Speak no evil
The referral was stupid. The physician I had consulted about my patient thought so, and made no bones about telling the
patient’s father so. It was a waste of time, the question at hand could have been answered easily without it, and when the patient returned to my office for a follow-up all of this was conveyed back to me.I was, of course, livid.
So I sent an assiduously polite e-mail to him, sweet as pie and apologetic as possible. I expressed how very sorry I was for having consumed his time with a referral that could have been avoided, explained my reasons for having referred in the first place, and assured him that I would direct future referrals elsewhere if he found it troublesome to deal with them himself. It was the e-mail version of smiling with a lot of teeth showing.
And I received an assiduously polite and apologetic reply in return, full of regret at the miscommunication. Of course he would never dream of questioning such a referral, and was obviously delighted to be a resource for that and all future patients. I am not entirely sure I believe that he did not intend to communicate to the patient’s father that he though the referral was stupid, but we left things at that. (I also wonder if he had been aware that we are both on staff at the same hospital, which was made clear when I used the e-mail system we share to communicate with him, and if he might have been a bit more circumspect had he known. Which is a question that shouldn’t need asking, should it?)
Now, he may very well have been right that the referral could have been avoided. In fairness, as part of this particular patient’s work-up I had ordered a test which the consultant informed me could have been skipped, and it was good to learn this so I can avoid unnecessary tests for other patients in the future. He’s the expert in that area, and I was glad to have been given useful information. But it would have been much nicer if he’d refrained from expressing his opinion that the referral was stupid to the patient and family, and had communicated in a professional manner with me directly.
This little back-and-forth sprang to mind when I read this article about doctors speaking ill of each other at the “Well” blog at the Times:
Over the last decade, few issues have garnered as much interest among health care experts as disrespectful behavior among doctors. While sociologists have devoted careers to researching the topic, it wasn’t until the 1990s that the medical profession itself began to take serious note.
Spurred on by the increasing complexity of medicine, concerns about safety and patient satisfaction and an ever-growing urgency to contain costs, the Institute of Medicine convened a national panel of health care experts to discuss “the chasm” between what could be and what was actually being done for patients. In 2002, they published an ambitious report that called for a “sweeping redesign of the entire health system.” Realizing that vision, said the panel, would require, among other changes, better collaboration and cooperation among physicians and the creation of a “culture of respect.”
[snip]
Researchers trained three actors to portray “standardized patients” with advanced lung cancer who had recently moved to town after being treated by another doctor and who remained unsure about their diagnosis or prognosis. The actors, carrying medical records written to reflect only universally accepted guidelines of care, made a total of nearly three dozen office visits to various family physicians and cancer specialists working in the community.
The actors were not told to elicit the doctors’ opinions about their previous care; but after analyzing transcripts from each office visit, the researchers found that in 40 percent of the consultations, doctors went ahead and spontaneously offered their opinion anyway. A tiny percentage of these comments were neutral; a third were supportive. The vast majority, however, were unabashedly critical, with the doctors’ comments ranging from “Hell, you don’t want to trust doctors,” to “This guy’s an idiot!”
I am of two minds about this.
On the one hand, I am usually loath to criticize another medical provider, even if I disagree with their management. When I do have qualms with how one of my patients was managed in another setting, I usually couch those concerns with an acknowledgment that I wasn’t there when the care was delivered so I’m not in the best position to know what the exam looked like, etc. I think it’s bad policy to be overtly critical of other medical providers under most circumstances, and I would never say something so blatantly unprofessional as “this guy’s an idiot.”
But.
There have been times when patients have gone to some clinic or emergency department and received care that was unmistakably substandard. A safe enough example would be those patients who come for follow-up with a prescription for albuterol syrup, a treatment for asthma that was discarded before I even entered residency. (Prudence dictates that I keep other, more egregious examples to myself. Suffice it to say that I have other, more egregious examples.) And, while I will try to speak in a respectful manner, there is no way I am going to discuss the patient’s treatment without telling the parents that albuterol syrup is no longer considered appropriate care and that they shouldn’t use it.
If, to use the language in the article I quoted, a patient has received “accepted guidelines of care” then I can’t imagine why another doctor should denigrate it. But surely professional courtesy shouldn’t keep me from telling people who come to me for medical care if I think it’s been genuinely deficient in some way. Would lawyers refrain from telling their clients if they’d received poor counsel elsewhere? Would a CPA go over a sloppy set of books and not mention their sloppiness?
Doctors shouldn’t badmouth each other when they have no cause to do so. The ones quoted in the study who did so, given that the ersatz patients had gotten ersatz treatments that were correct, appear to be in the wrong. But doctors are all too human, and we make mistakes. And if a mistake has been made by another medical provider on one of my patients, I see no reason why I shouldn’t say so.
“Culture of respect” sounds nice and fuzzy enough.
But if we are to pick between falling on the side of being somewhat overly critical of others in our profession and somewhat overly accepting, I’d rather see the former. Criticality within a profession isn’t the same thing as learning, but a profession in which everyone feels pressured to never criticize anyone else is unlikely to make as much forward progress as it could.Report
I concur.
The article presents the results of the study as clearly indicative of a problem, but doesn’t make clear (and I’m not shelling out the cash to access the full study results) what grounds the subjects for criticizing the care the fake patients received. Frankly, I don’t consider it problematic if they were critical of management they considered substandard. It should have been expressed respectfully, but patients are entitled to know if one doctor thinks another’s treatment has been incorrect or outmoded or inadequate.Report
I am of many minds on this:
1) It’s probably good practice to assume that it was a mistake, at least in cases where there is reasonable doubt.
2) If the doctor is endangering his patients, you have an ethical reason to speak up (and contact the relevant review board, if appropriate) — also you have an obligation to tell the patient.
3) In an arena of shared responsibility, educating ones fellow doctors is just part of the ongoing conversation. It ought to be encouraged.Report
In some of those other examples I refrained from detailing, I had strong suspicions that my patients had received some kind of flawed care, and expressed those suspicions. However, I did not have a basis to report anyone for board review.
And I hope it’s clear that I would welcome feedback from colleagues about how I can deliver care better, and frequently solicit if from my partners in practice. I just expect that any feedback be respectful, and when appropriate given directly to me rather than in the form of maligning me to a mutual patient.Report
If the work was objectively bad, I don’t think I have a problem with professionals letting their clients know, but I think that most industries often suffer from, “blame the last guy so you look better” syndrome.
It’s particularly bad in the software industry where there are a lot of ways of doing things. There are a lot of people who are writing really terrible software. There are also a lot of people who think that any code they didn’t write is terrible software, and they’re not shy about saying it. That doesn’t necessarily help the client understand what to look for.Report
Insofar as physicians (or other professionals) denigrate each other for the sake of making themselves look better, then it’s a habit that should be broken.
But I think the article elides (or at least fails to make clear) how much of this supposedly-harmful badmouthing is premised on good-faith concerns about care delivered.Report
Wouldn’t the medical profession benefit from some sort of self-regulating body, much as lawyers have the Bar Association? It would seem to be a natural fit. Many medical practices are incorporated as partnerships, surely these partnerships could band together in some sort of ad-hoc, if not entirely formal, self-regulating mechanism.
Everyone wants a second opinion. In my business, I’m extremely reticent about reviewing my own code. I want someone else to read it all, at least be aware of the decisions I’ve made and what I’ve done on that basis. Scares the willies out of me, every time I have to deploy production code. I’ve gotten to the point where I have the client deploy it.
Especially liked this bit: But doctors are all too human, and we make mistakes. And if a mistake has been made by another medical provider on one of my patients, I see no reason why I shouldn’t say so.. Not only should you say so, the other provider should be professional enough to seek out your opinions — since everyone makes mistakes and nobody wants to make them.Report
Medicine does not suffer from a lack of regulation. Between the American Board of Pediatrics, the state board of licensure and the medical staff offices of the hospitals where I have privileges, my work has no shortage of people making sure I am educated and certified and scrutinized… a lot.
As far as the actual provision of patient care goes, I am always happy to hear from colleagues about ways of improving the care I deliver. I would hope that any halfway decent medical provider would display the attitude you describe. But I don’t know that a national entity empowered to audit my charts would be the way I’d want it to happen.Report
I’m not thinking about some external entity. I’m thinking more of a professional association, more akin to my ad-hoc circle of specialists. Can’t be good at everything, hard as you might try. Even if it’s just on an experiential basis, say for example — okay, here’s where I’m out of my league, just saying — tropical diseases. I will suppose you don’t have much experience with pediatric malaria. What are the current best practices for pediatric malaria? Common enough disease, you just don’t often run across it in your practice. But some child from Ghana turns up in your office — what now?
Domperidone is often prescribed as an antiemetic in the treatment of pediatric malaria. Lots of controversy around domperidone. But it’s used all the time, treating pediatric malaria in other countries. Lots of antimalarials have lost their effectiveness, what do you prescribe? Who would you turn to for a course of action on this? Someone with experience, obviously. That sort of discussion — that’s what I’m looking for in this hypothetical internally-organised organisation. So you get someone who’s handled lots of pediatric malaria — he says “Domperidone is a great antiemetic” — you say “FDA doesn’t think so.”
That sort of discussion….Report
Well, in your hypothetical I would contact the infectious disease consultant on call and arrange for immediate evaluation. I’m lucky to be on staff at a couple of premier institutions, where if they don’t have a pediatric malaria specialist handy can get the current best recommendations from whoever the world’s expert may happen to be at any given time.
And we disregard the FDA all the time, even if we’re not the world’s expert in anything.Report
That’s good to hear, exactly the sort of fallback position I’d want to see.
But for some GP, far from the resources of an elite institution such as yours — who would he turn to for advice? I’m not a lawyer, either, but I could call the local Bar Association and ask “I need an attorney specialising to torts. Got any recommendations?” I wouldn’t just go down to the nearest J.D. — but if I did, only to find this guy did wills and divorces — I would he’d he’d steer me in the right direction.Report
At my old job, where I had much less access to a battalion of world-class experts pretty much round the clock, I’d have to do more managing of complex stuff myself. Much of it was stuff that I felt comfortable managing, though the mental health aspect made me uncomfortable and I had to deliver more high-acuity care than I liked. (See also: reasons Russell found a new job. ) But for something obscure like malaria, I would call either the nearest major medical center or even get on the horn with someone from Children’s and try to figure out what best to do.Report
I imagine that a lack of solidarity would result in a non-trivial number of patients being unable to see the difference between Doctor Emmdee and Doctor Deoh having a very ugly disagreement and Doctor Emmdee and “I’m More Of A Therapist Really” Bellringer having a very ugly disagreement.Report
First, always be a little careful about believing the patient about what the other doctor said. I have seen many misquotations, and innocent remarks couched in professional jargon often sound worse to the patient than they actually are. It is rare for patients to ask for clarification even when they clearly don’t understand what was said.
Secondly, self-important entitled sphincters are not rare in the medical profession. I have been one myself on many occasions. Often, they will treat a colleague better than a patient. Keep a mental file of these people.
Lastly, are you totally innocent here? Did you speak to the consultant before the patient showed up? This prevents some of these conflicts.
Ars longa, vita brevis est.Report
I am omitting some of the nuances in the story. It is possible that what was communicated to me by the parent wasn’t entirely accurate, either. Which is why I was assiduously polite in my e-mail, and did not start with “Dear Dr. Asshat.”
For referrals where there is a complicated question, I often will communicate with the specialist before the appointment to discuss the reason for referral. This was a relatively straightforward case that did not seem to warrant it. It would be an onerous process to track down which particular specialist my patients were seeing and communicating with them directly each time, as ideal as that may seem. It probably wouldn’t have obviated the need for the appointment in this case, but (as I allude) it would have spared the patient a (non-invasive, minimal-risk) test that could have been avoided.Report
This is something that seems like a good time to “critique the act, not the actor.”
“The cast failed to set the bone correctly,” is a presumably objective analysis of what happened.
“Whoever did this is an idiot,” is a subjective critique, perhaps based on an objective analysis but which requires at least some assumption.Report
I’m realizing now how often, while trying to figure out how some piece of third-party software works, I say “God, those people are idiots.” If you took that sentence away I’d be a mute.Report
I am reluctant to criticize another lawyer’s work or diagnosis, although many clients have invited me to do so. The reason for that is that it is very, very easy for a client or even a set of documents to omit something that may well offer a reasonable explanation for why another lawyer did something that I don’t think was the right call. It’s also easy to look back on something and say, retrospectively, that it was a bad call. So while I’d happily point to another lawyer who really screwed the pooch and say so (were that in my client’s best interests) I’m naturally reluctant to say that the other lawyer really did screw the pooch since it’s damn near certain that she knew something I do not.
My presumption is that when other kinds of professionals have differences of professional opinion, a similar ethic ought to apply. It seems cautious and prudent.
But I get that medicine is supposed to be a science and that medical reports are supposed to be different than subjective oral reports of past events that come from law clients. There’s supposed to be something like complete information in there. In theory, one ought to be able to take a file from another office and see records of observations and reports of symptoms, and re-create the process and come up with a similar result. That’s not to say there isn’t an art along with the science — probabilistic diagnoses, for instance, can be interpreted in various ways that are still reasonable even though they vary from one another, and once you have an array of treatment plans available as well. But all the same, it seems that one ought to come up with at least similar ideas in similar situations.
So when I occasionally encounter these sorts of condescending, dismissive, and insulting responses to varying opinions, as you report in situations where varying diagnoses and plans of treatment arise, I’d suggest that this is more indicative of condescension, dismissiveness, and propensity to insult than it does to any particular facet of the profession. There are those people, after all, who really like being The Authority Figure and when their judgments are questions they react very poorly.
TL/DR: Some people are assholes. Not much you can do about it.Report
Russell,
This is only a tangent, but how much do you think the fact that you emailed the other Dr. instead of calling him or talking to him personally, may have made the situation a bit more uncomfortable than it might have been?
I say this because I have often made the mistake of trying to address delicate situations through email rather than in person.
Again, I realize this is a tangent to your main argument.Report