatment in one of the three typical Medicare PAC settings: inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), LTAC hospitals, and SNFs.3

What’s more, hospital readmission nearly doubles the cost of an episode, so the financial implications for organizations operating in risk-bearing arrangements are significant. In 2013, 2,213 hospitals were charged $280 million in readmission penalties.2

References

1. The role of post-acute care in new care delivery models. American Hospital Association website. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/15dec-tw-postacute.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.

2. Post-acute care integration: Today and in the future. DHG Healthcare website. Available at: http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/HCG-Post-Acute-Care-Integration.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.

3. Overview: Post-acute care transitions toolkit. Society for Hospital Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/Web/Quality___Innovation/Implementation_Toolkit/pact/Overview_PACT.aspx?hkey=dea3da3c-8620-46db-a00f-89f07f021958. Accessed Nov. 10, 2016.

Publications
Topics
Sections
As PAC expands, hospital medicine’s role – and leadership – will be key.
As PAC expands, hospital medicine’s role – and leadership – will be key.

 

The definition of “hospitalist,” according to the SHM website, is a clinician “dedicated to delivering comprehensive medical care to hospitalized patients.” For years, the hospital setting was the specialties’ identifier. But as hospitalists’ scope has expanded, and post-acute care (PAC) in the United States has grown, more hospitalists are extending their roles into this space.

PAC today is more than the traditional nursing home, according to Manoj K. Mathew, MD, SFHM, national medical director of Agilon Health in Los Angeles.

Manoj K. Mathew
Dr. Manoj K. Mathew
“Previously, physicians considered post-acute care only within the limited scope of what’s in their own care universe – such as skilled nursing facilities [SNFs], inpatient rehabilitation facilities [IRFs], long-term acute-care hospitals [LTACHs], and home health visits,” Dr. Mathew says. “But in today’s world, PAC goes well beyond these types of facilities to include other types: postdischarge clinics, palliative care programs, chronic-care/high-risk clinics, home care, and telehealth.”

Many of those expanded settings Dr. Mathew describes emerged as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Since its enactment in 2010, the ACA has heightened providers’ focus on the “Triple Aim” of improving the patient experience (including quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of healthcare.Vishal Kuchaculla, MD, New England regional post-acute medical director of Knoxville,Tenn.-based TeamHealth, says new service lines also developed as Medicare clamped down on long-term inpatient hospital stays by giving financial impetus to discharge patients as soon as possible.

“Over the last few years, there’s been a major shift from fee-for-service to risk-based payment models,” Dr. Kuchaculla says. “The government’s financial incentives are driving outcomes to improve performance initiatives.”

Dr. Sean Muldoon
Another reason for increased Medicare spending on PAC stems from the fact that patients no longer need to be hospitalized before going to a PAC setting.

“Today, LTACHs can be used as substitutes for short-term acute care,” says Sean R. Muldoon, MD, MPH, FCCP, chief medical officer of Kindred Healthcare in Louisville, Ky., and former chair of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Committee. “This means that a patient can be directly admitted from their home to an LTACH. In fact, many hospice and home-care patients are referred from physicians’ offices without a preceding hospitalization.”
 

Hospitalists can fill a need

More hospitalists are working in PACs for a number of reasons. Dr. Mathew says PAC facilities and services have “typically lacked the clinical structure and processes to obtain the results that patients and payors expect.

“These deficits needed to be quickly remedied as patients discharged from hospitals have increased acuity and higher disease burdens,” he adds. “Hospitalists were the natural choice to fill roles requiring their expertise and experience.”

Dr. Muldoon considers the expanded scope of practice into PACs an additional layer to hospital medicine’s value proposition to the healthcare system.

“As experts in the management of inpatient populations, it’s natural for hospitalists to expand to other facilities with inpatient-like populations,” he says, noting SNFs are the most popular choice, with IRFs and LTACHs also being common places to work. Few hospitalists work in home care or hospice.

PAC settings are designed to help patients who are transitioning from an inpatient setting back to their home or other setting.

“Many patients go home after a SNF stay, while others will move to a nursing home or other longer-term care setting for the first time,” says Tiffany Radcliff, PhD, a health economist in the department of health policy and management at Texas A&M University School of Public Health in College Station. “With this in mind, hospitalists working in PAC have the opportunity to address each patient’s ongoing care needs and prepare them for their next setting. Hospitalists can manage medication or other care regimen changes that resulted from an inpatient stay, reinforce discharge instructions to the patient and their caregivers, and identify any other issues with continuing care that need to be addressed before discharge to the next care setting.”

Transitioning Care

Even if a hospitalist is not employed at a PAC, it’s important that they know something about them.

“As patients are moved downstream earlier, hospitalists are being asked to help make a judgment regarding when and where an inpatient is transitioned,” Dr. Muldoon says. As organizations move toward becoming fully risk capable, it is necessary to develop referral networks of high-quality PAC providers to achieve the best clinical outcomes, reduce readmissions, and lower costs.2“Therefore, hospitalists should have a working knowledge of the different sites of service as well as some opinion on the suitability of available options in their community,” Dr. Muldoon says. “The hospitalist can also help to educate the hospitalized patient on what to expect at a PAC.”

If a patient is inappropriately prepared for the PAC setting, it could lead to incomplete management of their condition, which ultimately could lead to readmission.

“When hospitalists know how care is provided in a PAC setting, they are better able to ensure a smoother transition of care between settings,” says Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, SFHM, chair of family medicine at Northwell Health in Long Island, N.Y. “This will ultimately prevent unnecessary readmissions.”

Further, the quality metrics that hospitals and thereby hospitalists are judged by no longer end at the hospital’s exit.

“The ownership of acute-care outcomes requires extending the accountability to outside of the institution’s four walls,” Dr. Mathew says. “The inpatient team needs to place great importance on the transition of care and the subsequent quality of that care when the patient is discharged.”

Robert W. Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of Plano, Texas–based Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions and former SHM president, says the health system landscapes are pushing HM beyond the hospitals’ walls.

Dr. Robert Harrington
“We’re headed down a path that will mandate and incentivize all of us to provide more-coordinated, more-efficient, higher-quality care,” he says. “We need to meet patients at the level of care that they need and provide continuity through the entire episode of care from hospital to home.”
 

 

 

How PAC settings differ from hospitals

Practicing in PAC has some important nuances that hospitalists from short-term acute care need to get accustomed to, Dr. Muldoon says. Primarily, the diagnostic capabilities are much more limited, as is the presence of high-level staffing. Further, patients are less resilient to medication changes and interventions, so changes need to be done gradually.

“Hospitalists who try to practice acute-care medicine in a PAC setting may become frustrated by the length of time it takes to do a work-up, get a consultation, and respond to a patient’s change of condition,” Dr. Muldoon says. “Nonetheless, hospitalists can overcome this once recognizing this mind shift.”

According to Dr. Harrington, another challenge hospitalists may face is the inability of the hospital’s and PAC facility’s IT platforms to exchange electronic information.

“The major vendors on both sides need to figure out an interoperability strategy,” he says. “Currently, it often takes 1-3 days to receive a new patient’s discharge summary. The summary may consist of a stack of paper that takes significant time to sort through and requires the PAC facility to perform duplicate data entry. It’s a very highly inefficient process that opens up the doors to mistakes and errors of omission and commission that can result in bad patient outcomes.”

Arif Nazir, MD, CMD, FACP, AGSF, chief medical officer of Signature HealthCARE and president of SHC Medical Partners, both in Louisville, Ky., cites additional reasons the lack of seamless communication between a hospital and PAC facility is problematic. “I see physicians order laboratory tests and investigations that were already done in the hospital because they didn’t know they were already performed or never received the results,” he says. “Similarly, I see patients continue to take medications prescribed in the hospital long term even though they were only supposed to take them short term. I’ve also seen patients come to a PAC setting from a hospital without any formal understanding of their rehabilitative period and expectations for recovery.”

Despite some frustrations cited by others, James D. Tollman, MD, FHM, president of Boxford, Mass.–based Essex Inpatient Physicians, believes working in a PAC setting can be a less-demanding environment for a hospitalist than an inpatient facility. “They have much more flexibility with their schedule,” he says. “In the hospital, hospitalists have longer, more physically demanding shifts. At SNFs, the level of decision making is often easier; usually they house lower-acuity patients. However, there might be more challenges with disposition, family issues, and follow-ups. Plus, you have to do more to coordinate care.”
 

What’s ahead?

Looking to the future, Surafel Tsega, MD, clinical instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, says he thinks there will be a move toward greater collaboration among inpatient and PAC facilities, particularly in the discharge process, given that hospitals have an added incentive to ensure safe transitions because reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is tied to readmissions and there are penalties for readmission. This involves more comprehensive planning regarding “warm handoffs” (e.g., real-time discussions with PAC providers about a patient’s hospital course and plan of care upon discharge), transferring of information, and so forth.

And while it can still be challenging to identify high-risk patients or determine the intensity and duration of their care, Dr. Mathew says risk-stratification tools and care pathways are continually being refined to maximize value with the limited resources available. In addition, with an increased emphasis on employing a team approach to care, there will be better integration of non-medical services to address the social determinants of health, which play significant roles in overall health and healing.

“Working with community-based organizations for this purpose will be a valuable tool for any of the population health–based initiatives,” he says.

Dr. Muldoon says he believes healthcare reform will increasingly view an inpatient admission as something to be avoided.

“If hospitalization can’t be avoided, then it should be shortened as much as possible,” he says. “This will shift inpatient care into LTACHs, SNFs, and IRFs. Hospitalists would be wise to follow patients into those settings as traditional inpatient census is reduced. This will take a few years, so hospitalists should start now in preparing for that downstream transition of individuals who were previously inpatients.”
 

The cost of care, and other PAC facts and figures

The amount of money that Medicare spends on post-acute care (PAC) has been increasing. In 2012, 12.6% of Medicare beneficiaries used some form of PAC, costing $62 billion.2 That amounts to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spending close to 25% of Medicare beneficiary expenses on PAC, a 133% increase from 2001 to 2012. Among the different types, $30.4 billion was spent on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), $18.6 billion on home health, and $13.1 billion on long-term acute care (LTAC) and acute-care rehabilitation.2

 

 

It’s also been reported that after short-term acute-care hospitalization, about one in five Medicare beneficiaries requires continued specialized treatment in one of the three typical Medicare PAC settings: inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), LTAC hospitals, and SNFs.3

What’s more, hospital readmission nearly doubles the cost of an episode, so the financial implications for organizations operating in risk-bearing arrangements are significant. In 2013, 2,213 hospitals were charged $280 million in readmission penalties.2

References

1. The role of post-acute care in new care delivery models. American Hospital Association website. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/15dec-tw-postacute.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.

2. Post-acute care integration: Today and in the future. DHG Healthcare website. Available at: http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/HCG-Post-Acute-Care-Integration.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.

3. Overview: Post-acute care transitions toolkit. Society for Hospital Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/Web/Quality___Innovation/Implementation_Toolkit/pact/Overview_PACT.aspx?hkey=dea3da3c-8620-46db-a00f-89f07f021958. Accessed Nov. 10, 2016.

 

The definition of “hospitalist,” according to the SHM website, is a clinician “dedicated to delivering comprehensive medical care to hospitalized patients.” For years, the hospital setting was the specialties’ identifier. But as hospitalists’ scope has expanded, and post-acute care (PAC) in the United States has grown, more hospitalists are extending their roles into this space.

PAC today is more than the traditional nursing home, according to Manoj K. Mathew, MD, SFHM, national medical director of Agilon Health in Los Angeles.

Manoj K. Mathew
Dr. Manoj K. Mathew
“Previously, physicians considered post-acute care only within the limited scope of what’s in their own care universe – such as skilled nursing facilities [SNFs], inpatient rehabilitation facilities [IRFs], long-term acute-care hospitals [LTACHs], and home health visits,” Dr. Mathew says. “But in today’s world, PAC goes well beyond these types of facilities to include other types: postdischarge clinics, palliative care programs, chronic-care/high-risk clinics, home care, and telehealth.”

Many of those expanded settings Dr. Mathew describes emerged as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Since its enactment in 2010, the ACA has heightened providers’ focus on the “Triple Aim” of improving the patient experience (including quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of healthcare.Vishal Kuchaculla, MD, New England regional post-acute medical director of Knoxville,Tenn.-based TeamHealth, says new service lines also developed as Medicare clamped down on long-term inpatient hospital stays by giving financial impetus to discharge patients as soon as possible.

“Over the last few years, there’s been a major shift from fee-for-service to risk-based payment models,” Dr. Kuchaculla says. “The government’s financial incentives are driving outcomes to improve performance initiatives.”

Dr. Sean Muldoon
Another reason for increased Medicare spending on PAC stems from the fact that patients no longer need to be hospitalized before going to a PAC setting.

“Today, LTACHs can be used as substitutes for short-term acute care,” says Sean R. Muldoon, MD, MPH, FCCP, chief medical officer of Kindred Healthcare in Louisville, Ky., and former chair of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Committee. “This means that a patient can be directly admitted from their home to an LTACH. In fact, many hospice and home-care patients are referred from physicians’ offices without a preceding hospitalization.”
 

Hospitalists can fill a need

More hospitalists are working in PACs for a number of reasons. Dr. Mathew says PAC facilities and services have “typically lacked the clinical structure and processes to obtain the results that patients and payors expect.

“These deficits needed to be quickly remedied as patients discharged from hospitals have increased acuity and higher disease burdens,” he adds. “Hospitalists were the natural choice to fill roles requiring their expertise and experience.”

Dr. Muldoon considers the expanded scope of practice into PACs an additional layer to hospital medicine’s value proposition to the healthcare system.

“As experts in the management of inpatient populations, it’s natural for hospitalists to expand to other facilities with inpatient-like populations,” he says, noting SNFs are the most popular choice, with IRFs and LTACHs also being common places to work. Few hospitalists work in home care or hospice.

PAC settings are designed to help patients who are transitioning from an inpatient setting back to their home or other setting.

“Many patients go home after a SNF stay, while others will move to a nursing home or other longer-term care setting for the first time,” says Tiffany Radcliff, PhD, a health economist in the department of health policy and management at Texas A&M University School of Public Health in College Station. “With this in mind, hospitalists working in PAC have the opportunity to address each patient’s ongoing care needs and prepare them for their next setting. Hospitalists can manage medication or other care regimen changes that resulted from an inpatient stay, reinforce discharge instructions to the patient and their caregivers, and identify any other issues with continuing care that need to be addressed before discharge to the next care setting.”

Transitioning Care

Even if a hospitalist is not employed at a PAC, it’s important that they know something about them.

“As patients are moved downstream earlier, hospitalists are being asked to help make a judgment regarding when and where an inpatient is transitioned,” Dr. Muldoon says. As organizations move toward becoming fully risk capable, it is necessary to develop referral networks of high-quality PAC providers to achieve the best clinical outcomes, reduce readmissions, and lower costs.2“Therefore, hospitalists should have a working knowledge of the different sites of service as well as some opinion on the suitability of available options in their community,” Dr. Muldoon says. “The hospitalist can also help to educate the hospitalized patient on what to expect at a PAC.”

If a patient is inappropriately prepared for the PAC setting, it could lead to incomplete management of their condition, which ultimately could lead to readmission.

“When hospitalists know how care is provided in a PAC setting, they are better able to ensure a smoother transition of care between settings,” says Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, SFHM, chair of family medicine at Northwell Health in Long Island, N.Y. “This will ultimately prevent unnecessary readmissions.”

Further, the quality metrics that hospitals and thereby hospitalists are judged by no longer end at the hospital’s exit.

“The ownership of acute-care outcomes requires extending the accountability to outside of the institution’s four walls,” Dr. Mathew says. “The inpatient team needs to place great importance on the transition of care and the subsequent quality of that care when the patient is discharged.”

Robert W. Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of Plano, Texas–based Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions and former SHM president, says the health system landscapes are pushing HM beyond the hospitals’ walls.

Dr. Robert Harrington
“We’re headed down a path that will mandate and incentivize all of us to provide more-coordinated, more-efficient, higher-quality care,” he says. “We need to meet patients at the level of care that they need and provide continuity through the entire episode of care from hospital to home.”
 

 

 

How PAC settings differ from hospitals

Practicing in PAC has some important nuances that hospitalists from short-term acute care need to get accustomed to, Dr. Muldoon says. Primarily, the diagnostic capabilities are much more limited, as is the presence of high-level staffing. Further, patients are less resilient to medication changes and interventions, so changes need to be done gradually.

“Hospitalists who try to practice acute-care medicine in a PAC setting may become frustrated by the length of time it takes to do a work-up, get a consultation, and respond to a patient’s change of condition,” Dr. Muldoon says. “Nonetheless, hospitalists can overcome this once recognizing this mind shift.”

According to Dr. Harrington, another challenge hospitalists may face is the inability of the hospital’s and PAC facility’s IT platforms to exchange electronic information.

“The major vendors on both sides need to figure out an interoperability strategy,” he says. “Currently, it often takes 1-3 days to receive a new patient’s discharge summary. The summary may consist of a stack of paper that takes significant time to sort through and requires the PAC facility to perform duplicate data entry. It’s a very highly inefficient process that opens up the doors to mistakes and errors of omission and commission that can result in bad patient outcomes.”

Arif Nazir, MD, CMD, FACP, AGSF, chief medical officer of Signature HealthCARE and president of SHC Medical Partners, both in Louisville, Ky., cites additional reasons the lack of seamless communication between a hospital and PAC facility is problematic. “I see physicians order laboratory tests and investigations that were already done in the hospital because they didn’t know they were already performed or never received the results,” he says. “Similarly, I see patients continue to take medications prescribed in the hospital long term even though they were only supposed to take them short term. I’ve also seen patients come to a PAC setting from a hospital without any formal understanding of their rehabilitative period and expectations for recovery.”

Despite some frustrations cited by others, James D. Tollman, MD, FHM, president of Boxford, Mass.–based Essex Inpatient Physicians, believes working in a PAC setting can be a less-demanding environment for a hospitalist than an inpatient facility. “They have much more flexibility with their schedule,” he says. “In the hospital, hospitalists have longer, more physically demanding shifts. At SNFs, the level of decision making is often easier; usually they house lower-acuity patients. However, there might be more challenges with disposition, family issues, and follow-ups. Plus, you have to do more to coordinate care.”
 

What’s ahead?

Looking to the future, Surafel Tsega, MD, clinical instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, says he thinks there will be a move toward greater collaboration among inpatient and PAC facilities, particularly in the discharge process, given that hospitals have an added incentive to ensure safe transitions because reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is tied to readmissions and there are penalties for readmission. This involves more comprehensive planning regarding “warm handoffs” (e.g., real-time discussions with PAC providers about a patient’s hospital course and plan of care upon discharge), transferring of information, and so forth.

And while it can still be challenging to identify high-risk patients or determine the intensity and duration of their care, Dr. Mathew says risk-stratification tools and care pathways are continually being refined to maximize value with the limited resources available. In addition, with an increased emphasis on employing a team approach to care, there will be better integration of non-medical services to address the social determinants of health, which play significant roles in overall health and healing.

“Working with community-based organizations for this purpose will be a valuable tool for any of the population health–based initiatives,” he says.

Dr. Muldoon says he believes healthcare reform will increasingly view an inpatient admission as something to be avoided.

“If hospitalization can’t be avoided, then it should be shortened as much as possible,” he says. “This will shift inpatient care into LTACHs, SNFs, and IRFs. Hospitalists would be wise to follow patients into those settings as traditional inpatient census is reduced. This will take a few years, so hospitalists should start now in preparing for that downstream transition of individuals who were previously inpatients.”
 

The cost of care, and other PAC facts and figures

The amount of money that Medicare spends on post-acute care (PAC) has been increasing. In 2012, 12.6% of Medicare beneficiaries used some form of PAC, costing $62 billion.2 That amounts to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spending close to 25% of Medicare beneficiary expenses on PAC, a 133% increase from 2001 to 2012. Among the different types, $30.4 billion was spent on skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), $18.6 billion on home health, and $13.1 billion on long-term acute care (LTAC) and acute-care rehabilitation.2

 

 

It’s also been reported that after short-term acute-care hospitalization, about one in five Medicare beneficiaries requires continued specialized treatment in one of the three typical Medicare PAC settings: inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), LTAC hospitals, and SNFs.3

What’s more, hospital readmission nearly doubles the cost of an episode, so the financial implications for organizations operating in risk-bearing arrangements are significant. In 2013, 2,213 hospitals were charged $280 million in readmission penalties.2

References

1. The role of post-acute care in new care delivery models. American Hospital Association website. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/15dec-tw-postacute.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.

2. Post-acute care integration: Today and in the future. DHG Healthcare website. Available at: http://www2.dhgllp.com/res_pubs/HCG-Post-Acute-Care-Integration.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2016.

3. Overview: Post-acute care transitions toolkit. Society for Hospital Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/Web/Quality___Innovation/Implementation_Toolkit/pact/Overview_PACT.aspx?hkey=dea3da3c-8620-46db-a00f-89f07f021958. Accessed Nov. 10, 2016.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME

Medical Liability for the Gastroenterologist

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 09/08/2025 - 11:34

While nearly 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties and 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties may face a malpractice claim in their careers,1 malpractice is rarely discussed openly in medical school, residency, fellowship, or even amongst colleagues. Indeed, one study suggested that more than 10% of practicing gastroenterologists may face a malpractice claim,2 with gastroenterologists expected to spend 10-15% of their careers with an outstanding malpractice claim3 as cases may take 27-29 months to resolve on average.4

Dr. Koushik Das

Believing that if a physician is sued, one must have done something “wrong” or that speaking about one’s experience may implicate a colleague, creates an intense stigma and isolation that only serves to aggravate the “second victim syndrome” (SVS) that is well documented in the surgical literature.2 Herein, we will review the definitions of malpractice, the most common reasons why a physician may get sued, the intended/unintended consequences of litigation, and the anatomy/timeline of a lawsuit. 

 

What is Malpractice? Why Do Physicians Get Sued?

Malpractice is defined as negligence on the part of a physician which causes physical or emotional damage to the patient. This requires a variety of legal issues to be evaluated (e.g. breach of duty between the physicians and patient, breach of standard of care), that often center around the question: would a “reasonable, careful, and prudent” doctor behave in the same manner in the same circumstance?

While some fields of medicine lend themselves better to algorithmic applications of highly evidence-based guidelines, many aspects of GI care and endoscopic practice are highly physician/patient-specific, dependent on local expertise, and based on low-quality evidence. As a result, an assessment of negligence may be quite subjective, depending on the expert retained by a plaintiff. Conflicting expert testimony on what professional custom is and whether practice deviates may hinge on technical details that may or may not be appreciated by a lay jury.

Plaintiffs must prove both that they have sustained an injury and that the injury (emotional or physical) was due to the physician’s negligence. While this may be straightforward in a “slip-and-fall” tort claim, medical malpractice claims usually involve sick patients with multiple comorbidities, where assigning causality to a single intervention/misinterpretation/missed opportunity is difficult to weigh against competing causes of adverse outcomes. Assessing a specific liability requires that the plaintiff prove this to a “more likely than not” standard which may be part of the reason why only 30% of cases are closed with indemnity payments, a figure that has not changed significantly in the past decade.4

While the perception amongst physicians is that tort legislation is ever increasing, data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) demonstrates that the number of paid claims against physicians has decreased by 75% in the last 20 years.5 This may reflect a progressive improvement in the quality of care delivered or success of “tort reform” on the state level to limit damages and “nuisance” lawsuits. However, another more problematic possibility is that with the corporatization of medicine, an untold number of physicians may be removed from litigation as a named party, with their institution shielding them from reporting. While the number of cases may or may not be declining, the average indemnity payment appears to be rising to $330,000 on average,4 with one study suggesting a significant growth in paid claims in gastroenterology.6

Historically, studies of closed malpractice claims have demonstrated that 59% involved diagnostic errors involving a cancer diagnosis,7 though why this actually happens may be for a wide variety of reasons including errors in the development of a differential diagnosis, ordering of an appropriate diagnostic test, interpretation of the diagnostic test, or follow-up of an abnormality identified.

 

What are the Intended/Unintended Consequences of Litigation?

The objective of our tort system is to compensate patients for economic damages (medical costs and lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and to ideally deter negligent behavior of providers. Interestingly, data from the NPDB have suggested that approximately 1% of all physicians account for 32% of all paid claims, with the same study showing that among physicians with paid claims, 4% had at least 3.8

While certain fields are obviously more prone to litigation, the risk of additional claims on a physician with 3 prior claims was more than 3 times that of physicians with 1 lifetime claim. One would assume that the system was built to drive out a small proportion of “bad actors.” Indeed, similar data from the NPDB has demonstrated that the number of claims against physicians was associated both with their leaving the practice of medicine and relocating to smaller practice settings.9

Another frequent question is whether the threat of litigation drives “defensive medicine” (i.e. medical care that is not beneficial) or avoidance medicine (i.e. excluding high risk patients and procedures from ones’ practice). These behaviors have been well documented in physicians around the world,10 as well as several surveys of gastroenterologists specifically suggesting regular ordering of unnecessary imaging/endoscopy and referrals of patients to specialists that may not be necessary.11,12

However, does defensive medicine work: does spending more prevent you from being the target of a lawsuit? In an observational study in Florida from 2000-2009, researchers demonstrated that across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with a reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. Indeed, the likelihood of a top quintile spending internist having a malpractice incident vs a bottom quintile spending internist was 0.3% vs 1.5%.13

Approximately 10.4-43.3% of physicians may experience SVS, experiencing trauma after an adverse patient event/medical error, manifesting with psychological trauma (shame, guilt, anxiety) and cognitive limitations (burnout, stress).2 Significant emotional consequences are common on the part of the physician and have well-documented stages to recovery,14 which if ignored may lead to long-term detrimental mental/emotional health of the physician and their future patients.

Specifically, in one study, 80.8% of physicians who had a closed malpractice claim reported significant emotional distress (regardless of the legal outcome), with frequent reports of mood symptoms that affected professional conduct.15 Recognizing these effects and implementing peer counseling and institutional support may help to expedite recovery and mitigate future adverse career outcomes.14

Anatomy/Timeline of a Liability Lawsuit

Medical malpractice cases are heard in state courts, in the jurisdictions where the care was provided. From the time an event occurs to when a jury verdict may be rendered may take 4-5 years or more depending on the local statute of limitations, discovery process, backlog of the local case docket, and specific circumstances of the case. The length of time is important to consider given the likelihood that a physician may advance in training or move practice locations during the course of litigation. Several common myths surrounding this process are summarized in the accompanying box, titled “Myths Surrounding Medical Liability Litigation.”

The plaintiff faces a statute of limitations to file a lawsuit that may range from 1-6 years depending on the state. The first indication that legal action may be pending will generally be a plaintiff’s formal request for medical records. After these records are reviewed, the plaintiff’s attorney will consult one or more experts (often credentialed in the same specialty) to assess if the case is viable and to ultimately form the basis of an affidavit of merit from a plaintiff expert. 



Once the lawsuit is filed, the physician(s) named will be assigned an attorney by their employer/insurance company. A state medical board malpractice questionnaire will generally follow that will seek to independently evaluate the alleged malpractice with interrogatives to determine if censure is warranted. There is a formal response to the plaintiff’s petition by the defense and then the discovery phase begins where both sides depose the defendants/plaintiffs and retain medical experts that are favorable to their arguments. 

In choosing potential “experts,” physicians must ensure that they are willing/able to be present for a potential trial, do not have any personal/professional/academic conflicts with the defendants, and are willing to provide compelling testimony to a jury. A pre-trial conference and trial date is set which may be >12 months away depending on the local docket. While the amount of time a trial may take is variable, it may be up to 5-7 days that the defendants are expected to be in court in addition to days where depositions are being taken. 

During the discovery process, dismissal of the physician from the lawsuit is pursued. In addition, settlement negotiations generally proceed in parallel with discovery process and may result in a pre-trial/pre-verdict settlement. Once a verdict is reached, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant, the case may be appealed, and the trial preparation process may be repeated.

 

Conclusions

Awareness of the medical liability process is critical for trainees and attendings alike, given the high likelihood of litigation in a gastroenterologist’s career. Specific considerations like local tort law and malpractice coverage are important to be familiar. Ongoing health services research help to shape our understanding on the intended and unintended consequences of litigation on medicine, though detailed data on outcomes/settlements are limited by confidentiality agreements, which may hamper efforts to improve patient safety.

Dr. Das is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. He has served as a consultant for Olympus, but has no other relevant conflicts.

References

1. Jena AB, et al. Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.

2. Chong RIH, et al. Scoping review of the second victim syndrome among surgeons: Understanding the impact, responses, and support systems. Am J Surg 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.045.

3. Seabury S, et al. On Average, Physicians Spend Nearly 11 Percent Of Their 40-Year Careers With An Open, Unresolved Malpractice Claim. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013 Jan. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0967.

4. CRICO Strategies. Medical Malpractice in America: A 10-Year Asessment with Insights. 2018. Accessed Apr 28, 2025.

5. Studdert DM, Hall MA. Medical Malpractice Law — Doctrine and Dynamics. N Engl J Med 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2201675.

6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and Characteristics of Paid Malpractice Claims Among US Physicians by Specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 May. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.

7. Gandhi TK, et al. Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006.

8. Studdert DM, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506137.

9. Studdert DM, et al. Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.

10. Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians’ views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research. Health Policy. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005.

11. Hiyama T, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i47.7671.

12. Elli L, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Lombardy: Between lawsuits and the economic crisis. Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.004.

13. Jena AB, et al. Physician spending and subsequent risk of malpractice claims: observational study. BMJ. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5516.

14. Scott SD, et al. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.032870.

15. Gómez-Durán EL, et al. Physicians as second victims after a malpractice claim: An important issue in need of attention. J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.002.

Publications
Topics
Sections

While nearly 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties and 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties may face a malpractice claim in their careers,1 malpractice is rarely discussed openly in medical school, residency, fellowship, or even amongst colleagues. Indeed, one study suggested that more than 10% of practicing gastroenterologists may face a malpractice claim,2 with gastroenterologists expected to spend 10-15% of their careers with an outstanding malpractice claim3 as cases may take 27-29 months to resolve on average.4

Dr. Koushik Das

Believing that if a physician is sued, one must have done something “wrong” or that speaking about one’s experience may implicate a colleague, creates an intense stigma and isolation that only serves to aggravate the “second victim syndrome” (SVS) that is well documented in the surgical literature.2 Herein, we will review the definitions of malpractice, the most common reasons why a physician may get sued, the intended/unintended consequences of litigation, and the anatomy/timeline of a lawsuit. 

 

What is Malpractice? Why Do Physicians Get Sued?

Malpractice is defined as negligence on the part of a physician which causes physical or emotional damage to the patient. This requires a variety of legal issues to be evaluated (e.g. breach of duty between the physicians and patient, breach of standard of care), that often center around the question: would a “reasonable, careful, and prudent” doctor behave in the same manner in the same circumstance?

While some fields of medicine lend themselves better to algorithmic applications of highly evidence-based guidelines, many aspects of GI care and endoscopic practice are highly physician/patient-specific, dependent on local expertise, and based on low-quality evidence. As a result, an assessment of negligence may be quite subjective, depending on the expert retained by a plaintiff. Conflicting expert testimony on what professional custom is and whether practice deviates may hinge on technical details that may or may not be appreciated by a lay jury.

Plaintiffs must prove both that they have sustained an injury and that the injury (emotional or physical) was due to the physician’s negligence. While this may be straightforward in a “slip-and-fall” tort claim, medical malpractice claims usually involve sick patients with multiple comorbidities, where assigning causality to a single intervention/misinterpretation/missed opportunity is difficult to weigh against competing causes of adverse outcomes. Assessing a specific liability requires that the plaintiff prove this to a “more likely than not” standard which may be part of the reason why only 30% of cases are closed with indemnity payments, a figure that has not changed significantly in the past decade.4

While the perception amongst physicians is that tort legislation is ever increasing, data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) demonstrates that the number of paid claims against physicians has decreased by 75% in the last 20 years.5 This may reflect a progressive improvement in the quality of care delivered or success of “tort reform” on the state level to limit damages and “nuisance” lawsuits. However, another more problematic possibility is that with the corporatization of medicine, an untold number of physicians may be removed from litigation as a named party, with their institution shielding them from reporting. While the number of cases may or may not be declining, the average indemnity payment appears to be rising to $330,000 on average,4 with one study suggesting a significant growth in paid claims in gastroenterology.6

Historically, studies of closed malpractice claims have demonstrated that 59% involved diagnostic errors involving a cancer diagnosis,7 though why this actually happens may be for a wide variety of reasons including errors in the development of a differential diagnosis, ordering of an appropriate diagnostic test, interpretation of the diagnostic test, or follow-up of an abnormality identified.

 

What are the Intended/Unintended Consequences of Litigation?

The objective of our tort system is to compensate patients for economic damages (medical costs and lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and to ideally deter negligent behavior of providers. Interestingly, data from the NPDB have suggested that approximately 1% of all physicians account for 32% of all paid claims, with the same study showing that among physicians with paid claims, 4% had at least 3.8

While certain fields are obviously more prone to litigation, the risk of additional claims on a physician with 3 prior claims was more than 3 times that of physicians with 1 lifetime claim. One would assume that the system was built to drive out a small proportion of “bad actors.” Indeed, similar data from the NPDB has demonstrated that the number of claims against physicians was associated both with their leaving the practice of medicine and relocating to smaller practice settings.9

Another frequent question is whether the threat of litigation drives “defensive medicine” (i.e. medical care that is not beneficial) or avoidance medicine (i.e. excluding high risk patients and procedures from ones’ practice). These behaviors have been well documented in physicians around the world,10 as well as several surveys of gastroenterologists specifically suggesting regular ordering of unnecessary imaging/endoscopy and referrals of patients to specialists that may not be necessary.11,12

However, does defensive medicine work: does spending more prevent you from being the target of a lawsuit? In an observational study in Florida from 2000-2009, researchers demonstrated that across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with a reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. Indeed, the likelihood of a top quintile spending internist having a malpractice incident vs a bottom quintile spending internist was 0.3% vs 1.5%.13

Approximately 10.4-43.3% of physicians may experience SVS, experiencing trauma after an adverse patient event/medical error, manifesting with psychological trauma (shame, guilt, anxiety) and cognitive limitations (burnout, stress).2 Significant emotional consequences are common on the part of the physician and have well-documented stages to recovery,14 which if ignored may lead to long-term detrimental mental/emotional health of the physician and their future patients.

Specifically, in one study, 80.8% of physicians who had a closed malpractice claim reported significant emotional distress (regardless of the legal outcome), with frequent reports of mood symptoms that affected professional conduct.15 Recognizing these effects and implementing peer counseling and institutional support may help to expedite recovery and mitigate future adverse career outcomes.14

Anatomy/Timeline of a Liability Lawsuit

Medical malpractice cases are heard in state courts, in the jurisdictions where the care was provided. From the time an event occurs to when a jury verdict may be rendered may take 4-5 years or more depending on the local statute of limitations, discovery process, backlog of the local case docket, and specific circumstances of the case. The length of time is important to consider given the likelihood that a physician may advance in training or move practice locations during the course of litigation. Several common myths surrounding this process are summarized in the accompanying box, titled “Myths Surrounding Medical Liability Litigation.”

The plaintiff faces a statute of limitations to file a lawsuit that may range from 1-6 years depending on the state. The first indication that legal action may be pending will generally be a plaintiff’s formal request for medical records. After these records are reviewed, the plaintiff’s attorney will consult one or more experts (often credentialed in the same specialty) to assess if the case is viable and to ultimately form the basis of an affidavit of merit from a plaintiff expert. 



Once the lawsuit is filed, the physician(s) named will be assigned an attorney by their employer/insurance company. A state medical board malpractice questionnaire will generally follow that will seek to independently evaluate the alleged malpractice with interrogatives to determine if censure is warranted. There is a formal response to the plaintiff’s petition by the defense and then the discovery phase begins where both sides depose the defendants/plaintiffs and retain medical experts that are favorable to their arguments. 

In choosing potential “experts,” physicians must ensure that they are willing/able to be present for a potential trial, do not have any personal/professional/academic conflicts with the defendants, and are willing to provide compelling testimony to a jury. A pre-trial conference and trial date is set which may be >12 months away depending on the local docket. While the amount of time a trial may take is variable, it may be up to 5-7 days that the defendants are expected to be in court in addition to days where depositions are being taken. 

During the discovery process, dismissal of the physician from the lawsuit is pursued. In addition, settlement negotiations generally proceed in parallel with discovery process and may result in a pre-trial/pre-verdict settlement. Once a verdict is reached, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant, the case may be appealed, and the trial preparation process may be repeated.

 

Conclusions

Awareness of the medical liability process is critical for trainees and attendings alike, given the high likelihood of litigation in a gastroenterologist’s career. Specific considerations like local tort law and malpractice coverage are important to be familiar. Ongoing health services research help to shape our understanding on the intended and unintended consequences of litigation on medicine, though detailed data on outcomes/settlements are limited by confidentiality agreements, which may hamper efforts to improve patient safety.

Dr. Das is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. He has served as a consultant for Olympus, but has no other relevant conflicts.

References

1. Jena AB, et al. Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.

2. Chong RIH, et al. Scoping review of the second victim syndrome among surgeons: Understanding the impact, responses, and support systems. Am J Surg 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.045.

3. Seabury S, et al. On Average, Physicians Spend Nearly 11 Percent Of Their 40-Year Careers With An Open, Unresolved Malpractice Claim. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013 Jan. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0967.

4. CRICO Strategies. Medical Malpractice in America: A 10-Year Asessment with Insights. 2018. Accessed Apr 28, 2025.

5. Studdert DM, Hall MA. Medical Malpractice Law — Doctrine and Dynamics. N Engl J Med 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2201675.

6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and Characteristics of Paid Malpractice Claims Among US Physicians by Specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 May. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.

7. Gandhi TK, et al. Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006.

8. Studdert DM, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506137.

9. Studdert DM, et al. Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.

10. Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians’ views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research. Health Policy. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005.

11. Hiyama T, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i47.7671.

12. Elli L, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Lombardy: Between lawsuits and the economic crisis. Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.004.

13. Jena AB, et al. Physician spending and subsequent risk of malpractice claims: observational study. BMJ. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5516.

14. Scott SD, et al. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.032870.

15. Gómez-Durán EL, et al. Physicians as second victims after a malpractice claim: An important issue in need of attention. J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.002.

While nearly 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties and 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties may face a malpractice claim in their careers,1 malpractice is rarely discussed openly in medical school, residency, fellowship, or even amongst colleagues. Indeed, one study suggested that more than 10% of practicing gastroenterologists may face a malpractice claim,2 with gastroenterologists expected to spend 10-15% of their careers with an outstanding malpractice claim3 as cases may take 27-29 months to resolve on average.4

Dr. Koushik Das

Believing that if a physician is sued, one must have done something “wrong” or that speaking about one’s experience may implicate a colleague, creates an intense stigma and isolation that only serves to aggravate the “second victim syndrome” (SVS) that is well documented in the surgical literature.2 Herein, we will review the definitions of malpractice, the most common reasons why a physician may get sued, the intended/unintended consequences of litigation, and the anatomy/timeline of a lawsuit. 

 

What is Malpractice? Why Do Physicians Get Sued?

Malpractice is defined as negligence on the part of a physician which causes physical or emotional damage to the patient. This requires a variety of legal issues to be evaluated (e.g. breach of duty between the physicians and patient, breach of standard of care), that often center around the question: would a “reasonable, careful, and prudent” doctor behave in the same manner in the same circumstance?

While some fields of medicine lend themselves better to algorithmic applications of highly evidence-based guidelines, many aspects of GI care and endoscopic practice are highly physician/patient-specific, dependent on local expertise, and based on low-quality evidence. As a result, an assessment of negligence may be quite subjective, depending on the expert retained by a plaintiff. Conflicting expert testimony on what professional custom is and whether practice deviates may hinge on technical details that may or may not be appreciated by a lay jury.

Plaintiffs must prove both that they have sustained an injury and that the injury (emotional or physical) was due to the physician’s negligence. While this may be straightforward in a “slip-and-fall” tort claim, medical malpractice claims usually involve sick patients with multiple comorbidities, where assigning causality to a single intervention/misinterpretation/missed opportunity is difficult to weigh against competing causes of adverse outcomes. Assessing a specific liability requires that the plaintiff prove this to a “more likely than not” standard which may be part of the reason why only 30% of cases are closed with indemnity payments, a figure that has not changed significantly in the past decade.4

While the perception amongst physicians is that tort legislation is ever increasing, data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) demonstrates that the number of paid claims against physicians has decreased by 75% in the last 20 years.5 This may reflect a progressive improvement in the quality of care delivered or success of “tort reform” on the state level to limit damages and “nuisance” lawsuits. However, another more problematic possibility is that with the corporatization of medicine, an untold number of physicians may be removed from litigation as a named party, with their institution shielding them from reporting. While the number of cases may or may not be declining, the average indemnity payment appears to be rising to $330,000 on average,4 with one study suggesting a significant growth in paid claims in gastroenterology.6

Historically, studies of closed malpractice claims have demonstrated that 59% involved diagnostic errors involving a cancer diagnosis,7 though why this actually happens may be for a wide variety of reasons including errors in the development of a differential diagnosis, ordering of an appropriate diagnostic test, interpretation of the diagnostic test, or follow-up of an abnormality identified.

 

What are the Intended/Unintended Consequences of Litigation?

The objective of our tort system is to compensate patients for economic damages (medical costs and lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and to ideally deter negligent behavior of providers. Interestingly, data from the NPDB have suggested that approximately 1% of all physicians account for 32% of all paid claims, with the same study showing that among physicians with paid claims, 4% had at least 3.8

While certain fields are obviously more prone to litigation, the risk of additional claims on a physician with 3 prior claims was more than 3 times that of physicians with 1 lifetime claim. One would assume that the system was built to drive out a small proportion of “bad actors.” Indeed, similar data from the NPDB has demonstrated that the number of claims against physicians was associated both with their leaving the practice of medicine and relocating to smaller practice settings.9

Another frequent question is whether the threat of litigation drives “defensive medicine” (i.e. medical care that is not beneficial) or avoidance medicine (i.e. excluding high risk patients and procedures from ones’ practice). These behaviors have been well documented in physicians around the world,10 as well as several surveys of gastroenterologists specifically suggesting regular ordering of unnecessary imaging/endoscopy and referrals of patients to specialists that may not be necessary.11,12

However, does defensive medicine work: does spending more prevent you from being the target of a lawsuit? In an observational study in Florida from 2000-2009, researchers demonstrated that across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with a reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. Indeed, the likelihood of a top quintile spending internist having a malpractice incident vs a bottom quintile spending internist was 0.3% vs 1.5%.13

Approximately 10.4-43.3% of physicians may experience SVS, experiencing trauma after an adverse patient event/medical error, manifesting with psychological trauma (shame, guilt, anxiety) and cognitive limitations (burnout, stress).2 Significant emotional consequences are common on the part of the physician and have well-documented stages to recovery,14 which if ignored may lead to long-term detrimental mental/emotional health of the physician and their future patients.

Specifically, in one study, 80.8% of physicians who had a closed malpractice claim reported significant emotional distress (regardless of the legal outcome), with frequent reports of mood symptoms that affected professional conduct.15 Recognizing these effects and implementing peer counseling and institutional support may help to expedite recovery and mitigate future adverse career outcomes.14

Anatomy/Timeline of a Liability Lawsuit

Medical malpractice cases are heard in state courts, in the jurisdictions where the care was provided. From the time an event occurs to when a jury verdict may be rendered may take 4-5 years or more depending on the local statute of limitations, discovery process, backlog of the local case docket, and specific circumstances of the case. The length of time is important to consider given the likelihood that a physician may advance in training or move practice locations during the course of litigation. Several common myths surrounding this process are summarized in the accompanying box, titled “Myths Surrounding Medical Liability Litigation.”

The plaintiff faces a statute of limitations to file a lawsuit that may range from 1-6 years depending on the state. The first indication that legal action may be pending will generally be a plaintiff’s formal request for medical records. After these records are reviewed, the plaintiff’s attorney will consult one or more experts (often credentialed in the same specialty) to assess if the case is viable and to ultimately form the basis of an affidavit of merit from a plaintiff expert. 



Once the lawsuit is filed, the physician(s) named will be assigned an attorney by their employer/insurance company. A state medical board malpractice questionnaire will generally follow that will seek to independently evaluate the alleged malpractice with interrogatives to determine if censure is warranted. There is a formal response to the plaintiff’s petition by the defense and then the discovery phase begins where both sides depose the defendants/plaintiffs and retain medical experts that are favorable to their arguments. 

In choosing potential “experts,” physicians must ensure that they are willing/able to be present for a potential trial, do not have any personal/professional/academic conflicts with the defendants, and are willing to provide compelling testimony to a jury. A pre-trial conference and trial date is set which may be >12 months away depending on the local docket. While the amount of time a trial may take is variable, it may be up to 5-7 days that the defendants are expected to be in court in addition to days where depositions are being taken. 

During the discovery process, dismissal of the physician from the lawsuit is pursued. In addition, settlement negotiations generally proceed in parallel with discovery process and may result in a pre-trial/pre-verdict settlement. Once a verdict is reached, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant, the case may be appealed, and the trial preparation process may be repeated.

 

Conclusions

Awareness of the medical liability process is critical for trainees and attendings alike, given the high likelihood of litigation in a gastroenterologist’s career. Specific considerations like local tort law and malpractice coverage are important to be familiar. Ongoing health services research help to shape our understanding on the intended and unintended consequences of litigation on medicine, though detailed data on outcomes/settlements are limited by confidentiality agreements, which may hamper efforts to improve patient safety.

Dr. Das is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. He has served as a consultant for Olympus, but has no other relevant conflicts.

References

1. Jena AB, et al. Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.

2. Chong RIH, et al. Scoping review of the second victim syndrome among surgeons: Understanding the impact, responses, and support systems. Am J Surg 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.045.

3. Seabury S, et al. On Average, Physicians Spend Nearly 11 Percent Of Their 40-Year Careers With An Open, Unresolved Malpractice Claim. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013 Jan. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0967.

4. CRICO Strategies. Medical Malpractice in America: A 10-Year Asessment with Insights. 2018. Accessed Apr 28, 2025.

5. Studdert DM, Hall MA. Medical Malpractice Law — Doctrine and Dynamics. N Engl J Med 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2201675.

6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and Characteristics of Paid Malpractice Claims Among US Physicians by Specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 May. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.

7. Gandhi TK, et al. Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006.

8. Studdert DM, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506137.

9. Studdert DM, et al. Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.

10. Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians’ views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research. Health Policy. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005.

11. Hiyama T, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i47.7671.

12. Elli L, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Lombardy: Between lawsuits and the economic crisis. Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.004.

13. Jena AB, et al. Physician spending and subsequent risk of malpractice claims: observational study. BMJ. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5516.

14. Scott SD, et al. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.032870.

15. Gómez-Durán EL, et al. Physicians as second victims after a malpractice claim: An important issue in need of attention. J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.002.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Wed, 08/20/2025 - 10:14
Un-Gate On Date
Wed, 08/20/2025 - 10:14
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Wed, 08/20/2025 - 10:14
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Wed, 08/20/2025 - 10:14

Positioning Yourself For Success in Private Practice

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 08/13/2025 - 14:12

In this video, Peter Naas, MD, of Gastroenterology Associates in Greenville, South Carolina, shares insights on how young physicians can best position themselves for a successful career in private practice gastroenterology.

Publications
Topics
Sections

In this video, Peter Naas, MD, of Gastroenterology Associates in Greenville, South Carolina, shares insights on how young physicians can best position themselves for a successful career in private practice gastroenterology.

In this video, Peter Naas, MD, of Gastroenterology Associates in Greenville, South Carolina, shares insights on how young physicians can best position themselves for a successful career in private practice gastroenterology.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Wed, 08/13/2025 - 12:14
Un-Gate On Date
Wed, 08/13/2025 - 12:14
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Wed, 08/13/2025 - 12:14
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Wed, 08/13/2025 - 12:14

Top 5 Tips for Becoming an Effective Gastroenterology Consultant

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 08/11/2025 - 12:14

Gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty training is carefully designed to develop expertise in digestive diseases and gastrointestinal endoscopy, while facilitating the transition from generalist to subspecialty consultant. The concept of effective consultation extends far beyond clinical expertise and has been explored repeatedly, beginning with Goldman’s “Ten Commandments” in 1983.1,2 How should these best practices be specifically applied to GI? More importantly, what kind of experience would you want if you were the referring provider or the patient themselves?

Below are five essential tips to guide your development as a high-impact GI consultant with a reputation for excellence. 
 

1. Be Kind

Survey studies of medical/surgical residents and attending hospitalists have demonstrated that willingness to accept consultation requests was the single factor consistently rated as most important in determining the quality of the consultation interaction.3,4 Unfortunately, nearly 65% of respondents reported encountering pushback when requesting subspecialty consultation. It is critical to recognize that when you receive a GI consult request, the requester has already decided that it is needed. Whether that request comports with our individual notion of “necessary” or “important,” this is a colleague’s request for help. There are myriad reasons why a request may be made, but they are unified in this principle.

Effective teamwork in healthcare settings enhances clinical performance and patient safety. Positive relationships with colleagues and healthcare team members also mitigate the emotional basis for physician burnout.5 Be kind and courteous to those who seek your assistance. Move beyond the notion of the “bad” or “soft” consult and seek instead to understand how you can help.

A requesting physician may phrase the consult question vaguely or may know that the patient is having a GI-related issue, but simply lack the specific knowledge to know what is needed. In these instances, it is our role to listen and help guide them to the correct thought process to ensure the best care of the patient. These important interactions establish our reputation, create our referral bases, and directly affect our sense of personal satisfaction.

 

2. Be Timely

GI presents an appealing breadth of pathology, but this also corresponds to a wide variety of indications for consultation and, therefore, urgency of need. In a busy clinical practice, not all requests can be urgently prioritized. However, it is the consultant’s responsibility to identify patients that require urgent evaluation and intervention to avert a potential adverse outcome.

We are well-trained in the medical triage of consultations. There are explicit guidelines for assessing urgency for GI bleeding, foreign body ingestion, choledocholithiasis, and many other indications. However, there are often special contextual circumstances that will elevate the urgency of a seemingly non-urgent consult request. Does the patient have an upcoming surgery or treatment that will depend on your input? Are they facing an imminent loss of insurance coverage? Is their non-severe GI disease leading to more severe impact on non-GI organ systems? The referring provider knows the patient better than you – seek to understand the context of the consult request.
 

Dr. Allon Kahn


Timeliness also applies to our communication. Communicate recommendations directly to the consulting service as soon as the patient is seen. When a colleague reaches out with a concern about a patient, make sure to take that request seriously. If you are unable to address the concern immediately, at least provide acknowledgment and an estimated timeline for response. As the maxim states, the effectiveness of a consultant is just as dependent on availability as it is on ability.

 

3. Be Specific

The same survey studies indicate that the second most critical aspect of successful subspecialty consultation is delivering clear recommendations. Accordingly, I always urge my trainees to challenge me when we leave a consult interaction if they feel that our plan is vague or imprecise.

Specificity in consult recommendations is an essential way to demonstrate your expertise and provide value. Clear and definitive recommendations enhance others’ perception of your skill, reduce the need for additional clarifying communication, and lead to more efficient, higher quality care. Avoid vague language, such as asking the requester to “consider” a test or intervention. When recommending medication, specify the dose, frequency, duration, and expected timeline of effect. Rather than recommending “cross-sectional imaging,” specify what modality and protocol. Instead of recommending “adequate resuscitation,” specify your target endpoints. If you engage in multidisciplinary discussion, ensure you strive for a specific group consensus plan and communicate this to all members of the team.

Specificity also applies to the quality of your documentation. Ensure that your clinical notes outline your rationale for your recommended plan, specific contingencies based on results of recommended testing, and a plan for follow-up care. When referring for open-access endoscopy, specifically outline what to look for and which specimens or endoscopic interventions are needed. Be precise in your procedure documentation – avoid vague terms such as small/medium/large and instead quantify in terms of millimeter/centimeter measurement. If you do not adopt specific classification schemes (e.g. Prague classification, Paris classification, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, etc.), ensure you provide enough descriptive language to convey an adequate understanding of the findings.

 

4. Be Helpful

A consultant’s primary directive is to be of service to the consulting provider and the patient. As an educational leader, I am often asked what attributes separate a high-performing trainee from an average one. My feeling is that the most critical attribute is a sense of ownership over patient care.

As a consultant, when others feel we are exhibiting engagement and ownership in a patient’s care, they perceive that we are working together as an effective healthcare team. Interestingly, survey studies of inpatient care show that primary services do not necessarily value assistance with orders or care coordination – they consider these as core aspects of their daily work. What they did value was ongoing daily progress notes/communication, regardless of patient acuity or consulting specialty. This is a potent signal that our continued engagement (both inpatient and outpatient) is perceived as helpful.

Helpfulness is further aided by ensuring mutual understanding. While survey data indicate that sharing specific literature citations may not always be perceived positively, explaining the consultant’s rationale for their recommendations is highly valued. Take the time to tactfully explain your assessment of the patient and why you arrived at your specific recommendations. If your recommendations differ from what the requester expected (e.g. a procedure was expected but is not offered), ensure you explain why and answer questions they may have. This fosters mutual respect and proactively averts conflict or discontent from misunderstanding.

Multidisciplinary collaboration is another important avenue for aiding our patients and colleagues. Studies across a wide range of disease processes (including GI bleeding, IBD, etc.) and medical settings have demonstrated that multidisciplinary collaboration unequivocally improves patient outcomes.6 The success of these collaborations relies on our willingness to fully engage in these conversations, despite the fact that they may often be logistically challenging. 

We all know how difficult it can be to locate and organize multiple medical specialists with complex varying clinical schedules and busy personal lives. Choosing to do so demonstrates a dedication to providing the highest level of care and elevates both patient and physician satisfaction. Having chosen to cultivate several ongoing multidisciplinary conferences/collaborations, I can attest to the notion that the outcome is well worth the effort.

 

5. Be Honest

While we always strive to provide the answers for our patients and colleagues, we must also acknowledge our limitations. Be honest with yourself when you encounter a scenario that pushes beyond the boundaries of your knowledge and comfort. Be willing to admit when you yourself need to consult others or seek an outside referral to provide the care a patient needs. Aspiring physicians often espouse that a devotion to lifelong learning is a key driver of their desire to pursue a career in medicine. These scenarios provide a key opportunity to expand our knowledge while doing what is right for our patients.

Be equally honest about your comfort with “curbside” consultations. Studies show that subspecialists receive on average of 3-4 such requests per week.7 The perception of these interactions is starkly discrepant between the requester and recipient. While over 80% of surveyed primary nonsurgical services felt that curbside consultations were helpful in patient care, a similar proportion of subspecialists expressed concern that insufficient clinical information was provided, even leading to a fear of litigation. While straightforward, informal conversations on narrow, well-defined questions can be helpful and efficient, the consultant should always feel comfortable seeking an opportunity for formal consultation when the details are unclear or the case/question is complex.

 

Closing Thoughts

Being an effective GI consultant isn’t just about what you know—it’s about how you apply it, how you communicate it, and how you make others feel in the process.

The attributes outlined above are not ancillary traits—they are essential components of high-quality consultation. When consistently applied, they enhance collaboration, improve patient outcomes, and reinforce trust within the healthcare system. By committing to them, you establish your reputation of excellence and play a role in elevating the field of gastroenterology more broadly.

Dr. Kahn is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. He reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article.

References

1. Goldman L, et al. Ten commandments for effective consultations. Arch Intern Med. 1983 Sep.

2. Salerno SM, et al. Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.271.

3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist Perspective of Interactions with Medicine Subspecialty Consult Services. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.

4. Matsuo T, et al. Essential consultants’ skills and attitudes (Willing CONSULT): a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02810-9.

5. Welp A, Manser T. Integrating teamwork, clinician occupational well-being and patient safety - development of a conceptual framework based on a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1535-y.

6. Webster CS, et al. Interprofessional Learning in Multidisciplinary Healthcare Teams Is Associated With Reduced Patient Mortality: A Quantitative Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Patient Saf. 2024 Jan. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001170.

7. Lin M, et al. Curbside Consultations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.09.026.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty training is carefully designed to develop expertise in digestive diseases and gastrointestinal endoscopy, while facilitating the transition from generalist to subspecialty consultant. The concept of effective consultation extends far beyond clinical expertise and has been explored repeatedly, beginning with Goldman’s “Ten Commandments” in 1983.1,2 How should these best practices be specifically applied to GI? More importantly, what kind of experience would you want if you were the referring provider or the patient themselves?

Below are five essential tips to guide your development as a high-impact GI consultant with a reputation for excellence. 
 

1. Be Kind

Survey studies of medical/surgical residents and attending hospitalists have demonstrated that willingness to accept consultation requests was the single factor consistently rated as most important in determining the quality of the consultation interaction.3,4 Unfortunately, nearly 65% of respondents reported encountering pushback when requesting subspecialty consultation. It is critical to recognize that when you receive a GI consult request, the requester has already decided that it is needed. Whether that request comports with our individual notion of “necessary” or “important,” this is a colleague’s request for help. There are myriad reasons why a request may be made, but they are unified in this principle.

Effective teamwork in healthcare settings enhances clinical performance and patient safety. Positive relationships with colleagues and healthcare team members also mitigate the emotional basis for physician burnout.5 Be kind and courteous to those who seek your assistance. Move beyond the notion of the “bad” or “soft” consult and seek instead to understand how you can help.

A requesting physician may phrase the consult question vaguely or may know that the patient is having a GI-related issue, but simply lack the specific knowledge to know what is needed. In these instances, it is our role to listen and help guide them to the correct thought process to ensure the best care of the patient. These important interactions establish our reputation, create our referral bases, and directly affect our sense of personal satisfaction.

 

2. Be Timely

GI presents an appealing breadth of pathology, but this also corresponds to a wide variety of indications for consultation and, therefore, urgency of need. In a busy clinical practice, not all requests can be urgently prioritized. However, it is the consultant’s responsibility to identify patients that require urgent evaluation and intervention to avert a potential adverse outcome.

We are well-trained in the medical triage of consultations. There are explicit guidelines for assessing urgency for GI bleeding, foreign body ingestion, choledocholithiasis, and many other indications. However, there are often special contextual circumstances that will elevate the urgency of a seemingly non-urgent consult request. Does the patient have an upcoming surgery or treatment that will depend on your input? Are they facing an imminent loss of insurance coverage? Is their non-severe GI disease leading to more severe impact on non-GI organ systems? The referring provider knows the patient better than you – seek to understand the context of the consult request.
 

Dr. Allon Kahn


Timeliness also applies to our communication. Communicate recommendations directly to the consulting service as soon as the patient is seen. When a colleague reaches out with a concern about a patient, make sure to take that request seriously. If you are unable to address the concern immediately, at least provide acknowledgment and an estimated timeline for response. As the maxim states, the effectiveness of a consultant is just as dependent on availability as it is on ability.

 

3. Be Specific

The same survey studies indicate that the second most critical aspect of successful subspecialty consultation is delivering clear recommendations. Accordingly, I always urge my trainees to challenge me when we leave a consult interaction if they feel that our plan is vague or imprecise.

Specificity in consult recommendations is an essential way to demonstrate your expertise and provide value. Clear and definitive recommendations enhance others’ perception of your skill, reduce the need for additional clarifying communication, and lead to more efficient, higher quality care. Avoid vague language, such as asking the requester to “consider” a test or intervention. When recommending medication, specify the dose, frequency, duration, and expected timeline of effect. Rather than recommending “cross-sectional imaging,” specify what modality and protocol. Instead of recommending “adequate resuscitation,” specify your target endpoints. If you engage in multidisciplinary discussion, ensure you strive for a specific group consensus plan and communicate this to all members of the team.

Specificity also applies to the quality of your documentation. Ensure that your clinical notes outline your rationale for your recommended plan, specific contingencies based on results of recommended testing, and a plan for follow-up care. When referring for open-access endoscopy, specifically outline what to look for and which specimens or endoscopic interventions are needed. Be precise in your procedure documentation – avoid vague terms such as small/medium/large and instead quantify in terms of millimeter/centimeter measurement. If you do not adopt specific classification schemes (e.g. Prague classification, Paris classification, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, etc.), ensure you provide enough descriptive language to convey an adequate understanding of the findings.

 

4. Be Helpful

A consultant’s primary directive is to be of service to the consulting provider and the patient. As an educational leader, I am often asked what attributes separate a high-performing trainee from an average one. My feeling is that the most critical attribute is a sense of ownership over patient care.

As a consultant, when others feel we are exhibiting engagement and ownership in a patient’s care, they perceive that we are working together as an effective healthcare team. Interestingly, survey studies of inpatient care show that primary services do not necessarily value assistance with orders or care coordination – they consider these as core aspects of their daily work. What they did value was ongoing daily progress notes/communication, regardless of patient acuity or consulting specialty. This is a potent signal that our continued engagement (both inpatient and outpatient) is perceived as helpful.

Helpfulness is further aided by ensuring mutual understanding. While survey data indicate that sharing specific literature citations may not always be perceived positively, explaining the consultant’s rationale for their recommendations is highly valued. Take the time to tactfully explain your assessment of the patient and why you arrived at your specific recommendations. If your recommendations differ from what the requester expected (e.g. a procedure was expected but is not offered), ensure you explain why and answer questions they may have. This fosters mutual respect and proactively averts conflict or discontent from misunderstanding.

Multidisciplinary collaboration is another important avenue for aiding our patients and colleagues. Studies across a wide range of disease processes (including GI bleeding, IBD, etc.) and medical settings have demonstrated that multidisciplinary collaboration unequivocally improves patient outcomes.6 The success of these collaborations relies on our willingness to fully engage in these conversations, despite the fact that they may often be logistically challenging. 

We all know how difficult it can be to locate and organize multiple medical specialists with complex varying clinical schedules and busy personal lives. Choosing to do so demonstrates a dedication to providing the highest level of care and elevates both patient and physician satisfaction. Having chosen to cultivate several ongoing multidisciplinary conferences/collaborations, I can attest to the notion that the outcome is well worth the effort.

 

5. Be Honest

While we always strive to provide the answers for our patients and colleagues, we must also acknowledge our limitations. Be honest with yourself when you encounter a scenario that pushes beyond the boundaries of your knowledge and comfort. Be willing to admit when you yourself need to consult others or seek an outside referral to provide the care a patient needs. Aspiring physicians often espouse that a devotion to lifelong learning is a key driver of their desire to pursue a career in medicine. These scenarios provide a key opportunity to expand our knowledge while doing what is right for our patients.

Be equally honest about your comfort with “curbside” consultations. Studies show that subspecialists receive on average of 3-4 such requests per week.7 The perception of these interactions is starkly discrepant between the requester and recipient. While over 80% of surveyed primary nonsurgical services felt that curbside consultations were helpful in patient care, a similar proportion of subspecialists expressed concern that insufficient clinical information was provided, even leading to a fear of litigation. While straightforward, informal conversations on narrow, well-defined questions can be helpful and efficient, the consultant should always feel comfortable seeking an opportunity for formal consultation when the details are unclear or the case/question is complex.

 

Closing Thoughts

Being an effective GI consultant isn’t just about what you know—it’s about how you apply it, how you communicate it, and how you make others feel in the process.

The attributes outlined above are not ancillary traits—they are essential components of high-quality consultation. When consistently applied, they enhance collaboration, improve patient outcomes, and reinforce trust within the healthcare system. By committing to them, you establish your reputation of excellence and play a role in elevating the field of gastroenterology more broadly.

Dr. Kahn is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. He reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article.

References

1. Goldman L, et al. Ten commandments for effective consultations. Arch Intern Med. 1983 Sep.

2. Salerno SM, et al. Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.271.

3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist Perspective of Interactions with Medicine Subspecialty Consult Services. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.

4. Matsuo T, et al. Essential consultants’ skills and attitudes (Willing CONSULT): a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02810-9.

5. Welp A, Manser T. Integrating teamwork, clinician occupational well-being and patient safety - development of a conceptual framework based on a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1535-y.

6. Webster CS, et al. Interprofessional Learning in Multidisciplinary Healthcare Teams Is Associated With Reduced Patient Mortality: A Quantitative Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Patient Saf. 2024 Jan. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001170.

7. Lin M, et al. Curbside Consultations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.09.026.

Gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty training is carefully designed to develop expertise in digestive diseases and gastrointestinal endoscopy, while facilitating the transition from generalist to subspecialty consultant. The concept of effective consultation extends far beyond clinical expertise and has been explored repeatedly, beginning with Goldman’s “Ten Commandments” in 1983.1,2 How should these best practices be specifically applied to GI? More importantly, what kind of experience would you want if you were the referring provider or the patient themselves?

Below are five essential tips to guide your development as a high-impact GI consultant with a reputation for excellence. 
 

1. Be Kind

Survey studies of medical/surgical residents and attending hospitalists have demonstrated that willingness to accept consultation requests was the single factor consistently rated as most important in determining the quality of the consultation interaction.3,4 Unfortunately, nearly 65% of respondents reported encountering pushback when requesting subspecialty consultation. It is critical to recognize that when you receive a GI consult request, the requester has already decided that it is needed. Whether that request comports with our individual notion of “necessary” or “important,” this is a colleague’s request for help. There are myriad reasons why a request may be made, but they are unified in this principle.

Effective teamwork in healthcare settings enhances clinical performance and patient safety. Positive relationships with colleagues and healthcare team members also mitigate the emotional basis for physician burnout.5 Be kind and courteous to those who seek your assistance. Move beyond the notion of the “bad” or “soft” consult and seek instead to understand how you can help.

A requesting physician may phrase the consult question vaguely or may know that the patient is having a GI-related issue, but simply lack the specific knowledge to know what is needed. In these instances, it is our role to listen and help guide them to the correct thought process to ensure the best care of the patient. These important interactions establish our reputation, create our referral bases, and directly affect our sense of personal satisfaction.

 

2. Be Timely

GI presents an appealing breadth of pathology, but this also corresponds to a wide variety of indications for consultation and, therefore, urgency of need. In a busy clinical practice, not all requests can be urgently prioritized. However, it is the consultant’s responsibility to identify patients that require urgent evaluation and intervention to avert a potential adverse outcome.

We are well-trained in the medical triage of consultations. There are explicit guidelines for assessing urgency for GI bleeding, foreign body ingestion, choledocholithiasis, and many other indications. However, there are often special contextual circumstances that will elevate the urgency of a seemingly non-urgent consult request. Does the patient have an upcoming surgery or treatment that will depend on your input? Are they facing an imminent loss of insurance coverage? Is their non-severe GI disease leading to more severe impact on non-GI organ systems? The referring provider knows the patient better than you – seek to understand the context of the consult request.
 

Dr. Allon Kahn


Timeliness also applies to our communication. Communicate recommendations directly to the consulting service as soon as the patient is seen. When a colleague reaches out with a concern about a patient, make sure to take that request seriously. If you are unable to address the concern immediately, at least provide acknowledgment and an estimated timeline for response. As the maxim states, the effectiveness of a consultant is just as dependent on availability as it is on ability.

 

3. Be Specific

The same survey studies indicate that the second most critical aspect of successful subspecialty consultation is delivering clear recommendations. Accordingly, I always urge my trainees to challenge me when we leave a consult interaction if they feel that our plan is vague or imprecise.

Specificity in consult recommendations is an essential way to demonstrate your expertise and provide value. Clear and definitive recommendations enhance others’ perception of your skill, reduce the need for additional clarifying communication, and lead to more efficient, higher quality care. Avoid vague language, such as asking the requester to “consider” a test or intervention. When recommending medication, specify the dose, frequency, duration, and expected timeline of effect. Rather than recommending “cross-sectional imaging,” specify what modality and protocol. Instead of recommending “adequate resuscitation,” specify your target endpoints. If you engage in multidisciplinary discussion, ensure you strive for a specific group consensus plan and communicate this to all members of the team.

Specificity also applies to the quality of your documentation. Ensure that your clinical notes outline your rationale for your recommended plan, specific contingencies based on results of recommended testing, and a plan for follow-up care. When referring for open-access endoscopy, specifically outline what to look for and which specimens or endoscopic interventions are needed. Be precise in your procedure documentation – avoid vague terms such as small/medium/large and instead quantify in terms of millimeter/centimeter measurement. If you do not adopt specific classification schemes (e.g. Prague classification, Paris classification, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, etc.), ensure you provide enough descriptive language to convey an adequate understanding of the findings.

 

4. Be Helpful

A consultant’s primary directive is to be of service to the consulting provider and the patient. As an educational leader, I am often asked what attributes separate a high-performing trainee from an average one. My feeling is that the most critical attribute is a sense of ownership over patient care.

As a consultant, when others feel we are exhibiting engagement and ownership in a patient’s care, they perceive that we are working together as an effective healthcare team. Interestingly, survey studies of inpatient care show that primary services do not necessarily value assistance with orders or care coordination – they consider these as core aspects of their daily work. What they did value was ongoing daily progress notes/communication, regardless of patient acuity or consulting specialty. This is a potent signal that our continued engagement (both inpatient and outpatient) is perceived as helpful.

Helpfulness is further aided by ensuring mutual understanding. While survey data indicate that sharing specific literature citations may not always be perceived positively, explaining the consultant’s rationale for their recommendations is highly valued. Take the time to tactfully explain your assessment of the patient and why you arrived at your specific recommendations. If your recommendations differ from what the requester expected (e.g. a procedure was expected but is not offered), ensure you explain why and answer questions they may have. This fosters mutual respect and proactively averts conflict or discontent from misunderstanding.

Multidisciplinary collaboration is another important avenue for aiding our patients and colleagues. Studies across a wide range of disease processes (including GI bleeding, IBD, etc.) and medical settings have demonstrated that multidisciplinary collaboration unequivocally improves patient outcomes.6 The success of these collaborations relies on our willingness to fully engage in these conversations, despite the fact that they may often be logistically challenging. 

We all know how difficult it can be to locate and organize multiple medical specialists with complex varying clinical schedules and busy personal lives. Choosing to do so demonstrates a dedication to providing the highest level of care and elevates both patient and physician satisfaction. Having chosen to cultivate several ongoing multidisciplinary conferences/collaborations, I can attest to the notion that the outcome is well worth the effort.

 

5. Be Honest

While we always strive to provide the answers for our patients and colleagues, we must also acknowledge our limitations. Be honest with yourself when you encounter a scenario that pushes beyond the boundaries of your knowledge and comfort. Be willing to admit when you yourself need to consult others or seek an outside referral to provide the care a patient needs. Aspiring physicians often espouse that a devotion to lifelong learning is a key driver of their desire to pursue a career in medicine. These scenarios provide a key opportunity to expand our knowledge while doing what is right for our patients.

Be equally honest about your comfort with “curbside” consultations. Studies show that subspecialists receive on average of 3-4 such requests per week.7 The perception of these interactions is starkly discrepant between the requester and recipient. While over 80% of surveyed primary nonsurgical services felt that curbside consultations were helpful in patient care, a similar proportion of subspecialists expressed concern that insufficient clinical information was provided, even leading to a fear of litigation. While straightforward, informal conversations on narrow, well-defined questions can be helpful and efficient, the consultant should always feel comfortable seeking an opportunity for formal consultation when the details are unclear or the case/question is complex.

 

Closing Thoughts

Being an effective GI consultant isn’t just about what you know—it’s about how you apply it, how you communicate it, and how you make others feel in the process.

The attributes outlined above are not ancillary traits—they are essential components of high-quality consultation. When consistently applied, they enhance collaboration, improve patient outcomes, and reinforce trust within the healthcare system. By committing to them, you establish your reputation of excellence and play a role in elevating the field of gastroenterology more broadly.

Dr. Kahn is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. He reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article.

References

1. Goldman L, et al. Ten commandments for effective consultations. Arch Intern Med. 1983 Sep.

2. Salerno SM, et al. Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.271.

3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist Perspective of Interactions with Medicine Subspecialty Consult Services. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.

4. Matsuo T, et al. Essential consultants’ skills and attitudes (Willing CONSULT): a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02810-9.

5. Welp A, Manser T. Integrating teamwork, clinician occupational well-being and patient safety - development of a conceptual framework based on a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1535-y.

6. Webster CS, et al. Interprofessional Learning in Multidisciplinary Healthcare Teams Is Associated With Reduced Patient Mortality: A Quantitative Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Patient Saf. 2024 Jan. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001170.

7. Lin M, et al. Curbside Consultations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.09.026.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 08/11/2025 - 11:20
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 08/11/2025 - 11:20
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 08/11/2025 - 11:20
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Mon, 08/11/2025 - 11:20

Choosing the Best Formalin-Resistant Ink for Biopsy Specimen Labeling

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 08/05/2025 - 11:40
Display Headline

Choosing the Best Formalin-Resistant Ink for Biopsy Specimen Labeling

Practice Gap

Many dermatology practices utilize pens and markers to label biopsy specimen containers, but the ink may have variable susceptibility to fading and smearing when exposed to moisture before processing. Specimen containers often are placed in plastic bags for transport. If formalin accidentally spills into the bag during this time, the labels may be exposed to moisture for hours, overnight, or even over a weekend. Effective labeling with formalin-resistant ink is crucial for maintaining the clarity of anatomic location and planning treatment, especially when multiple samples are obtained.

The Technique

We tested 12 pens and markers commonly used when labeling specimen containers to determine their susceptibility to fading due to accidental formalin exposure (Figure). Various inks were allowed to dry on sample specimen labels for 5 minutes before a thin layer of 10% buffered formalin was evenly distributed over the dried ink. Photographs of the labels were taken at baseline as well as 15 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, and 24 hours after formalin exposure.

rice-figure
FIGURE. Sample specimen labels were marked with ink from a variety of pens and markers to determine their susceptibility to fading on exposure to formalin. The ink was allowed to dry for 5 minutes before a thin layer of 10% buffered formalin was applied over it. Photographs were taken at baseline as well as 15 minutes and 1 hour after formalin exposure.

Fading was observed in both the skin marker and gel panes after 15 minutes and peaked after 1 hour. Gel pens were most susceptible to fading on exposure to formalin, and the level of fading varied by ink color, with certain colors disappearing almost entirely (Figure). The solvent-resistant marker had a robust defense to formalin, as did both ballpoint pens.

Practice Implications

Given our findings, dermatology practices should avoid using gel pens to label specimen containers. Solvent-resistant markers performed as expected; however, ballpoint pens appeared to withstand formalin exposure to a similar degree and often are more readily available. Labeling biopsy specimens with an appropriate ink ensures that each sample is clearly identified with the appropriate anatomic location and any other relevant patient information.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. Dr. Helfrich is from the Department of Dermatology.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Yolanda Helfrich, MD, 1910 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (yolanda@med.umich.edu).

Cutis. 2025 August;116(2):67. doi:10.12788/cutis.1244

Issue
Cutis - 116(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
67
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. Dr. Helfrich is from the Department of Dermatology.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Yolanda Helfrich, MD, 1910 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (yolanda@med.umich.edu).

Cutis. 2025 August;116(2):67. doi:10.12788/cutis.1244

Author and Disclosure Information

From the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. Dr. Helfrich is from the Department of Dermatology.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Yolanda Helfrich, MD, 1910 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (yolanda@med.umich.edu).

Cutis. 2025 August;116(2):67. doi:10.12788/cutis.1244

Article PDF
Article PDF

Practice Gap

Many dermatology practices utilize pens and markers to label biopsy specimen containers, but the ink may have variable susceptibility to fading and smearing when exposed to moisture before processing. Specimen containers often are placed in plastic bags for transport. If formalin accidentally spills into the bag during this time, the labels may be exposed to moisture for hours, overnight, or even over a weekend. Effective labeling with formalin-resistant ink is crucial for maintaining the clarity of anatomic location and planning treatment, especially when multiple samples are obtained.

The Technique

We tested 12 pens and markers commonly used when labeling specimen containers to determine their susceptibility to fading due to accidental formalin exposure (Figure). Various inks were allowed to dry on sample specimen labels for 5 minutes before a thin layer of 10% buffered formalin was evenly distributed over the dried ink. Photographs of the labels were taken at baseline as well as 15 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, and 24 hours after formalin exposure.

rice-figure
FIGURE. Sample specimen labels were marked with ink from a variety of pens and markers to determine their susceptibility to fading on exposure to formalin. The ink was allowed to dry for 5 minutes before a thin layer of 10% buffered formalin was applied over it. Photographs were taken at baseline as well as 15 minutes and 1 hour after formalin exposure.

Fading was observed in both the skin marker and gel panes after 15 minutes and peaked after 1 hour. Gel pens were most susceptible to fading on exposure to formalin, and the level of fading varied by ink color, with certain colors disappearing almost entirely (Figure). The solvent-resistant marker had a robust defense to formalin, as did both ballpoint pens.

Practice Implications

Given our findings, dermatology practices should avoid using gel pens to label specimen containers. Solvent-resistant markers performed as expected; however, ballpoint pens appeared to withstand formalin exposure to a similar degree and often are more readily available. Labeling biopsy specimens with an appropriate ink ensures that each sample is clearly identified with the appropriate anatomic location and any other relevant patient information.

Practice Gap

Many dermatology practices utilize pens and markers to label biopsy specimen containers, but the ink may have variable susceptibility to fading and smearing when exposed to moisture before processing. Specimen containers often are placed in plastic bags for transport. If formalin accidentally spills into the bag during this time, the labels may be exposed to moisture for hours, overnight, or even over a weekend. Effective labeling with formalin-resistant ink is crucial for maintaining the clarity of anatomic location and planning treatment, especially when multiple samples are obtained.

The Technique

We tested 12 pens and markers commonly used when labeling specimen containers to determine their susceptibility to fading due to accidental formalin exposure (Figure). Various inks were allowed to dry on sample specimen labels for 5 minutes before a thin layer of 10% buffered formalin was evenly distributed over the dried ink. Photographs of the labels were taken at baseline as well as 15 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, and 24 hours after formalin exposure.

rice-figure
FIGURE. Sample specimen labels were marked with ink from a variety of pens and markers to determine their susceptibility to fading on exposure to formalin. The ink was allowed to dry for 5 minutes before a thin layer of 10% buffered formalin was applied over it. Photographs were taken at baseline as well as 15 minutes and 1 hour after formalin exposure.

Fading was observed in both the skin marker and gel panes after 15 minutes and peaked after 1 hour. Gel pens were most susceptible to fading on exposure to formalin, and the level of fading varied by ink color, with certain colors disappearing almost entirely (Figure). The solvent-resistant marker had a robust defense to formalin, as did both ballpoint pens.

Practice Implications

Given our findings, dermatology practices should avoid using gel pens to label specimen containers. Solvent-resistant markers performed as expected; however, ballpoint pens appeared to withstand formalin exposure to a similar degree and often are more readily available. Labeling biopsy specimens with an appropriate ink ensures that each sample is clearly identified with the appropriate anatomic location and any other relevant patient information.

Issue
Cutis - 116(2)
Issue
Cutis - 116(2)
Page Number
67
Page Number
67
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Choosing the Best Formalin-Resistant Ink for Biopsy Specimen Labeling

Display Headline

Choosing the Best Formalin-Resistant Ink for Biopsy Specimen Labeling

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Tue, 08/05/2025 - 11:07
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 08/05/2025 - 11:07
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 08/05/2025 - 11:07
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Tue, 08/05/2025 - 11:07

Colonoscopy Costs Rise When Private Equity Acquires GI Practices, but Quality Does Not

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 11:30

Private equity (PE) acquisition of gastroenterology (GI) practices led to higher colonoscopy prices, utilization, and spending with no commensurate effect on quality, an economic analysis found. Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.

In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.

David R. Arnold



Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.

 

The Study

This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.

The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.

The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.

Among the findings:

  • Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for  .
  • The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
  • Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
  • No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.

Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators? 

“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”

Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

Atul Gupta



In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.” 

Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.

Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”

Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.

Dr. Jane M. Zhu



“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.

The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold). 

Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Private equity (PE) acquisition of gastroenterology (GI) practices led to higher colonoscopy prices, utilization, and spending with no commensurate effect on quality, an economic analysis found. Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.

In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.

David R. Arnold



Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.

 

The Study

This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.

The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.

The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.

Among the findings:

  • Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for  .
  • The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
  • Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
  • No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.

Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators? 

“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”

Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

Atul Gupta



In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.” 

Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.

Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”

Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.

Dr. Jane M. Zhu



“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.

The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold). 

Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity (PE) acquisition of gastroenterology (GI) practices led to higher colonoscopy prices, utilization, and spending with no commensurate effect on quality, an economic analysis found. Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.

In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.

David R. Arnold



Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.

 

The Study

This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.

The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.

The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.

Among the findings:

  • Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for  .
  • The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
  • Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
  • No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.

Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators? 

“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”

Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

Atul Gupta



In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.” 

Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.

Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”

Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.

Dr. Jane M. Zhu



“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.

The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold). 

Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 10:11
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 10:11
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 10:11
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 10:11

Navigating Moonlighting Opportunities During Dermatology Training

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 06/27/2025 - 15:52
Display Headline

Navigating Moonlighting Opportunities During Dermatology Training

Residents and fellows in training have to navigate time management to balance reading, hands-on training, family responsibilities, exercise, diet, and sleep requirements. In addition, they grapple with the stress of financial commitments for food, housing, clothing, family members, transportation, and student loans. A brilliant friend of mine once said that she struggled throughout residency and her early career to find balance until it finally occurred to her that, while balance was aspirational, resilience was key. All that said, residents in training may find it appealing to earn a little extra money and gain additional clinical experience through moonlighting. This article discusses some key considerations when embarking on such a decision, including the effects of moonlighting on other commitments and some logistical factors to consider.

Will Moonlighting Adversely Affect My Other Commitments?

Residency and fellowship are precious opportunities to gain medical knowledge, hone your ability to make diagnoses through complex pattern recognition, and refine the necessary surgical and interpersonal skills to carry you through a successful career. Dermatology encompasses a vast array of conditions related only by their manifestation in skin. Dermatology residents and fellows may spend fewer sleepless hours on call, but the reading requirements are massive. Our treatment armamentarium has expanded rapidly with highly effective treatments for chronic conditions that have a dramatic impact on quality of life. With so many effective agents available, the choice often relates as much to comorbidities as to disease severity and location. There is so much to learn.

While making a full commitment to acquiring the skills of an expert clinician, it is important for residents to remain aware of those who depend on you—in particular, the fleeting time you have with your growing children. They grow up fast, and your interactions with them determine who they will grow up to be. In the past, salt, silk, gold, and jewels were the world’s greatest luxuries. Now, it’s time—time with family, time for self-care, time to reflect, and time to rest and renew. Be careful how you squander time in exchange for material possessions.

What Logistical Factors Should You Consider When Embarking on Moonlighting?

There are clearly stated policies from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for when moonlighting can occur during training.1 It should not occur during typical residency or fellowship work hours, and the individual must be in good standing academically and progressing well on their journey to becoming a competent dermatologist. They must also have the appropriate skills to practice in the field of medicine chosen for moonlighting.

Moonlighting opportunities may exist in the form of emergency department or “quick clinic” coverage, especially for the evaluation and treatment of acute minor illnesses. Fellows who have completed a dermatology residency may supervise dermatology residents in afterhours or weekend clinics, offering enhanced opportunities for autonomy, additional clinical experience, and some welcome cash. To make such clinics viable, the office space must be available; the building must be open; and the costs of the space, scheduling, reception, and security services must be covered as well as nursing support (which should be voluntary and likely will require overtime pay scales). After all of these—as well as supplies—have been paid for, what is left is what is available to distribute as pay for service. Working through these factors provides valuable experience in resource management and helps prepare trainees for the economic realities of private practice. Large organizations may be able to provide the space and support, but all of that needs to be paid for through the proceeds that come from the patient care provided. No-show rates often are quite high for after-hours and weekend clinics, but the expenses for those unfilled appointment slots remain and must be paid in full. Be sure the demand exists and that you plan appropriately with strategic overbooking based on historical data on patient mix, procedural needs, and no-show rates.

My department has supported resident and fellow requests for moonlighting opportunities in the past. The most successful model was to have a limited number of early morning appointment slots prior to the start of morning didactics. Security typically already exists, rooms are available, and patients can be seen and still get to work or get their kids to school. No-show rates remained very low for morning appointments, and strategic overbooking was unnecessary.

In contrast, evening and weekend clinics start out strong with high patient satisfaction and deteriorate fairly quickly with accelerating no-show rates. People are busy at the end of the day, and unforeseen circumstances often affect their ability to keep an appointment. Weekends are precious; potential patients may be less schedule minded in the evenings and on weekends, and the residents and fellows themselves often find it stressful to commit to giving up a chunk of weekend time on a scheduled basis.

Before you commit to a moonlighting job, be sure to weigh all of the above factors and be sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

Final Thoughts

Moonlighting opportunities are a way to acquire both clinical and management skills and can provide a welcome extra bit of cash to ease financial burdens, but these benefits should be balanced with other time commitments and overall quality of life. Time is precious—choose wisely and be sure you spend it well.

References
  1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Common Program Requirements (Residency). Updated September 17, 2022. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequirements/cprresidency_2023v3.pdf
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

The author has no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Dirk M. Elston, MD, Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, MSC 578, 135 Rutledge Ave, 11th Floor, Charleston, SC 29425-5780 (elstond@musc.edu).

Cutis. 2025 June;115(6):E9-E10. doi:10.12788/cutis.1241

Issue
Cutis - 115(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E9-E10
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

The author has no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Dirk M. Elston, MD, Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, MSC 578, 135 Rutledge Ave, 11th Floor, Charleston, SC 29425-5780 (elstond@musc.edu).

Cutis. 2025 June;115(6):E9-E10. doi:10.12788/cutis.1241

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

The author has no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Dirk M. Elston, MD, Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, MSC 578, 135 Rutledge Ave, 11th Floor, Charleston, SC 29425-5780 (elstond@musc.edu).

Cutis. 2025 June;115(6):E9-E10. doi:10.12788/cutis.1241

Article PDF
Article PDF

Residents and fellows in training have to navigate time management to balance reading, hands-on training, family responsibilities, exercise, diet, and sleep requirements. In addition, they grapple with the stress of financial commitments for food, housing, clothing, family members, transportation, and student loans. A brilliant friend of mine once said that she struggled throughout residency and her early career to find balance until it finally occurred to her that, while balance was aspirational, resilience was key. All that said, residents in training may find it appealing to earn a little extra money and gain additional clinical experience through moonlighting. This article discusses some key considerations when embarking on such a decision, including the effects of moonlighting on other commitments and some logistical factors to consider.

Will Moonlighting Adversely Affect My Other Commitments?

Residency and fellowship are precious opportunities to gain medical knowledge, hone your ability to make diagnoses through complex pattern recognition, and refine the necessary surgical and interpersonal skills to carry you through a successful career. Dermatology encompasses a vast array of conditions related only by their manifestation in skin. Dermatology residents and fellows may spend fewer sleepless hours on call, but the reading requirements are massive. Our treatment armamentarium has expanded rapidly with highly effective treatments for chronic conditions that have a dramatic impact on quality of life. With so many effective agents available, the choice often relates as much to comorbidities as to disease severity and location. There is so much to learn.

While making a full commitment to acquiring the skills of an expert clinician, it is important for residents to remain aware of those who depend on you—in particular, the fleeting time you have with your growing children. They grow up fast, and your interactions with them determine who they will grow up to be. In the past, salt, silk, gold, and jewels were the world’s greatest luxuries. Now, it’s time—time with family, time for self-care, time to reflect, and time to rest and renew. Be careful how you squander time in exchange for material possessions.

What Logistical Factors Should You Consider When Embarking on Moonlighting?

There are clearly stated policies from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for when moonlighting can occur during training.1 It should not occur during typical residency or fellowship work hours, and the individual must be in good standing academically and progressing well on their journey to becoming a competent dermatologist. They must also have the appropriate skills to practice in the field of medicine chosen for moonlighting.

Moonlighting opportunities may exist in the form of emergency department or “quick clinic” coverage, especially for the evaluation and treatment of acute minor illnesses. Fellows who have completed a dermatology residency may supervise dermatology residents in afterhours or weekend clinics, offering enhanced opportunities for autonomy, additional clinical experience, and some welcome cash. To make such clinics viable, the office space must be available; the building must be open; and the costs of the space, scheduling, reception, and security services must be covered as well as nursing support (which should be voluntary and likely will require overtime pay scales). After all of these—as well as supplies—have been paid for, what is left is what is available to distribute as pay for service. Working through these factors provides valuable experience in resource management and helps prepare trainees for the economic realities of private practice. Large organizations may be able to provide the space and support, but all of that needs to be paid for through the proceeds that come from the patient care provided. No-show rates often are quite high for after-hours and weekend clinics, but the expenses for those unfilled appointment slots remain and must be paid in full. Be sure the demand exists and that you plan appropriately with strategic overbooking based on historical data on patient mix, procedural needs, and no-show rates.

My department has supported resident and fellow requests for moonlighting opportunities in the past. The most successful model was to have a limited number of early morning appointment slots prior to the start of morning didactics. Security typically already exists, rooms are available, and patients can be seen and still get to work or get their kids to school. No-show rates remained very low for morning appointments, and strategic overbooking was unnecessary.

In contrast, evening and weekend clinics start out strong with high patient satisfaction and deteriorate fairly quickly with accelerating no-show rates. People are busy at the end of the day, and unforeseen circumstances often affect their ability to keep an appointment. Weekends are precious; potential patients may be less schedule minded in the evenings and on weekends, and the residents and fellows themselves often find it stressful to commit to giving up a chunk of weekend time on a scheduled basis.

Before you commit to a moonlighting job, be sure to weigh all of the above factors and be sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

Final Thoughts

Moonlighting opportunities are a way to acquire both clinical and management skills and can provide a welcome extra bit of cash to ease financial burdens, but these benefits should be balanced with other time commitments and overall quality of life. Time is precious—choose wisely and be sure you spend it well.

Residents and fellows in training have to navigate time management to balance reading, hands-on training, family responsibilities, exercise, diet, and sleep requirements. In addition, they grapple with the stress of financial commitments for food, housing, clothing, family members, transportation, and student loans. A brilliant friend of mine once said that she struggled throughout residency and her early career to find balance until it finally occurred to her that, while balance was aspirational, resilience was key. All that said, residents in training may find it appealing to earn a little extra money and gain additional clinical experience through moonlighting. This article discusses some key considerations when embarking on such a decision, including the effects of moonlighting on other commitments and some logistical factors to consider.

Will Moonlighting Adversely Affect My Other Commitments?

Residency and fellowship are precious opportunities to gain medical knowledge, hone your ability to make diagnoses through complex pattern recognition, and refine the necessary surgical and interpersonal skills to carry you through a successful career. Dermatology encompasses a vast array of conditions related only by their manifestation in skin. Dermatology residents and fellows may spend fewer sleepless hours on call, but the reading requirements are massive. Our treatment armamentarium has expanded rapidly with highly effective treatments for chronic conditions that have a dramatic impact on quality of life. With so many effective agents available, the choice often relates as much to comorbidities as to disease severity and location. There is so much to learn.

While making a full commitment to acquiring the skills of an expert clinician, it is important for residents to remain aware of those who depend on you—in particular, the fleeting time you have with your growing children. They grow up fast, and your interactions with them determine who they will grow up to be. In the past, salt, silk, gold, and jewels were the world’s greatest luxuries. Now, it’s time—time with family, time for self-care, time to reflect, and time to rest and renew. Be careful how you squander time in exchange for material possessions.

What Logistical Factors Should You Consider When Embarking on Moonlighting?

There are clearly stated policies from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for when moonlighting can occur during training.1 It should not occur during typical residency or fellowship work hours, and the individual must be in good standing academically and progressing well on their journey to becoming a competent dermatologist. They must also have the appropriate skills to practice in the field of medicine chosen for moonlighting.

Moonlighting opportunities may exist in the form of emergency department or “quick clinic” coverage, especially for the evaluation and treatment of acute minor illnesses. Fellows who have completed a dermatology residency may supervise dermatology residents in afterhours or weekend clinics, offering enhanced opportunities for autonomy, additional clinical experience, and some welcome cash. To make such clinics viable, the office space must be available; the building must be open; and the costs of the space, scheduling, reception, and security services must be covered as well as nursing support (which should be voluntary and likely will require overtime pay scales). After all of these—as well as supplies—have been paid for, what is left is what is available to distribute as pay for service. Working through these factors provides valuable experience in resource management and helps prepare trainees for the economic realities of private practice. Large organizations may be able to provide the space and support, but all of that needs to be paid for through the proceeds that come from the patient care provided. No-show rates often are quite high for after-hours and weekend clinics, but the expenses for those unfilled appointment slots remain and must be paid in full. Be sure the demand exists and that you plan appropriately with strategic overbooking based on historical data on patient mix, procedural needs, and no-show rates.

My department has supported resident and fellow requests for moonlighting opportunities in the past. The most successful model was to have a limited number of early morning appointment slots prior to the start of morning didactics. Security typically already exists, rooms are available, and patients can be seen and still get to work or get their kids to school. No-show rates remained very low for morning appointments, and strategic overbooking was unnecessary.

In contrast, evening and weekend clinics start out strong with high patient satisfaction and deteriorate fairly quickly with accelerating no-show rates. People are busy at the end of the day, and unforeseen circumstances often affect their ability to keep an appointment. Weekends are precious; potential patients may be less schedule minded in the evenings and on weekends, and the residents and fellows themselves often find it stressful to commit to giving up a chunk of weekend time on a scheduled basis.

Before you commit to a moonlighting job, be sure to weigh all of the above factors and be sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

Final Thoughts

Moonlighting opportunities are a way to acquire both clinical and management skills and can provide a welcome extra bit of cash to ease financial burdens, but these benefits should be balanced with other time commitments and overall quality of life. Time is precious—choose wisely and be sure you spend it well.

References
  1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Common Program Requirements (Residency). Updated September 17, 2022. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequirements/cprresidency_2023v3.pdf
References
  1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Common Program Requirements (Residency). Updated September 17, 2022. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequirements/cprresidency_2023v3.pdf
Issue
Cutis - 115(6)
Issue
Cutis - 115(6)
Page Number
E9-E10
Page Number
E9-E10
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Navigating Moonlighting Opportunities During Dermatology Training

Display Headline

Navigating Moonlighting Opportunities During Dermatology Training

Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE POINTS

  • Dermatology training demands extensive study and hands-on skill development, which need to be balanced with family time, finances, and self-care.
  • Before moonlighting, ensure it will not compromise your family’s quality of life or your core residency/fellowship commitments and that your program’s policies permit it.
  • Carefully assess logistics to determine if an afterhours or weekend clinic can be a financially viable moonlighting opportunity.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Fri, 06/27/2025 - 15:33
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 06/27/2025 - 15:33
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 06/27/2025 - 15:33
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Fri, 06/27/2025 - 15:33