Over the years that I have been writing this blog - I have written a Labor Day greeting to my physician colleagues generally documenting the lack of progress on the work environment. This posts range from discussions about the importance of knowledge workers and their characteristics to how physicians are treated. The most important one of those characteristics is that they cannot be treated like production workers. That is of course the way most physicians are treated these days and it is not a new development. Another important dimension has been the intrusion of business interests on the physician-patient relationship. Those business interests rationed the level of care in order to make corporate profits and prevented physicians from providing the best possible care. All of these intrusions happen across the board but my particular specialty is affected more than others. I learned just this year that when managed-care companies decided to target psychiatry 30 years ago, their goal was double their stock price. No access or quality goal - just more money in the pockets of shareholders and company officials. The end result has been a seriously eroded practice environment, decreased access, County jails being used as psychiatric hospitals, lack of availability of substance use treatment and detoxification, and very brief hospital stays where hardly any treatment is provided or the patient ends up being committed and staying far too long on a short stay unit that almost resembles a jail. None of this is good news for laboring physicians and none of it is changing.
There was one recent bright spot. The headline in Psychiatric News on August 21 announced that the APA Presidential Task Force on Assessment of Psychiatric Bed Needs in the United States had been created by Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH the president of the APA. Dr. Geller correctly identified a current “public mental health crisis” but he failed to describe its chronicity. There are apparently 30 members on this task force and they will be delivering a white paper in December that “includes a workable model for determining hospital bed needs within a community that can be refined and updated over time”. There are six subgroups including a modeling subgroup. There is a panel describing “how we got here” and stating “inpatient care falls prey to economic forces, ideology”. Nowhere in the article did I see the words “managed-care”. Instead - I see a number of managed-care friendly quotes especially from the panel. The APA has a long history of task forces and boards with so many conflicts of interest that either nothing gets done or something gets done that is in direct opposition to the needs of clinical psychiatrists who go to work every day and typically have to tolerate a very difficult work environment.
I have written about how other groups have assessed the bed problem. An obvious but innovative way is to look at the beds necessary to prevent committed patients from staying long periods of time in acute care hospitals, the beds necessary to prevent emergency department bottlenecks, and beds necessary to prevent patients with obvious severe mental illness from being incarcerated for minor offenses. Another obvious deficiency in practically all cities is treatment for substance use problems. We need acute detox and people are often sent to a nonmedical detox unit until they develop medical complications. Adequate environments to accomplish all these tasks are needed and support the physicians doing it are critical. I will be interested in the eventual white paper but considering the APA track record against 30 years of managed-care, utilization review, and prior authorization I am not optimistic at all.
I can’t let this catastrophic year slide without commenting on telepsychiatry. As readers can tell from my previous posts I am fairly enthusiastic about it even though I do prefer talking to people in person. I also take my own vital signs and do brief examinations as necessary and that just can’t happen over a computer network. I suppose there are people who have much better integration with the EHR, clinical systems, and electronic prescribing than my current system and I think that is where hope lies. I have three state-of-the-art computers that are much faster than medical software I am using. There are still plenty of glitches and communication problems that need to be solved but I am hopeful that they eventually will be. There is an associated regulatory burden and that is a wildcard when the pandemic recedes. Specifically will there be a rollback and telemedicine and less development. I am hopeful that better systems and more integrated systems will evolve to the point that there are no delays and the physician work environment is much more seamless. Like most things that physicians deal with we still have to dedicate our time to support software that is supposed to be supporting us.
The tide has turned on the burnout industry. I am seeing more and more colleagues not accepting blame for their burnout. Burnout is not a yoga or meditation deficiency. It is a direct product of an inadequate and at times hostile work environment. The pandemic highlighted many deficiencies and many questionable administrative decisions. Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and Maintenance of Licensure (MOL) - still loom largely in the background. Dr. Geller has apparently stated one of his goals is to get rid of MOC but I will believe it when I see it. I recently read a document that the APA gets to million-dollar year payment from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) - the MOC body. That is a significant conflict of interest from the membership perspective. The ABPN is currently collecting $500/yr from all of its certification holders in additional to fees necessary to access required reading. If 30,000 psychiatrists are paying these fees every year, that exercise generates $150M for the ABPN very ten years. There is no evidence anywhere that investing this significant time and effort produces a superior psychiatrist. The ABPN response is” “The public demands it!” In fact, the public still doesn’t know the difference between a psychiatrist, psychologist, or nurse practitioner. Burnout will end when physicians can stop doing the work of billing and coding specialists, typists and other clerical workers, IT workers, and surrogate employees of pharmaceutical benefit managers and managed care companies. No physician can be expected to do all of that additional work and work a full time stressful job. That is the real unstated problem of burnout.
Is there a high ground left for psychiatrists? I have often closed a post with the statement that: “Psychiatry needs to be focused on innovation and the future. The best position to be in is looking at everyone else in the rearview mirror?” Is there still a way to do that? I think that there is. A survey of many of my posts on this blog focus on what is really irrelevant criticism from the past. I have lived through the era of the biological psychiatrists versus the psychotherapists. I have lived through the era of brainless versus mindless psychiatry. I have survived the Decade of the Brain. It seems that both our detractors and internal critics tend to focus on false dichotomies or irrelevant history from the past. The way forward is to stay focused on modern theories and forget about the rest.
What will that take? I would suggest – a firm shift to an all-encompassing view of the field that makes us more resistance to petty criticism but at the same time more focused. When I say focused - on clinical care, research, and theory. We have at least two models of that as elaborated by S. Nassir Ghaemi (1) and others.
The most modern all-encompassing theory comes from Kandel as interpreted by Ghaemi (1). In his book, Ghaemi makes a compelling argument for pluralism as the defining approach in psychiatry over eclecticism and the biopsychosocial model of Engel. Pluralism essentially means that multiple methods are necessary to treat mental illness and that there are no single methods that will work. He cites several traditional theories in psychiatry about how to diagnose and treat mental illness as well as the theorist who suggest more than one approach is necessary. He provides a checklist (p. 308) to determine if you might be a pluralist. It contains questions like: “Can you accept the absence of a single overarching theory in psychiatry, yet also reject relativism and eclecticism?” Thinking about that question I don’t know why psychiatry would be different from the rest of medicine. Is there a single overarching theory in medicine? Why would we expect to see it in the most complex organ in the body? He is clear that he sees psychiatry stuck at the point of dogmatism and eclecticism.
He describes integrationism as an approach that removes the barrier between the mind and the brain as opposed to pluralists believing that there may be some differences between the mind and the brain. Integrationists believe that the brain is required for mental phenomenon but not sufficient. The brain can affect mental phenomena and mental phenomena can affect the brain. It is reminiscent of emergent properties that consciousness theorists tend to talk about. Stochastic factors or genetic factors in the brain that randomize expected behavioral outcomes may also prove to be important at some point. Ghaemi outlines a 5 principle integrationist model of psychiatry that looks at all mental processes/mental disorders being derived from the brain, the effect of genetic and environmental factors on the brain and these processes, and the effect of both biological and psychological treatment affecting the brain through mechanisms of brain change.
Although this all sounds fairly basic at this time – it is not. The discovery of brain plasticity or experience dependent changes in the brain was a major revolution in seeing the brain as a dynamic organ that could be altered easily by practicing the violin or lifting weights or talking to a therapist. There are ways to measure these changes. Everyone trained as a physician and a psychiatrist – sees the effects of structural changes in the brain from observing the effects of trauma, various brain diseases, and global brain dysfunction. An integrationist approach is practically intuitive but the model is not widely taught as the basis for clinical work. With that model there would be more uniformity in clinical approaches to the patient and standardization of clinical care. Patients could expect more than just a discussion of medication for example. They could expect psychotherapeutic discussions along with the medication and possibly more time and more visits with their psychiatrist. Instead of the rare research paper discussing this type of session – exchanges about it and innovation would be commonplace. It would also help to establish the necessary environment (physical, administrative support) for this kind of work to be done.
Labor Day is a reminder for me that where we labor and what we can do for our patients is meaningful. A better work model might help that irrespective of political success in changing the system or not. The work model itself can also be invigorating if it includes elements of clinical work and basic science and helps us to make continuous sense of what we are seeing and expected to treat.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
References:
1. S. Nassir Ghaemi. Concepts of Psychiatry – A Pluralistic Approach to the Mind and Mental Illness. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore; 2003.
Graphic Reference:
Carpenter, F. G. (ca. 1920) Paris, France. France Paris, ca. 1920. [Photograph] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2001705736/.
No known copyright restrictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment