Folgen
-
The National Institute on Drug Abuse defines addiction as a “chronic disease” occurring in the brain – Many believe this definition can help to reduce stigma. But, is it helpful in the care of individual patients? In this episode we discuss what we gain and what we lose when we speak of people with addiction as having “diseased brains.”
The view of addiction as a chronic disease has traction, supported first by mid 20th-century alcoholism research, and then by a flood of brain imaging and neurophysiologic studies. Functional MRIs highlight changes in the brain, whether the addiction is to a substance like alcohol or opioids, or to a behavior such as gambling or disordered eating. Many authorities suggest that the “brain disease” designation is not only correct on scientific grounds, but that it also advances a social priority: to blunt stigmatizing concepts of addiction as a weakness or moral failing.
However, many neuroscientists disagree with the brain disease model. Without disputing the brain science, they note that all learned behaviors change the brain, not just addiction. Also, people who reduce or stop use often report they chose to make that change because of new opportunities or intolerable consequences. The brain disease argument invites a second criticism: arguably, it lets unfettered capitalism off the hook – predatory industries spend billions to get people addicted. Calling it a disease of an organ conveniently focuses attention away from a predatory system.
Why does this debate matter for clinicians and patients? Saul interviews co-host, Stefan Kertesz, who is a primary care doctor and a board-certified addiction medicine specialist. Together we consider how addiction is a part of the human condition, which includes how we learn, how we relate to the environment in which we live, and how we are shaped by experiences.
Nearly everyone has habits that are problematic to varying degrees. How we think about addiction can shape our approach to patient care across a wide range of clinical interactions.
-
In his book, The Present Illness, American Health Care and Its Afflictions, physician and historian Martin Shapiro, MD, PhD, MPH presents a scathing critique of a profession suffused with status, money, and power. At the same time, he also describes many deeply caring and rewarding patient care experiences, his own and those of colleagues. But these relationships are only possible when the clinician has a clear understanding of the pernicious corrupting forces in medicine and consciously rejects them. This is a moral act that must be renewed continuously. They also require a capacity to confront one's own insecurities -- Dr. Shapiro describes years of psychotherapy that were essential to his own growth as a physician who can be fully present in the face of suffering.
Martin indicts the profession for producing far too many doctors who want to get rich and who are unprepared, through a faulty process of selection and training, to be truly caring towards those they serve. Martin reminds us that the motives of the profession have long been suspect, quoting Plato's Republic in which Socrates asks, "Is the physician a healer or a maker of money?" Never before, however, and nowhere on the scale found in the United States has health care become such a massive industry, one that keeps growing. Martin argues that the profession can only heal itself if it confronts its demons honestly and openly, beginning at the earliest stages of medical training.
-
Fehlende Folgen?
-
A recent NEJM article and accompanying podcast episode (“Tough Love”) authored and hosted by the Journal’s national correspondent sound the alarm that a culture of grievance among medical students and trainees about the discomforts of medical training is threatening to undermine both their medical education and patient care. She also describes widespread anxiety among medical educators who feel fearful of speaking because of concerns of retaliation on social media. Absent from the discussion, however, are the voices of students and trainees who, in the podcast, are referred to as “our children.” Medical Students and trainees we spoke with did not feel that their concerns are experiences were accurately characterized. We propose that medical educators are ill prepared for the shifting power dynamics, both in terms of knowing how to listen and how to lead.
-
“Sonny’s Blues” is a 1956 story by the author, James Baldwin, about a “sensible” and pragmatic algebra teacher and his younger musically gifted younger brother (“Sonny”), who struggles with heroin addiction. Both of them, raised in Harlem, are deeply affected by anti-Black racism. Although the older brother, who narrates the story, feels responsible for Sonny, he struggles to relate to him. With the help of an English professor, Laura Greene at Augustana College, we reflect on some of the lessons of this story for the physician-patient relationship, especially when caring for individuals with substance use disorder. We explore the cost both to patients and to ourselves, as healthcare professionals, of holding patients at arm’s length because we fear engaging, especially in the face of suffering.
A PDF of “Sonny’s Blues,” can be accessed from the story’s Wiki page (scroll down to external links).
-
In a 2021 episode that we reran last month, “About me being racist: a conversation that follows an apology,” Saul talked with a former Black colleague after apologizing to her for something racist he had done twenty years earlier that hurt her for a long time.
Since then, Saul has been thinking about how he got exposed to racist ideas and notions of power as a white male growing up in the United States (in his case in a liberal, highly educated community) and suggested that he and Stefan talk about it, taking to heart Toni Morrison’s admonition that, “White people have a very serious problem, and they should start thinking about what they can do about it – and leave me out of it!”
Also, next month we’ll de discussing a short story by author James Baldwin with a special guest, and would like to encourage listeners to read “Sonny’s Blues,” which can be accessed from the story’s Wiki page (scroll down to external links).
-
We are re-running this episode from 2021 because we’re releasing a sequel next month in which Saul reflects on his journey confronting racist ideas he’d absorbed and that became impossible to ignore after he’d acknowledged his role in the incident described here. We are also re-running the episode because it exemplifies our commitment to facing things -- about ourselves and our profession – to enhance our wellbeing, and our relationships with colleagues and patients. Rather than disheartening, we find such conversations and the changes they bring rewarding and healing.
-
For years, when physicians order tests to assess lung function, or blood work to determine kidney function, or look up guidelines for managing high blood pressure the results have been adjusted for race. This practice has been based on studies that seemed to indicate that the same result means different things if the patient is Black vs white. So, for instance, an “uncorrected’ creatinine of 1.6 was thought to be less concerning in a Black than white patient as Blacks were thought to have greater muscle mass (not true). These correction factors masked underlying environmental and social stressors disproportionately affecting Black Americans. Regrettably they also contributed to delays in care for chronic conditions, as Black patients had to be sicker than white patients to trigger therapeutic interventions – further exacerbating disparities. We talk with two physicians who lead an anti-racism equity committee based in a Chicago VA hospital to understand the history and science that led to these “corrections,” and how they have successfully been removing them through education and advocacy across their organization and nationally. Their activism is especially meaningful because of its immediate, tangible, benefit for affected patients. The views expressed in this episode are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.
-
The practice of urine drug testing during pregnancy and then often reporting positive results to Child Protective Services triggers a cascade that can result in separation of mother and newborn, with devastating consequence for both. These practices are more common when patients come from marginalized communities even when baseline substance use rates are the same. As our guest -- obstetrician/gynecologist and addiction medicine expert Mishka Terplan MD, MPH -- points out, illicit substances are not teratogens in comparison to, say, alcohol, tobacco or lead exposure. So why do we order these tests? He also discusses how talking with patients about substance use behaviors, especially with the help of screening instruments, is the only way to characterize substance use behaviors and formulate treatment strategies.
This is the third episode in which we learn of common clinician practices in which clinicians are co-opted into punitive and even carceral systems of oppression.
-
Direct, covert observation of health care is a novel and underutilized tool to assess health care trainees and clinicians.
In this episode we talk with experts about two such approaches: the unannounced standardized patient and patient-collected audio. In the former, actors are sent incognito into practice settings, and in the latter real patients volunteer to record their visits on behalf of a quality improvement team. Both approaches address the question, “How are our learners and experienced clinicians performing in the real world?” They also identify those who may do well on simulations but underperform in the clinical setting. As one of our guests observed, “If McDonalds is using secret shoppers to improve services, shouldn’t we be doing the same in health care (but with a lot more rigor) where the stakes are so much higher?”
-
In the prior episode we learned that there is no evidence that time-limited testing improves test validity and that, in fact, there is ample research showing that it makes tests less valid and less equitable. In this episode we discuss how, despite the data, the NBME denies accommodations on the USMLE exams to over half of medical students who have a documented learning disability and are approved for accommodations at their medical school (e.g., extra time). We talk with a leading medical educator about a national survey she and her colleagues conducted to assess the scope and impact on medical schools and their students. And we conclude with a discussion about how the NBME could make the test fair and valid for everyone.
-
There is a widely held perception that being able to complete a test quickly is an indication of mastery when compared with those who need more time. As a result, it is often difficult to obtain accommodations on high stakes examinations, including the USMLE exams. Many students who request extra time because of a disability are denied accommodations and many other students who need it aren't eligible (e.g., English is a second language) or are inhibited from applying (e.g., Veterans, students from certain cultural backgrounds). But what does the evidence show? In this episode we interview an expert on the topic about a paper she authored titled Four Empirically Based Reasons Not to Administer Time-Limited Tests. The implications are profound because this is a problem we can fix, significantly improving high stakes assessment, equity, and inclusivity.
-
Stefan interviews co-host Saul about his experiences becoming a doctor with a learning disability.
This episode, first run in 2020, sets the stage for two that will follow – in August and September, with experts on the science of student learning assessment and its implications for the USMLE examinations. These will address questions such as: Does struggling with multiple-choice tests under time pressure predict anything about future performance in the clinical setting? Do time limits make tests more or less valid and reliable? What are implications of denying so many students accommodations on the USMLE examinations? And, most importantly, what can we do about the documented perverse effects of our current system of assessment on equity and inclusion and, ultimately on the quality and diversity of our physician workforce?
-
A recent New York Times article, titled "When Doctors Use a Chatbot to Improve Their Bedside Manner," should raise questions about why physicians are turning to artificial intelligence for help talking with other humans. While GPTChat can generate things to say, what comes out of AI is impersonal, as it knows nothing about the individuality of the doctor asking them, or of their patient, or of the relationship between the two.
Much of the joy of being a physician is forming personal, healing connections with patients. Are physicians unprepared to cultivate them? US Medical schools now teach physician-patient communication, with the help of standardized patients and various acronyms like "PEARLS" and "SPIKES," that are designed to guide clinician-patient interactions. But are we failing to help physicians find their own voice -- specifically, to form personal, relationship centered connections that they can draw on, especially during challenging times?
-
The narrative that getting patients with chronic pain off opioids makes them safer was reinforced by a recent paper that got substantial media attention showing an association with reduced suicide rates at the population level -- But other data, at the patient level, shows an increased rate of suicide.
Which is closer to the truth? And, if there's an answer, how does it apply to the individual patient? Is it ever okay to taper a patient when it’s not a shared decision?
How do you talk about it, and does the power dynamic between doctor and patient affect such conversations? Are patients with opioid dependence too impaired “to know what’s good for them”?
How does one navigate what can feel like a minefield: legal risks, angry patients, moral injury and, above all, wanting to do the right thing? Do the answers to these questions have broader implications for the physician-patient relationship and good doctoring?
(This episode refers several times to "engagement" and "boundary clarity." Check out episode #15 for an exploration of these concepts.)
-
We might assume that a patient who is chained to their hospital bed must be restrained for good reason, but our guest challenges that assumption in a published account of a man in shackles who is intubated, sedated, and paralyzed in the ICU. He and his co-author write that "Over-policing and mass incarceration have led to Black prisoners being disproportionately represented in jails and prisons. Those of us in positions of power may disregard the shackle, or not question its purpose, or even propose that it is justified." But how often do incarcerated patients actually try to escape while receiving medical care? Should a physician ask the guards to take off the shackles? What are the legal and ethical consequences of doing so? What is the right thing to do? What are the implications of not speaking up? We explore these questions and more.
-
In this second of a two-episode series on medical student mistreatment, we discuss its impact on burnout with a colleague who is working to change the culture of medical education and practice through research and leadership.
-
How is it that a healing profession -- medicine -- has such a deeply ingrained culture of harming its own? And what can we do about it? In this first of two back-to-back episodes on medical student mistreatment we consider the scope of the problem and attempts to confront it. We hear from one medical school that, with external funding, developed a program with online resources available to any school that are designed to foster discussion and self-reflection among all stakeholders: attendings, residents, students, and other health care professionals in the ecosystem.
We share here links to resources and papers discussed in the episode:
#MDsToo: A student mistreatment prevention curriculum for faculty members and residents - PubMed (nih.gov)
To access the UC Irvine video series
JAMA IM paper
Eradicating medical student mistreatment: a longitudinal study of one institution's efforts - PubMed (nih.gov)
-
Simon Auster, MD, was a family physician, psychiatrist, and medical educator who had extraordinary insight about practicing medicine but absolutely zero interest in drawing attention to himself. His students and patients had the good fortune of having him as their teacher or doctor but far too few have benefited from his wisdom. Today we discuss some of Simon's saying's -- "Simonisms" -- that are remarkable because they are not the usual cliches one hears. Some challenge us to reconsider our assumptions. We share and discuss them because we believe they can help many doctors, those in training, and those who train them find more joy and meaning in their work. You can learn about Simon in an online (open access) essay about his life, published in The Pharos, the journal of the AOA medical honor society.
-
Medical training and practice habituates physicians to a culture that narrows the possibilities we see for finding joy and meaning in our work. We often become efficient task completers, stuck in routines, and prone to burnout. Saul and Stefan discuss a set of questions that challenge physicians to look at their work and themselves in fresh ways, can be used for mentoring or teaching purposes, as prompts for reflective writing exercises, or to engage thoughtful colleagues (perhaps over a beer).
10 Questions (selected from On Becoming a Healer: The Journey from Patient Care to Caring about Your Patients)
Think about a brief account of a patient interaction you recently had in which you think you functioned as a healer rather than just a task completer – meaning that you were able to help the patient beyond the narrowly biomedical aspects of care? Was there something you learned from this visit that you could apply more broadly? Think of interactions with patients that are rewarding and meaningful? Are they rare or common? Can you think of a specific one? Was there something you did differently that made the encounter memorable? If so, can you think of ways you could modify how you practice and interact with other patients so that more of your interactions are as satisfying? Do you see yourself as someone friends turn to when they are in distress or need guidance? If so, what is it that you offer them that enables you to be such a valuable resource? Is that part of you accessible to your patients during medical encounters? Can you think of an example? If not, why do you think that is? If you couldn’t be a physician, what would you most want to do instead? How would it be similar or different from what you have sought in a medical career? Can you draw connections between your second choice and medicine to gain perspective on what you most love to do? Assuming you stay in medicine, how can you be sure you are most likely to find it? What’s happened to your curiosity during medical training? What are you more curious about? What are you less curious about? Specifically, what questions do you find yourself asking or wanting to ask as you go through the day? How do you think your curiosity or lack of curiosity affects how you relate to and care for your patients and how you feel about your work? Do you feel your patients are benefiting from the distinct qualities that make you the unique person you are, or is that uniqueness not really a part of the way you relate to them? Do you feel you are interacting with patients in a manner that gives you a window into what makes each of them unique? Are many of your interactions rewarding? If so, in what ways? Are there certain types of patients who “get under your skin,” making you cringe when you see their names on your appointment calendar? Consider what might be going on during your interactions with them, utilizing the framework described in this chapter. Is it that you can’t engage with them? Do you struggle with maintaining boundaries when they make incessant demands? How might you alter your behavior so that these encounters become opportunities to model healthy interaction and to provide them a brief respite from the chaos that is likely present in their other relationships? Have you ever felt resentment that a patient didn’t show appreciation after you significantly helped them? If so, why do you think their show of gratitude is important to you? Does the doctor-patient relationship include an expectation that patients make their doctors feel good too? Could their indifference reduce your investment in their care? What if you learned from a patient’s family member that the person actually does appreciate you but just isn’t able to show it? Given what you know now, do you think you can have a career in medicine in which you find patient interaction rewarding and meaningful much of the time? If yes, are you on course to experience those rewards, or do you need to make some changes? If the latter, what are you going to do to make those changes? Are you going to live with low expectations or look for something more rewarding? Many, if not most, work environments have a fair amount of hassle, meaning you spend a good deal of time doing nuisance work and coping with difficult colleagues and bosses. These are manageable challenges, and they even provide an opportunity to learn to negotiate and adapt. Sometimes, however, workplaces become too dysfunctional to do your job effectively or facilitate meaningful change. They are beyond repair. How would you know when that line has been crossed? Have you experienced either or both of these situations? How did you respond? What did you learn?Saul J. Weiner, MD; [email protected]
-
In October, the New York Times published the first of several articles about an eminent professor at NYU who was dismissed after his students complained that his organic chemistry class, essential to medical school admission, was too hard. Thousands of comments were unsympathetic saying, essentially, that students who couldn't hack it shouldn't be doctors. But is that really true? Saul and Stefan debate not only whether organic chemistry should be a gateway into medicine, but what else is questionable in how we train physicians -- and why it matters. Are medical students spending massive amounts of time jumping through hoops when they could be acquiring vital skills? What are some indicators that medical education needs substantial redesign?
- Mehr anzeigen
