Ran across an article that was posted to Twitter today
entitled “The medical profession is breaking its psychological contract with
medical students and trainees.” It was
not posted on Medline yet so I am concluding that this is a blog post on the
British Medical Journal website. As far as I can tell none of the authors are
physicians. The qualifications listed suggest they are all business school
professors. Rather than accept my brief summation of the article, I encourage
anyone reading this post to read the article in
full at this link.
The authors develop their argument from a business concept called the psychological contract. They link to it in their post. It is from a 1995 book written by Denise Rousseau called Psychological Contracts in Organizations - Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. Searching the author shows that she is a University Professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Organizational Behavior and Public Policy. The closest definition I could find in this section of pages occurred on pages 9 and 10:
“When two people work interdependently, such as a worker
and a supervisor, agree on terms of a contract, performance should be
satisfactory from both parties’ perspectives. As individuals work through their
understandings of each other’s commitments over time, a degree of mutual
predictability becomes possible: ‘I know what I want from you and you know what
you want from me’. Commitments understood on both sides may be understood based
on communications, customs, and past practices.”
By the second paragraph the authors have concluded that a
violation of the subjective psychological contract has led to the well-known
morbidity and mortality within the medical profession although they are focused
primarily on trainees for the purpose of their argument. They provide links to
burnout, stress, and depression. They suggest that this provides direct
evidence that violation of the psychological contract has occurred. They go on to point out how training
environments or “cultures” have a neagtive effect as a number of vaguely defined and poorly
quantitated negative outcomes. They never really comment on how widespread the
abusive culture is or the total number of people affected. One of their stunning
conclusory statements is:
“A cursory examination of the first
interactions that physician trainees have with medical schools and residency or
specialty training programmes suggests that from day one, the relationships
begin somewhat adversarially, suspiciously, and with potentially lower levels
of trust between the parties.”
When I looked at that sentence - as I hope any physician
reading this will do - I asked myself if these were the kinds of relationships I
had with attending physicians on day one of my residency training. I also asked
myself if I had these kinds of relationships with my medical school professors and the residents and medical students that I was teaching.
The answer was a resounding “No!”. Medical training is of necessity intense and
prolonged but it is not focused on “book smarts” and "high-stakes”. The authors lack an understanding of why
medical training requires this approach and that has to do with pattern
matching. Medicine is not learned by “book smarts”. Medicine is learned by seeing
as many possible patterns of illness as you can during residency training. In
the case of surgical training, that involves as many supervised surgical
procedures as possible. Only when this pattern matching has occurred will a physician be safe to see patients and practice medicine independently. If there
is any expectation at all on the part of trainees it should be that their training
program provides them with these experiences and adequate time with attending
physicians so that they might also benefit from the experience of those physicians.
Every good training program provides that experience as
well as the necessary relationships with attending physicians. All through medical
school and residency training, a training physician has direct contact with
senior residents, attending physicians, and various consultants. They all have
varied skills and motivations for teaching, but it is hard to imagine that the
training in the United States one cannot find several outstanding teachers and role
models in any residency program. I have role models and residents that I
trained who I am in contact with to this day. We are still all focused on
patient care and united by the goal of quality care and being able to take care
of patients with complex problems.
I also have first-hand experience with what directly
interferes with the teaching experience. Without a doubt it is the intrusion of
business practices into academic settings. Pharmaceutical sales and detailing
has been the usual focus but that is completely benign compared with managed
care. I have highlighted a few major problems with managed-care and academic
medicine in the table below and will elaborate on some of those points.
Business Practices Adversely Affecting
Medical Education
|
1. Lack
of quality
- before the intrusion of business practices there were medical standards of
quality. Those of been replaced by business standards of “value” that have
essentially no meaning in the practice of medicine. The role of physician as a "steward of resources" is a business idea and not a medical one.
|
2. Unrealistic
productivity standards - any academic practice that requires RVU production and
awards no credit for teaching productivity necessarily detracts from medical
education.
|
3. Unscientific
metrics
- medical students and residents can observe attending physicians being
ordered around by nonphysicians based on business metrics such as length of
stay that have nothing to do with patient care.
|
4. An
unscientific environment - is there adequate time in a managed-care teaching
setting to discuss something other than rationing techniques? Is there time
on rounding to discuss the latest scientific research? In most cases it is seriously eroded.
|
5. Documentation
burden -
it is currently immense relative to before businesses took over the field and
that necessarily leads to less direct contact with teachers and mentors and
less academic discussion. This is an artifact of a very low quality information technology environment both in terms of records and security that is the direct result of business based standards in medicine.
|
6. Less
disagreement and controversy - one of the key concepts that every medical
trainee must learn is that medical science is an active dialogue and critical
papers and concepts change over time. The business influence on teaching
environments suggest otherwise and make it seem as though completely unscientific ideas like utilization review and prior authorization represent
some sort of immutable standard - the criteria for which never seem to be completely available. Science is secondary to the proprietary business environment. Physicians on the faculty
who disagree with that are frequently scapegoated and fall into disfavor.
Managed-care companies cull the ranks of trainees looking for “managed-care
friendly physicians” to maintain the business-based practice.
|
7. Revolving
door policies
- there is probably nothing more demoralizing for an intern than to have to
readmit a patient who has been discharged because they were in the hospital
too long and who returns because they were not stable at the time of
discharge. Those discharges are generally based on business metrics. These policies also eliminate the possibility of residents seeing their patients recover and verifying that their diagnosis and treatment plan was correct.
|
8. Unnecessary bureaucratic burden - I was fortunate enough to be an intern at the time managed care was
just starting to take off. At that time I had a critically ill patient in an
intensive care unit and I was contacted and told that they needed to be
transferred to another hospital because of their insurance contract. Today practically all physicians routinely
encounter the managed-care intrusion into their patient care on a daily
basis. With physicians in training it is no different. They are still
subjected to the review processes and spending far too much time getting medications
approved that are clearly indicated. All of this detracts from teaching and
learning time.
|
I have directly observed all the above items taking its
toll on teaching and learning medicine but I have a couple of anecdotes that
bring together many of these areas. The first was my experience on a
neurosurgery rotation as a medical student. I did two neurosurgery rotations
with the same residents and attendings and at one point hoped to be a neurosurgeon.
There is no more rigorous course of training. All of the senior residents were
essentially on-call 24/7 all year long. In those days we were rounding on about
35 patients 10 of which were in the neurosurgery intensive care unit. We would
typically be done with rounds in two hours and the documentation would be done
at about the same time. Our documentation would include the postoperative day number,
patient’s subjective status, what the surgical wound looked like, and review of
their vital signs, labs, and physical exam. A typical note was no longer than
five lines and we could complete it as we were moving from patient to patient. Over the years the federal government developed documentation
guidelines that were turned over to the managed-care industry so that every
medical encounter these days takes an excessive amount of documentation. If we
were doing the same rounding procedure today it would take us additional 2 to 3
hours just to complete the documentation. That 2-3 hours would detract
from time in the operating room where residents were learning how to perform
neurosurgery and medical students were learning by observing those procedures.
That 2-3 hours would detract from time where the senior neurosurgeons
would teach imaging rounds and review all of the brain and spine imaging from
all of our patients that week. In short,
business practices would have essentially cancelled out most of the teaching on
neurosurgery.
My other anecdote has to do with materials available for
teaching. At my last teaching position I enjoyed presenting an annual review
for psychiatric residents taking the annual “in training” exam. This
examination includes questions about neurology, neuropsychiatry, and brain
imaging. As an attending physician focused on neuropsychiatry I always had
plenty of brain images that were relevant to the practice of psychiatry. With
the electronic health record implementation it was relatively easy to download
and de-identify those images for teaching purposes. When I sought permission to
do that from the medical director at our clinic she stated: “Why would we let
you use our images?” I was stunned
because prior to the takeover by businesses, reviewing films even if they were
not de-identified was standard teaching practice.
The final anecdote is probably the best. Back in the early
days of the business takeover of medicine, the FBI was actually engaged in
investigating medical billing and making sure physicians completed the correct
documentation template. If they didn’t they could be charged with a crime up to
and including a RICO violation. Of course these templates were completely
subjective but that is not the way the FBI was treating them. There were
several well-known prosecutions of large medical clinics based on the fact that
attending physicians were not documenting enough when they supervised
residents. There were no guidelines at
the time about what might be involved and so my business people were telling me
that I had to document the standard note whether I was working with a resident
or not. You can imagine the demoralizing effect that has on a resident when
they notice their attending is putting in a separate note every day and their
note seems to be irrelevant. When I noticed that happening I suspended all of my
teaching of residents because I did not want to insult them just because
business and government bureaucrats were telling me what to do. Eventually that
guideline was relaxed so that I could go back to documenting that I had discussed
the case with the resident but not until considerable damage had been done.
Based on these experiences and more, the opinion piece in BMJ
strikes me as another effort to exert top-down control by business
interests on the field of medicine. It
is an extension of three decades of failed business initiatives that nonetheless
still dominate the practice of medicine in the United States. Businesses and governments alike are still
using the failed strategies. As I pointed out, the same failed strategies have
already taken a toll on medical education. And yet these authors suggest that
another vague business concept should be applied to medical education.
When I think about my mentors, my colleagues, the residents
I have mentored, and what we have all accomplished - we need to keep business
concepts out of medical education. We also need to look at the overall strategy
and why business authors keep appearing in the pages of our journals. It all
seems to be based on the premise that is business managers are experts at everything.
That is clearly not true in medicine. They have introduced chaos and stress into the clinical field. They have already seriously stressed medical education and this opinion piece provides another non-solution that can only be suggested in the context of having wrested control of the clinical practice of medicine away from physicians.
That is clearly not true in medicine. They have introduced chaos and stress into the clinical field. They have already seriously stressed medical education and this opinion piece provides another non-solution that can only be suggested in the context of having wrested control of the clinical practice of medicine away from physicians.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Supplementary:
I have seen recent psychiatric treatment that may illustrate what happens when business managed settings limit patient contact. In my current employment, I see a lot of people who are treated with antipsychotic medication, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers for a presumed psychiatric diagnosis. The medications are started and titrated rapidly. By the time they see me they are experiencing clear side effects, taking too much medicine, and the diagnosis is not clear. Hospitalizations today are so short and so focused on doing something in a short period of time that physicians in training have limited exposure to the concept of substance induced psychiatric disorders and how they can be best treated. That also includes the appropriate detoxification of these patients - many of whom are sent out to social detoxification units unless they worsen and are sent back. All of this decision making should be part of the knowledge base of psychiatrists and primary care physicians.
Medical journals and publishers themselves understand the monopoly business racket well, especially Elsivier, Pearson, etc.
ReplyDeleteAgree - the proliferation of low quality medical journals is one driver of more opinion pieces by non-medical authors in these periodicals. I can't think of a better way to decrease the value of medical literature more than by turning it into opinion pieces on how to "reform" the field by someone who have never be trained as a physician or worked in the field.
DeleteDoes anyone in government care about antitrust anymore?
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge
Credentialing is another scam just like this.
Obviously not.
DeleteBut I really don't understand how this is a viable business strategy. Do these publishers really think that I am going to pay $200-400/yr for each of several journal subscriptions and then make ala carte purchases from behind their paywall.
I would probably have to spend $20-30K/year to read what I want to read. That obviously gets in the way of any serious research.
There should be a clearing house where anyone can pay $1,000/year to access any journal like they do in academic libraries.
At least that was the figure I was quoted as a reason why I (and many other colleagues) were fired from our non-paid positions as clinical faculty at the local university. I guess a grand a year fir library access as a total benefit was too much.