エピソード
-
To commemorate the start of our fifth season, we revisit a conversation we had almost two years ago about the wisdom of Simon Auster, MD.
Simon was a family physician and psychiatrist who inspired the conversations we’ve been having with each other and with guests on every episode.
“Simonisms” embody Simon’s insights: pithy observations about the practice of medicine that are never cliché, challenge commonly held assumptions and offer fresh perspectives.
We share -- and reflect on -- these pearls because we believe they can help many doctors, those in training, and those who train them, find joy and meaning in their work.
You can learn about Simon, who died in 2020, in an online (open access) essay about his life, published in The Pharos, the journal of the AOA medical honor society.
-
The two doctors charged for their roles in the events leading up to actor Matthew Perry’s death were both involved in a “side hustle”: selling ketamine at a big mark-up to make extra money, above what they earned through legitimate practice. One was an internist-pediatrician and the other an emergency medicine physician.
Their cynicism was starkly evident in a text one sent the other about jacking up the price: “I wonder how much this moron will pay. Let’s find out.” It’s easy to write off these doctors as just bad apples; regrettable examples of how difficult it is to prevent a small number of unethical people from making it through medical school and residency.
But what about the profit-making that occurs when thousands of physicians perform procedures, including surgeries, for which there is strong evidence of NO benefit from randomized controlled trials, but with all the risks of pain and complications during recovery and over the long term?
From a patient’s perspective is there really a difference between being subjected to predictable harm when you know your doctor is a drug dealer versus these practices within the mainstream of medicine where patients assume their physicians are acting in their best interests?
Which is the greater betrayal?
-
エピソードを見逃しましたか？
-
The term “Narrative Medicine” (NM) refers to a range of activities, including close reading and reflective writing about literature, designed to improve the clinician-patient relationship. What could go wrong? Our returning guest, English professor Laura Greene, lays out the case for narrative medicine, while co-host Saul Weiner highlights his concern that the challenges and rewards of interacting therapeutically with patients are categorically different from those of a physician interacting with a text. Unless proponents of narrative medicine articulate these differences explicitly, they risk creating unrealistic expectations about what NM can achieve, particularly in regard to actual healing interactions in the exam room.
-
There is an idealized version of physician-patient communication that is taught in medical schools, reinforced with acronyms like PEARLS, SPIKES, and LEARN, but what resemblance does it bear to how doctors actually sound in the exam room? Co-host Saul Weiner leads a research team that has audio recorded and analyzed thousands of medical encounters. In this episode, he and Stefan read a transcript from a typical visit, portraying patient and doctor, respectively, breaking out of role periodically to reflect on what’s just happened. Throughout, the physician interacts with the computer, peppering their patient with questions while conducting data entry.
On the one hand, the visit is unremarkable. The physician seems reasonably conscientious. On the other, it is disturbing for their lack of engagement even when the patient shows signs of distress or confusion. What can we learn and teach by studying transcripts of real doctor-patient interactions, warts and all? Saul has posted over 400 of them, all de-identified, in a federal data repository.
-
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.
-
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.
- もっと表示する
