User login
Beware of private equity–owned nursing homes: study
When you have to help a parent choose a nursing home or you need nursing home care yourself, you can consult a health care professional, talk to friends, or look at the Nursing Home Compare website of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CMS website includes star ratings for each nursing home, both overall and on health inspections, staffing and certain quality measures.
But what you might not know is what financial incentives a particular nursing home might have to provide high-quality care, depending on what kind of entity owns the facility.
According to the study, you can expect a somewhat lower level of quality in a PE-owned nursing home than in other for-profit facilities.
The researchers compared CMS data on 302 nursing homes owned by 79 PE firms to data on 9,562 for-profit facilities not owned by such companies from 2013 to 2017. Among fee-for-service Medicare patients in long-term care, private equity acquisitions of nursing homes were associated with an 11.1% increase in ambulatory-care-sensitive (ACS) visits to the emergency department (ED) and an 8.7% increase in ACS hospitalizations per quarter, compared to the changes that occurred in the non-PE-owned facilities, they found.
What’s more, Medicare costs per beneficiary increased 3.9% more – or about $1,000 a year – in the PE-owned nursing homes than they did in the other cohort during the study period.
And when the acquired nursing homes were compared to the nursing homes prior to their acquisition by PE firms, there were no statistically significant differences in unadjusted outcomes, the researchers found. That means the two cohorts were broadly comparable.
The researchers adjusted the numbers in their study for various characteristics of the facilities and their residents. For example, the PE-acquired nursing homes were likely to have a higher percentage of patients covered by Medicare and a lower percentage covered by Medicaid than their non-PE counterparts.
The mean percentages of Black residents, female residents, and residents aged 85 or older were 12.4%, 65.4%, and 36.2%, respectively, for the PE-owned nursing homes and 15.7%, 67.8%, and 39%, respectively, for the non–PE-owned facilities.
Less than optimal outcomes
On average, the residents of non–PE-owned nursing homes had better outcomes than did the patients in the PE-owned facilities. But that doesn’t mean that the average for-profit nursing home had terrific outcomes.
For all the nursing homes in the study, the mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1%, and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3%.
“These events should be largely, although not completely, preventable with appropriate care,” the researchers pointed out.
To date, PE firms have invested about $750 billion in U.S. health care, with nursing homes being a major target of these companies, which currently own 5% of skilled nursing facilities, per the study. PE companies seek annual returns of 20% or more, the paper says, and thus feel pressure to generate high short-term profits. That could lead to reduced staffing, services, supplies, or equipment in their facilities.
Some nursing homes purchased by PE firms may be responsible for the debt incurred in their own leveraged buyouts, the researchers noted. There is also concern that PE firms may focus their properties disproportionately on short-term post-acute care, which is reimbursed at a higher rate than long-term care, the study says.
For all these reasons, some health policy makers are concerned about the long-term impact of private-equity nursing home acquisitions, according to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When you have to help a parent choose a nursing home or you need nursing home care yourself, you can consult a health care professional, talk to friends, or look at the Nursing Home Compare website of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CMS website includes star ratings for each nursing home, both overall and on health inspections, staffing and certain quality measures.
But what you might not know is what financial incentives a particular nursing home might have to provide high-quality care, depending on what kind of entity owns the facility.
According to the study, you can expect a somewhat lower level of quality in a PE-owned nursing home than in other for-profit facilities.
The researchers compared CMS data on 302 nursing homes owned by 79 PE firms to data on 9,562 for-profit facilities not owned by such companies from 2013 to 2017. Among fee-for-service Medicare patients in long-term care, private equity acquisitions of nursing homes were associated with an 11.1% increase in ambulatory-care-sensitive (ACS) visits to the emergency department (ED) and an 8.7% increase in ACS hospitalizations per quarter, compared to the changes that occurred in the non-PE-owned facilities, they found.
What’s more, Medicare costs per beneficiary increased 3.9% more – or about $1,000 a year – in the PE-owned nursing homes than they did in the other cohort during the study period.
And when the acquired nursing homes were compared to the nursing homes prior to their acquisition by PE firms, there were no statistically significant differences in unadjusted outcomes, the researchers found. That means the two cohorts were broadly comparable.
The researchers adjusted the numbers in their study for various characteristics of the facilities and their residents. For example, the PE-acquired nursing homes were likely to have a higher percentage of patients covered by Medicare and a lower percentage covered by Medicaid than their non-PE counterparts.
The mean percentages of Black residents, female residents, and residents aged 85 or older were 12.4%, 65.4%, and 36.2%, respectively, for the PE-owned nursing homes and 15.7%, 67.8%, and 39%, respectively, for the non–PE-owned facilities.
Less than optimal outcomes
On average, the residents of non–PE-owned nursing homes had better outcomes than did the patients in the PE-owned facilities. But that doesn’t mean that the average for-profit nursing home had terrific outcomes.
For all the nursing homes in the study, the mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1%, and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3%.
“These events should be largely, although not completely, preventable with appropriate care,” the researchers pointed out.
To date, PE firms have invested about $750 billion in U.S. health care, with nursing homes being a major target of these companies, which currently own 5% of skilled nursing facilities, per the study. PE companies seek annual returns of 20% or more, the paper says, and thus feel pressure to generate high short-term profits. That could lead to reduced staffing, services, supplies, or equipment in their facilities.
Some nursing homes purchased by PE firms may be responsible for the debt incurred in their own leveraged buyouts, the researchers noted. There is also concern that PE firms may focus their properties disproportionately on short-term post-acute care, which is reimbursed at a higher rate than long-term care, the study says.
For all these reasons, some health policy makers are concerned about the long-term impact of private-equity nursing home acquisitions, according to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When you have to help a parent choose a nursing home or you need nursing home care yourself, you can consult a health care professional, talk to friends, or look at the Nursing Home Compare website of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CMS website includes star ratings for each nursing home, both overall and on health inspections, staffing and certain quality measures.
But what you might not know is what financial incentives a particular nursing home might have to provide high-quality care, depending on what kind of entity owns the facility.
According to the study, you can expect a somewhat lower level of quality in a PE-owned nursing home than in other for-profit facilities.
The researchers compared CMS data on 302 nursing homes owned by 79 PE firms to data on 9,562 for-profit facilities not owned by such companies from 2013 to 2017. Among fee-for-service Medicare patients in long-term care, private equity acquisitions of nursing homes were associated with an 11.1% increase in ambulatory-care-sensitive (ACS) visits to the emergency department (ED) and an 8.7% increase in ACS hospitalizations per quarter, compared to the changes that occurred in the non-PE-owned facilities, they found.
What’s more, Medicare costs per beneficiary increased 3.9% more – or about $1,000 a year – in the PE-owned nursing homes than they did in the other cohort during the study period.
And when the acquired nursing homes were compared to the nursing homes prior to their acquisition by PE firms, there were no statistically significant differences in unadjusted outcomes, the researchers found. That means the two cohorts were broadly comparable.
The researchers adjusted the numbers in their study for various characteristics of the facilities and their residents. For example, the PE-acquired nursing homes were likely to have a higher percentage of patients covered by Medicare and a lower percentage covered by Medicaid than their non-PE counterparts.
The mean percentages of Black residents, female residents, and residents aged 85 or older were 12.4%, 65.4%, and 36.2%, respectively, for the PE-owned nursing homes and 15.7%, 67.8%, and 39%, respectively, for the non–PE-owned facilities.
Less than optimal outcomes
On average, the residents of non–PE-owned nursing homes had better outcomes than did the patients in the PE-owned facilities. But that doesn’t mean that the average for-profit nursing home had terrific outcomes.
For all the nursing homes in the study, the mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1%, and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3%.
“These events should be largely, although not completely, preventable with appropriate care,” the researchers pointed out.
To date, PE firms have invested about $750 billion in U.S. health care, with nursing homes being a major target of these companies, which currently own 5% of skilled nursing facilities, per the study. PE companies seek annual returns of 20% or more, the paper says, and thus feel pressure to generate high short-term profits. That could lead to reduced staffing, services, supplies, or equipment in their facilities.
Some nursing homes purchased by PE firms may be responsible for the debt incurred in their own leveraged buyouts, the researchers noted. There is also concern that PE firms may focus their properties disproportionately on short-term post-acute care, which is reimbursed at a higher rate than long-term care, the study says.
For all these reasons, some health policy makers are concerned about the long-term impact of private-equity nursing home acquisitions, according to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CDC: All adults should be eligible for Pfizer, Moderna boosters
on its vaccine recommendations.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.
They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.
The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.
More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one. About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.
In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.
Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older. But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own. Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.
Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.
He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.
Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”
“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.
The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.
Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine. Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.
The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick. Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster. Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.
The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary. Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot. Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.
Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given. There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination. Most of the reported cases are still being studied.
on its vaccine recommendations.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.
They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.
The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.
More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one. About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.
In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.
Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older. But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own. Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.
Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.
He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.
Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”
“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.
The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.
Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine. Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.
The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick. Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster. Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.
The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary. Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot. Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.
Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given. There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination. Most of the reported cases are still being studied.
on its vaccine recommendations.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.
They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.
The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.
More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one. About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.
In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.
Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older. But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own. Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.
Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.
He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.
Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”
“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.
The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.
Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine. Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.
The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick. Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster. Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.
The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary. Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot. Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.
Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given. There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination. Most of the reported cases are still being studied.
Black young adults: Remember this when facing discrimination
Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.
Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.
“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.
Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.
“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.
.
Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.
Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.
“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”
Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.
When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
Acknowledge the impact
Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).
Many Black people even normalize it.
“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.
And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.
“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.
It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.
“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
Embrace your emotions
Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.
He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.
“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.
“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”
This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.
“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.
It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.
This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.
Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.
Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.
“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.
“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
Utilize unique
If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.
Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.
“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.
Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.
No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.
“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.
“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.
Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.
“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.
Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.
“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.
.
Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.
Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.
“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”
Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.
When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
Acknowledge the impact
Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).
Many Black people even normalize it.
“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.
And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.
“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.
It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.
“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
Embrace your emotions
Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.
He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.
“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.
“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”
This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.
“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.
It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.
This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.
Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.
Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.
“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.
“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
Utilize unique
If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.
Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.
“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.
Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.
No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.
“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.
“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.
Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.
“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.
Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.
“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.
.
Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.
Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.
“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”
Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.
When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
Acknowledge the impact
Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).
Many Black people even normalize it.
“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.
And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.
“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.
It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.
“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
Embrace your emotions
Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.
He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.
“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.
“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”
This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.
“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.
It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.
This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.
Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.
Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.
“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.
“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
Utilize unique
If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.
Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.
“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.
Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.
No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.
“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.
“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When should psychiatrists retire?
I remember a conversation I had at the end of my training with an older psychiatrist who was closing his practice. I was very excited to finally be a psychiatrist, and therefore a bit shocked that someone would voluntarily end a career I was just beginning. After all, psychiatry is a field where people can practice with flexibility, and a private practice is not an all-or-none endeavor.
“Dinah,” this gentleman said to me, sensing my dismay, “I’m 74. I’m allowed to retire.”
Like many retired psychiatrists, this one continued to come to grand rounds every Monday, dressed in a suit, which was followed by lunch with friends in the dining room. He continued to be involved in professional activities and lived to be 96.
Another dear friend practiced psychiatry until she entered hospice after a 2-year battle with cancer. Others have whittled down their practices, hanging on to a few hours of patient care along with supervision, teaching, and involvement with professional organizations.
In discussing retirement with some of my peers, it’s become immediately clear that each psychiatrist approaches this decision – and how they choose to live after it’s made – with a unique set of concerns and goals.
Fatigued by bureaucracy
Robin Weiss, MD, is in the process of “shrinking” her private practice. She is quick to say she is not retiring, but planning to scale back to 1 day a week starting next summer.
“I want to work less so I have more time for my grandchildren, friends, and travel, and to finally write more.” She also hopes to improve her ping-pong game and exercise habits.
“I’m so tired of prior authorizations, and the one day a week of patients I’ve been committed to feels just about right.”
During the pandemic, Dr. Weiss relinquished her office and she plans to continue with a virtual practice, which allows her more flexibility in terms of where she is physically located.
“The pandemic didn’t influence my decision to scale back, but it did play a role in deciding to give up my office,” she said.
A decision precipitated by medical reasons
Stephen Warres, MD, is a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Maryland who fully retired from practice in June 2021. He started scaling back a few years ago, when he had to give up his office because the building was undergoing renovations.
“I was seeing some patients from my home, but for 2 years I had been working 1 or 2 weekends a month at the Baltimore city jail, and I thought of that as my final act. It was a setting I had never worked in, and I left there 4 months before the pandemic started.”
Dr. Warres noted that his decision to retire was propelled by his diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease at the end of 2019.
“So far I only have a resting tremor, but this is an illness in which cognitive decline is a possibility.”
The emotional roller-coaster that can await
“Why am I leaving when others practice longer? I read about a psychiatrist in California who was still practicing when he died at 102. And the last patient whom I saw when I left practice was a man I started treating just 2 days after I started residency in 1976! When I told him I would be retiring, he found a new psychiatrist who is 82 years old.”
This was followed, he said, by a sense of shame.
“My father was a radiologist and he retired at 76, the same age that I am now, but he volunteered 2 days a week for the state attorney’s office until he was 92, and I’m not doing that.”
What Dr. Warres is choosing to do instead is indulge his many interests, including reading; writing; and practicing on the instrument he’s recently taken up, the harmonium.
This cascade of emotions led to one that was arguably more pleasurable: a sense of immense relief.
“When I got my first request after retirement for a prior authorization, I felt jubilant, like I wanted to throw a party! I felt like I had been walking with a backpack full of weights, and only after the weights were removed did I realize how much lighter it was.
“I loved doing psychotherapy, but more and more psychiatry was not what I had signed up for. I’m relieved that I no longer have to keep up with psychopharmacology. In a way, the Parkinson’s diagnosis sealed the deal. I felt that it gave me license, like a get out of jail card, to retire.”
But even this sense of palpable relief hasn’t closed the cycle of emotions Dr. Warres is experiencing over his retirement.
“You know, the more relieved I am, the more guilt I feel.”
As intellectually adventurous as ever
Marshal Folstein, MD, of Miami retired over a decade ago after a long academic career at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and as chairman of psychiatry at Tufts University, Boston. His Facebook profile states: “Leading the quiet life of a retired professor.”
He said retirement was an easy decision for he and his wife Susan, herself a former academic psychiatrist, which allowed them to immediately change gears.
“At the beginning, we traveled a bit. I wanted to continue with music, so I took flute lessons, and then I played flute in my synagogue, so now I have recently retired from that. I spend my time reading Talmud and the Bible and I keep asking questions. I found a new group of people, some are physicians, and we study and argue. I just turned 80 and I’m intellectually busy and happy.”
The retirement coach
Barbara Fowler, PhD, is a lifespan services consultant at Johns Hopkins who works with faculty and staff getting ready to retire. She said that the university has methods in place to make this decision less jarring.
“The school of medicine has a faculty transition plan that lets people cut back over a set period of time while still keeping benefits. It gives doctors a way to wind up their research and clinical responsibilities, and this is negotiated on an individual level.”
When she’s discussing with someone the possibility of retirement, Dr. Fowler likes to begin by asking them to define what exactly they mean by that word.
“The stereotyped concept is that someone stops what they are doing completely and spends their time playing golf or canasta,” she said. “But the baby boomers are redefining that. Physicians often continue to see some patients or participate in professional organizations. Some people are happy to stop doing the work they have done for years and go do something different, whereas others are interested in scaling back on work activities while adding new ones.”
Timing it right
So, when should psychiatrists retire? The most obvious time to reconsider is when the doctor is no longer able to perform work-related obligations owing to physical or cognitive limitations.
Financial constraints are another factor that comes into play. How necessary is it to work to pay the bills?
“When the kids are out of college and the mortgage is paid off, then there may be the financial means to reconceptualize work life and how you want to rebuild it,” Dr. Fowler said. “Because whether or not people are getting paid, they want to be productive.”
For some, this may come in the form of working in a reduced capacity. Certain practices are more amenable to part-time work or a gradual decrease in hours. A private practice may allow for more control than a position with an institution where an employee may have to continue working full time or not at all.
For others, that productivity might be measured in pursuing their own interests or assisting with family members who need their help. Grandchildren can be an important factor, especially if they live at a distance or childcare is needed. These issues became all the more salient when the pandemic shuttered day care centers and schools, and people limited contact with those outside their households.
Retirement for all physicians is wrapped in issues of identity; for those who have not cultivated other interests, retirement can be a huge loss with no clear path forward. And in an environment where there is a psychiatrist shortage, health care workers are deemed heroes, and human distress is mounting, retirement may come with mixed feelings of guilt, even when the psychiatrist wants a change and is ready for the next chapter. Finally, for those who have launched programs or research projects, there may be the fear that there is no one else who can or will carry on, and that all will be lost.
Yet these considerations focus on the negative, whereas Dr. Fowler said she likes to frame retirement in a positive light. “The key is having more choices; looking for activities that inspire passion; and asking, how can you live your best life?”
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I remember a conversation I had at the end of my training with an older psychiatrist who was closing his practice. I was very excited to finally be a psychiatrist, and therefore a bit shocked that someone would voluntarily end a career I was just beginning. After all, psychiatry is a field where people can practice with flexibility, and a private practice is not an all-or-none endeavor.
“Dinah,” this gentleman said to me, sensing my dismay, “I’m 74. I’m allowed to retire.”
Like many retired psychiatrists, this one continued to come to grand rounds every Monday, dressed in a suit, which was followed by lunch with friends in the dining room. He continued to be involved in professional activities and lived to be 96.
Another dear friend practiced psychiatry until she entered hospice after a 2-year battle with cancer. Others have whittled down their practices, hanging on to a few hours of patient care along with supervision, teaching, and involvement with professional organizations.
In discussing retirement with some of my peers, it’s become immediately clear that each psychiatrist approaches this decision – and how they choose to live after it’s made – with a unique set of concerns and goals.
Fatigued by bureaucracy
Robin Weiss, MD, is in the process of “shrinking” her private practice. She is quick to say she is not retiring, but planning to scale back to 1 day a week starting next summer.
“I want to work less so I have more time for my grandchildren, friends, and travel, and to finally write more.” She also hopes to improve her ping-pong game and exercise habits.
“I’m so tired of prior authorizations, and the one day a week of patients I’ve been committed to feels just about right.”
During the pandemic, Dr. Weiss relinquished her office and she plans to continue with a virtual practice, which allows her more flexibility in terms of where she is physically located.
“The pandemic didn’t influence my decision to scale back, but it did play a role in deciding to give up my office,” she said.
A decision precipitated by medical reasons
Stephen Warres, MD, is a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Maryland who fully retired from practice in June 2021. He started scaling back a few years ago, when he had to give up his office because the building was undergoing renovations.
“I was seeing some patients from my home, but for 2 years I had been working 1 or 2 weekends a month at the Baltimore city jail, and I thought of that as my final act. It was a setting I had never worked in, and I left there 4 months before the pandemic started.”
Dr. Warres noted that his decision to retire was propelled by his diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease at the end of 2019.
“So far I only have a resting tremor, but this is an illness in which cognitive decline is a possibility.”
The emotional roller-coaster that can await
“Why am I leaving when others practice longer? I read about a psychiatrist in California who was still practicing when he died at 102. And the last patient whom I saw when I left practice was a man I started treating just 2 days after I started residency in 1976! When I told him I would be retiring, he found a new psychiatrist who is 82 years old.”
This was followed, he said, by a sense of shame.
“My father was a radiologist and he retired at 76, the same age that I am now, but he volunteered 2 days a week for the state attorney’s office until he was 92, and I’m not doing that.”
What Dr. Warres is choosing to do instead is indulge his many interests, including reading; writing; and practicing on the instrument he’s recently taken up, the harmonium.
This cascade of emotions led to one that was arguably more pleasurable: a sense of immense relief.
“When I got my first request after retirement for a prior authorization, I felt jubilant, like I wanted to throw a party! I felt like I had been walking with a backpack full of weights, and only after the weights were removed did I realize how much lighter it was.
“I loved doing psychotherapy, but more and more psychiatry was not what I had signed up for. I’m relieved that I no longer have to keep up with psychopharmacology. In a way, the Parkinson’s diagnosis sealed the deal. I felt that it gave me license, like a get out of jail card, to retire.”
But even this sense of palpable relief hasn’t closed the cycle of emotions Dr. Warres is experiencing over his retirement.
“You know, the more relieved I am, the more guilt I feel.”
As intellectually adventurous as ever
Marshal Folstein, MD, of Miami retired over a decade ago after a long academic career at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and as chairman of psychiatry at Tufts University, Boston. His Facebook profile states: “Leading the quiet life of a retired professor.”
He said retirement was an easy decision for he and his wife Susan, herself a former academic psychiatrist, which allowed them to immediately change gears.
“At the beginning, we traveled a bit. I wanted to continue with music, so I took flute lessons, and then I played flute in my synagogue, so now I have recently retired from that. I spend my time reading Talmud and the Bible and I keep asking questions. I found a new group of people, some are physicians, and we study and argue. I just turned 80 and I’m intellectually busy and happy.”
The retirement coach
Barbara Fowler, PhD, is a lifespan services consultant at Johns Hopkins who works with faculty and staff getting ready to retire. She said that the university has methods in place to make this decision less jarring.
“The school of medicine has a faculty transition plan that lets people cut back over a set period of time while still keeping benefits. It gives doctors a way to wind up their research and clinical responsibilities, and this is negotiated on an individual level.”
When she’s discussing with someone the possibility of retirement, Dr. Fowler likes to begin by asking them to define what exactly they mean by that word.
“The stereotyped concept is that someone stops what they are doing completely and spends their time playing golf or canasta,” she said. “But the baby boomers are redefining that. Physicians often continue to see some patients or participate in professional organizations. Some people are happy to stop doing the work they have done for years and go do something different, whereas others are interested in scaling back on work activities while adding new ones.”
Timing it right
So, when should psychiatrists retire? The most obvious time to reconsider is when the doctor is no longer able to perform work-related obligations owing to physical or cognitive limitations.
Financial constraints are another factor that comes into play. How necessary is it to work to pay the bills?
“When the kids are out of college and the mortgage is paid off, then there may be the financial means to reconceptualize work life and how you want to rebuild it,” Dr. Fowler said. “Because whether or not people are getting paid, they want to be productive.”
For some, this may come in the form of working in a reduced capacity. Certain practices are more amenable to part-time work or a gradual decrease in hours. A private practice may allow for more control than a position with an institution where an employee may have to continue working full time or not at all.
For others, that productivity might be measured in pursuing their own interests or assisting with family members who need their help. Grandchildren can be an important factor, especially if they live at a distance or childcare is needed. These issues became all the more salient when the pandemic shuttered day care centers and schools, and people limited contact with those outside their households.
Retirement for all physicians is wrapped in issues of identity; for those who have not cultivated other interests, retirement can be a huge loss with no clear path forward. And in an environment where there is a psychiatrist shortage, health care workers are deemed heroes, and human distress is mounting, retirement may come with mixed feelings of guilt, even when the psychiatrist wants a change and is ready for the next chapter. Finally, for those who have launched programs or research projects, there may be the fear that there is no one else who can or will carry on, and that all will be lost.
Yet these considerations focus on the negative, whereas Dr. Fowler said she likes to frame retirement in a positive light. “The key is having more choices; looking for activities that inspire passion; and asking, how can you live your best life?”
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I remember a conversation I had at the end of my training with an older psychiatrist who was closing his practice. I was very excited to finally be a psychiatrist, and therefore a bit shocked that someone would voluntarily end a career I was just beginning. After all, psychiatry is a field where people can practice with flexibility, and a private practice is not an all-or-none endeavor.
“Dinah,” this gentleman said to me, sensing my dismay, “I’m 74. I’m allowed to retire.”
Like many retired psychiatrists, this one continued to come to grand rounds every Monday, dressed in a suit, which was followed by lunch with friends in the dining room. He continued to be involved in professional activities and lived to be 96.
Another dear friend practiced psychiatry until she entered hospice after a 2-year battle with cancer. Others have whittled down their practices, hanging on to a few hours of patient care along with supervision, teaching, and involvement with professional organizations.
In discussing retirement with some of my peers, it’s become immediately clear that each psychiatrist approaches this decision – and how they choose to live after it’s made – with a unique set of concerns and goals.
Fatigued by bureaucracy
Robin Weiss, MD, is in the process of “shrinking” her private practice. She is quick to say she is not retiring, but planning to scale back to 1 day a week starting next summer.
“I want to work less so I have more time for my grandchildren, friends, and travel, and to finally write more.” She also hopes to improve her ping-pong game and exercise habits.
“I’m so tired of prior authorizations, and the one day a week of patients I’ve been committed to feels just about right.”
During the pandemic, Dr. Weiss relinquished her office and she plans to continue with a virtual practice, which allows her more flexibility in terms of where she is physically located.
“The pandemic didn’t influence my decision to scale back, but it did play a role in deciding to give up my office,” she said.
A decision precipitated by medical reasons
Stephen Warres, MD, is a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Maryland who fully retired from practice in June 2021. He started scaling back a few years ago, when he had to give up his office because the building was undergoing renovations.
“I was seeing some patients from my home, but for 2 years I had been working 1 or 2 weekends a month at the Baltimore city jail, and I thought of that as my final act. It was a setting I had never worked in, and I left there 4 months before the pandemic started.”
Dr. Warres noted that his decision to retire was propelled by his diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease at the end of 2019.
“So far I only have a resting tremor, but this is an illness in which cognitive decline is a possibility.”
The emotional roller-coaster that can await
“Why am I leaving when others practice longer? I read about a psychiatrist in California who was still practicing when he died at 102. And the last patient whom I saw when I left practice was a man I started treating just 2 days after I started residency in 1976! When I told him I would be retiring, he found a new psychiatrist who is 82 years old.”
This was followed, he said, by a sense of shame.
“My father was a radiologist and he retired at 76, the same age that I am now, but he volunteered 2 days a week for the state attorney’s office until he was 92, and I’m not doing that.”
What Dr. Warres is choosing to do instead is indulge his many interests, including reading; writing; and practicing on the instrument he’s recently taken up, the harmonium.
This cascade of emotions led to one that was arguably more pleasurable: a sense of immense relief.
“When I got my first request after retirement for a prior authorization, I felt jubilant, like I wanted to throw a party! I felt like I had been walking with a backpack full of weights, and only after the weights were removed did I realize how much lighter it was.
“I loved doing psychotherapy, but more and more psychiatry was not what I had signed up for. I’m relieved that I no longer have to keep up with psychopharmacology. In a way, the Parkinson’s diagnosis sealed the deal. I felt that it gave me license, like a get out of jail card, to retire.”
But even this sense of palpable relief hasn’t closed the cycle of emotions Dr. Warres is experiencing over his retirement.
“You know, the more relieved I am, the more guilt I feel.”
As intellectually adventurous as ever
Marshal Folstein, MD, of Miami retired over a decade ago after a long academic career at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and as chairman of psychiatry at Tufts University, Boston. His Facebook profile states: “Leading the quiet life of a retired professor.”
He said retirement was an easy decision for he and his wife Susan, herself a former academic psychiatrist, which allowed them to immediately change gears.
“At the beginning, we traveled a bit. I wanted to continue with music, so I took flute lessons, and then I played flute in my synagogue, so now I have recently retired from that. I spend my time reading Talmud and the Bible and I keep asking questions. I found a new group of people, some are physicians, and we study and argue. I just turned 80 and I’m intellectually busy and happy.”
The retirement coach
Barbara Fowler, PhD, is a lifespan services consultant at Johns Hopkins who works with faculty and staff getting ready to retire. She said that the university has methods in place to make this decision less jarring.
“The school of medicine has a faculty transition plan that lets people cut back over a set period of time while still keeping benefits. It gives doctors a way to wind up their research and clinical responsibilities, and this is negotiated on an individual level.”
When she’s discussing with someone the possibility of retirement, Dr. Fowler likes to begin by asking them to define what exactly they mean by that word.
“The stereotyped concept is that someone stops what they are doing completely and spends their time playing golf or canasta,” she said. “But the baby boomers are redefining that. Physicians often continue to see some patients or participate in professional organizations. Some people are happy to stop doing the work they have done for years and go do something different, whereas others are interested in scaling back on work activities while adding new ones.”
Timing it right
So, when should psychiatrists retire? The most obvious time to reconsider is when the doctor is no longer able to perform work-related obligations owing to physical or cognitive limitations.
Financial constraints are another factor that comes into play. How necessary is it to work to pay the bills?
“When the kids are out of college and the mortgage is paid off, then there may be the financial means to reconceptualize work life and how you want to rebuild it,” Dr. Fowler said. “Because whether or not people are getting paid, they want to be productive.”
For some, this may come in the form of working in a reduced capacity. Certain practices are more amenable to part-time work or a gradual decrease in hours. A private practice may allow for more control than a position with an institution where an employee may have to continue working full time or not at all.
For others, that productivity might be measured in pursuing their own interests or assisting with family members who need their help. Grandchildren can be an important factor, especially if they live at a distance or childcare is needed. These issues became all the more salient when the pandemic shuttered day care centers and schools, and people limited contact with those outside their households.
Retirement for all physicians is wrapped in issues of identity; for those who have not cultivated other interests, retirement can be a huge loss with no clear path forward. And in an environment where there is a psychiatrist shortage, health care workers are deemed heroes, and human distress is mounting, retirement may come with mixed feelings of guilt, even when the psychiatrist wants a change and is ready for the next chapter. Finally, for those who have launched programs or research projects, there may be the fear that there is no one else who can or will carry on, and that all will be lost.
Yet these considerations focus on the negative, whereas Dr. Fowler said she likes to frame retirement in a positive light. “The key is having more choices; looking for activities that inspire passion; and asking, how can you live your best life?”
Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Infectious disease pop quiz: Clinical challenge #2 for the ObGyn
Which major organisms cause urinary tract infections (UTIs) in women?
Continue to the answer...
The most common causative organism is Escherichia coli, which is responsible for approximately 70% of all UTIs. Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus species are the 2 other aerobic gram-negative bacilli that are common uropathogens. In addition, 3 gram-positive cocci are important: enterococci, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, and group B streptococcus.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Which major organisms cause urinary tract infections (UTIs) in women?
Continue to the answer...
The most common causative organism is Escherichia coli, which is responsible for approximately 70% of all UTIs. Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus species are the 2 other aerobic gram-negative bacilli that are common uropathogens. In addition, 3 gram-positive cocci are important: enterococci, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, and group B streptococcus.
Which major organisms cause urinary tract infections (UTIs) in women?
Continue to the answer...
The most common causative organism is Escherichia coli, which is responsible for approximately 70% of all UTIs. Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus species are the 2 other aerobic gram-negative bacilli that are common uropathogens. In addition, 3 gram-positive cocci are important: enterococci, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, and group B streptococcus.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Infectious disease pop quiz: Clinical challenge #1 for the ObGyn
What are the best tests for the diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection?
Continue to the answer...
When congenital CMV is suspected, if the patient is at least 15 weeks’ gestation, an amniocentesis should be performed to test for CMV DNA in the amniotic fluid using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methodology. If the initial test is negative, amniocentesis should be repeated in approximately 4 weeks. Coincident with amniocentesis, a detailed ultrasound examination should be performed to search for findings suggestive of fetal injury, such as growth restriction, microcephaly, periventricular calcifications, hepatosplenomegaly, echogenic bowel, and serous effusions in the pleural space or abdomen.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
What are the best tests for the diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection?
Continue to the answer...
When congenital CMV is suspected, if the patient is at least 15 weeks’ gestation, an amniocentesis should be performed to test for CMV DNA in the amniotic fluid using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methodology. If the initial test is negative, amniocentesis should be repeated in approximately 4 weeks. Coincident with amniocentesis, a detailed ultrasound examination should be performed to search for findings suggestive of fetal injury, such as growth restriction, microcephaly, periventricular calcifications, hepatosplenomegaly, echogenic bowel, and serous effusions in the pleural space or abdomen.
What are the best tests for the diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection?
Continue to the answer...
When congenital CMV is suspected, if the patient is at least 15 weeks’ gestation, an amniocentesis should be performed to test for CMV DNA in the amniotic fluid using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methodology. If the initial test is negative, amniocentesis should be repeated in approximately 4 weeks. Coincident with amniocentesis, a detailed ultrasound examination should be performed to search for findings suggestive of fetal injury, such as growth restriction, microcephaly, periventricular calcifications, hepatosplenomegaly, echogenic bowel, and serous effusions in the pleural space or abdomen.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Breast cancer history promotes vertebral fracture risk
Women with a history of stage III to stage IV breast cancer had significantly more pathologic vertebral fractures compared to those with stage I and stage II disease, based on data from approximately 5,000 adult women.
Breast cancer remains associated with increased fracture risk in part because of estrogen deficiency, aromatase inhibitors, frailty, and skeletal metastases, wrote Joan C. Lo, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues. Fractures associated with these factors have been studied, but many of the existing epidemiologic studies lack detail on fractures related to cancer, they noted. The researchers examined the association between pathologic fractures and major osteoporotic fractures in women with invasive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Nov 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33861), the researchers reviewed data from 5,010 women enrolled in the Pathways Study (3,312 women) or Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) study (1,698 women) with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy. The women were followed for up to 10 years for incident fracture, with a median follow-up period of 6.7 years.
The average age of the women was 60.2 years; 73.3% were non-Hispanic White, 4.9% were Black, 9.4% were Hispanic, and 1.6% were women whose ethnicity was unknown. Approximately 90% of the women were at stage I to stage II at initial diagnosis.
Overall, 340 (6.8%) had incident fractures during the follow-up period. The incident fractures included 46 hip, 104 vertebral, 78 humerus, and 137 wrist fractures. Significantly more women with hip fracture (43.5%) were age 80 years or older, compared with less than 25% of women with vertebral fractures (22.1%), humerus (19.2%), or wrist fracture (15.3%).
Pathologic fractures accounted for 22 of 104 incident vertebral fractures (21.2%) and fewer than 5 of 46 incident hip fractures (8.7%); few wrist and humerus fractures were pathologic. According to tumor stage, 15 of 87 (17.2%) vertebral fractures in women with initial stage I and II were pathologic, compared to 7 of 17 (41.2%) in women with initial stage III to stage IV breast cancer (P < .05).
The results emphasized the need to consider vertebral fracture risk in women with breast cancer, notably advanced stage cancer, as approximately one-third of the incident vertebral fractures in this subset of patients was deemed cancer-related, the researchers noted.
“As the axial skeleton is a common site for breast cancer metastasis and vertebrae a common site for pathologic fracture, primary care physicians should consider the possibility of pathologic fracture in women with higher risk based on advanced-stage cancer history,” the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on fracture risk factors, treatment, and chemotherapy, and the inclusion only of clinically diagnosed fractures and not asymptomatic vertebral fractures, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and comprehensive fracture assessment, they said. Additional studies to examine nonpathologic fracture risk according to breast cancer treatment, such as the use of aromatase inhibitors versus cytotoxic chemotherapy, may inform which women would benefit from more aggressive osteoporotic fracture prevention, they concluded.
Findings inform shared decision-making
“This study highlights the apparent association between an initial diagnosis of stage III or IV breast cancer and an increased risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” said Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., in an interview. “Most likely this finding is secondary to breast cancer metastases,” Dr. Bohon noted. However, she questioned whether there is a difference in fracture rates between women who received only aromatase inhibitors, those who received tamoxifen, and those who received both treatments.
“Additional data to determine the age of menopause, exercise frequency, current weight, and family history of osteoporosis may serve to identify those at highest risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” said Dr. Bohon. “Until further data are available, clinicians should review this study and counsel their patients regarding options to potentially mitigate their apparent increased risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” she emphasized.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.
Women with a history of stage III to stage IV breast cancer had significantly more pathologic vertebral fractures compared to those with stage I and stage II disease, based on data from approximately 5,000 adult women.
Breast cancer remains associated with increased fracture risk in part because of estrogen deficiency, aromatase inhibitors, frailty, and skeletal metastases, wrote Joan C. Lo, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues. Fractures associated with these factors have been studied, but many of the existing epidemiologic studies lack detail on fractures related to cancer, they noted. The researchers examined the association between pathologic fractures and major osteoporotic fractures in women with invasive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Nov 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33861), the researchers reviewed data from 5,010 women enrolled in the Pathways Study (3,312 women) or Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) study (1,698 women) with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy. The women were followed for up to 10 years for incident fracture, with a median follow-up period of 6.7 years.
The average age of the women was 60.2 years; 73.3% were non-Hispanic White, 4.9% were Black, 9.4% were Hispanic, and 1.6% were women whose ethnicity was unknown. Approximately 90% of the women were at stage I to stage II at initial diagnosis.
Overall, 340 (6.8%) had incident fractures during the follow-up period. The incident fractures included 46 hip, 104 vertebral, 78 humerus, and 137 wrist fractures. Significantly more women with hip fracture (43.5%) were age 80 years or older, compared with less than 25% of women with vertebral fractures (22.1%), humerus (19.2%), or wrist fracture (15.3%).
Pathologic fractures accounted for 22 of 104 incident vertebral fractures (21.2%) and fewer than 5 of 46 incident hip fractures (8.7%); few wrist and humerus fractures were pathologic. According to tumor stage, 15 of 87 (17.2%) vertebral fractures in women with initial stage I and II were pathologic, compared to 7 of 17 (41.2%) in women with initial stage III to stage IV breast cancer (P < .05).
The results emphasized the need to consider vertebral fracture risk in women with breast cancer, notably advanced stage cancer, as approximately one-third of the incident vertebral fractures in this subset of patients was deemed cancer-related, the researchers noted.
“As the axial skeleton is a common site for breast cancer metastasis and vertebrae a common site for pathologic fracture, primary care physicians should consider the possibility of pathologic fracture in women with higher risk based on advanced-stage cancer history,” the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on fracture risk factors, treatment, and chemotherapy, and the inclusion only of clinically diagnosed fractures and not asymptomatic vertebral fractures, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and comprehensive fracture assessment, they said. Additional studies to examine nonpathologic fracture risk according to breast cancer treatment, such as the use of aromatase inhibitors versus cytotoxic chemotherapy, may inform which women would benefit from more aggressive osteoporotic fracture prevention, they concluded.
Findings inform shared decision-making
“This study highlights the apparent association between an initial diagnosis of stage III or IV breast cancer and an increased risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” said Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., in an interview. “Most likely this finding is secondary to breast cancer metastases,” Dr. Bohon noted. However, she questioned whether there is a difference in fracture rates between women who received only aromatase inhibitors, those who received tamoxifen, and those who received both treatments.
“Additional data to determine the age of menopause, exercise frequency, current weight, and family history of osteoporosis may serve to identify those at highest risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” said Dr. Bohon. “Until further data are available, clinicians should review this study and counsel their patients regarding options to potentially mitigate their apparent increased risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” she emphasized.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.
Women with a history of stage III to stage IV breast cancer had significantly more pathologic vertebral fractures compared to those with stage I and stage II disease, based on data from approximately 5,000 adult women.
Breast cancer remains associated with increased fracture risk in part because of estrogen deficiency, aromatase inhibitors, frailty, and skeletal metastases, wrote Joan C. Lo, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues. Fractures associated with these factors have been studied, but many of the existing epidemiologic studies lack detail on fractures related to cancer, they noted. The researchers examined the association between pathologic fractures and major osteoporotic fractures in women with invasive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Nov 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33861), the researchers reviewed data from 5,010 women enrolled in the Pathways Study (3,312 women) or Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) study (1,698 women) with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy. The women were followed for up to 10 years for incident fracture, with a median follow-up period of 6.7 years.
The average age of the women was 60.2 years; 73.3% were non-Hispanic White, 4.9% were Black, 9.4% were Hispanic, and 1.6% were women whose ethnicity was unknown. Approximately 90% of the women were at stage I to stage II at initial diagnosis.
Overall, 340 (6.8%) had incident fractures during the follow-up period. The incident fractures included 46 hip, 104 vertebral, 78 humerus, and 137 wrist fractures. Significantly more women with hip fracture (43.5%) were age 80 years or older, compared with less than 25% of women with vertebral fractures (22.1%), humerus (19.2%), or wrist fracture (15.3%).
Pathologic fractures accounted for 22 of 104 incident vertebral fractures (21.2%) and fewer than 5 of 46 incident hip fractures (8.7%); few wrist and humerus fractures were pathologic. According to tumor stage, 15 of 87 (17.2%) vertebral fractures in women with initial stage I and II were pathologic, compared to 7 of 17 (41.2%) in women with initial stage III to stage IV breast cancer (P < .05).
The results emphasized the need to consider vertebral fracture risk in women with breast cancer, notably advanced stage cancer, as approximately one-third of the incident vertebral fractures in this subset of patients was deemed cancer-related, the researchers noted.
“As the axial skeleton is a common site for breast cancer metastasis and vertebrae a common site for pathologic fracture, primary care physicians should consider the possibility of pathologic fracture in women with higher risk based on advanced-stage cancer history,” the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on fracture risk factors, treatment, and chemotherapy, and the inclusion only of clinically diagnosed fractures and not asymptomatic vertebral fractures, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and comprehensive fracture assessment, they said. Additional studies to examine nonpathologic fracture risk according to breast cancer treatment, such as the use of aromatase inhibitors versus cytotoxic chemotherapy, may inform which women would benefit from more aggressive osteoporotic fracture prevention, they concluded.
Findings inform shared decision-making
“This study highlights the apparent association between an initial diagnosis of stage III or IV breast cancer and an increased risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” said Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., in an interview. “Most likely this finding is secondary to breast cancer metastases,” Dr. Bohon noted. However, she questioned whether there is a difference in fracture rates between women who received only aromatase inhibitors, those who received tamoxifen, and those who received both treatments.
“Additional data to determine the age of menopause, exercise frequency, current weight, and family history of osteoporosis may serve to identify those at highest risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” said Dr. Bohon. “Until further data are available, clinicians should review this study and counsel their patients regarding options to potentially mitigate their apparent increased risk for pathologic vertebral fracture,” she emphasized.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Serious infection hospitalizations have declined in patients with PsA
The rate of U.S. hospitalizations for three types of serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) appears to have declined from 2012 to 2017, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Several of the standard treatments for PsA have an increased risk of infections, but the rates vary amongst conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, biologics, and other therapies.
“Given the uptake of biological therapies has increased over recent years, we sought to investigate the national trends in serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis from the years 2012 to 2017,” Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a psoriatic arthritis clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, told attendees in a prerecorded poster presentation. Dr. Murugesan was a fellow at Boston University when she conducted the research.
The researchers analyzed data from 2012 to 2017 in the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS), which includes approximately 20% of all discharges from U.S. community hospitals except rehabilitation and long-term acute care institutions. Using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified all discharge records containing a diagnosis of PsA as well as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infection (UTI), and skin and soft-tissue infections. After making adjustments to match U.S. population age distributions over the years, they examined trends in serious infections among patients with PsA for that 6-year period.
Demographics over those years changed little: The average age of discharged patients was 59.5 in 2012 and 60.8 in 2017. Similarly, the patient population was 56% women and 88.5% Whites in 2012 and 57.7% women and 88.4% Whites in 2017. The average length of stay was also similar: 4.7 days in 2012, compared with 4.9 days in 2017.
Among 50,700 discharges of patients with PsA in 2012, the researchers identified 125 with pneumonia, 230 with sepsis, 312 with skin and soft-tissue infections, and 174 with a UTI. Among the 179,400 discharges in 2017 of patients with PsA, 344 had pneumonia, 374 had sepsis, 681 had skin and soft-tissue infections, and 348 had a UTI. After statistical analysis, the researchers found no significant differences in pneumonia diagnoses during the years studied, but they did find a statistically significant decline in sepsis, skin and soft tissue infections, and UTI discharges (P < .001).
A notable limitation of the study is the NIS database’s lack of data on treatments or outpatient data, making it impossible to determine if more infections were occurring but simply being treated in outpatient settings, although it’s not clear why such a substantial shift would occur in just 5 years. It’s also possible that coding practices differ across hospital, but, presumably, the ways they might differ in 2012 would be similar to any differences in 2017.
Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, found the results interesting for what he considers an important topic.
“What makes these data interesting is the same thing that limits their reliability: The authors note that infections decreased ‘despite the increase in use of biologics over this time,’ ” Dr. Kavanaugh said in an interview. “These are claims data, so there is no way to support any association between those serious infections and biologic use. Indeed, multiple factors could have also impacted these data. It is not possible to tell from claims data.”
Dr. Kavanaugh said the question is worth investigating further with data from other sources.
The research was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One study coauthor reported ties to UCB; Dr. Murugesan and her other coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Kavanaugh had no disclosures.
The rate of U.S. hospitalizations for three types of serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) appears to have declined from 2012 to 2017, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Several of the standard treatments for PsA have an increased risk of infections, but the rates vary amongst conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, biologics, and other therapies.
“Given the uptake of biological therapies has increased over recent years, we sought to investigate the national trends in serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis from the years 2012 to 2017,” Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a psoriatic arthritis clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, told attendees in a prerecorded poster presentation. Dr. Murugesan was a fellow at Boston University when she conducted the research.
The researchers analyzed data from 2012 to 2017 in the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS), which includes approximately 20% of all discharges from U.S. community hospitals except rehabilitation and long-term acute care institutions. Using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified all discharge records containing a diagnosis of PsA as well as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infection (UTI), and skin and soft-tissue infections. After making adjustments to match U.S. population age distributions over the years, they examined trends in serious infections among patients with PsA for that 6-year period.
Demographics over those years changed little: The average age of discharged patients was 59.5 in 2012 and 60.8 in 2017. Similarly, the patient population was 56% women and 88.5% Whites in 2012 and 57.7% women and 88.4% Whites in 2017. The average length of stay was also similar: 4.7 days in 2012, compared with 4.9 days in 2017.
Among 50,700 discharges of patients with PsA in 2012, the researchers identified 125 with pneumonia, 230 with sepsis, 312 with skin and soft-tissue infections, and 174 with a UTI. Among the 179,400 discharges in 2017 of patients with PsA, 344 had pneumonia, 374 had sepsis, 681 had skin and soft-tissue infections, and 348 had a UTI. After statistical analysis, the researchers found no significant differences in pneumonia diagnoses during the years studied, but they did find a statistically significant decline in sepsis, skin and soft tissue infections, and UTI discharges (P < .001).
A notable limitation of the study is the NIS database’s lack of data on treatments or outpatient data, making it impossible to determine if more infections were occurring but simply being treated in outpatient settings, although it’s not clear why such a substantial shift would occur in just 5 years. It’s also possible that coding practices differ across hospital, but, presumably, the ways they might differ in 2012 would be similar to any differences in 2017.
Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, found the results interesting for what he considers an important topic.
“What makes these data interesting is the same thing that limits their reliability: The authors note that infections decreased ‘despite the increase in use of biologics over this time,’ ” Dr. Kavanaugh said in an interview. “These are claims data, so there is no way to support any association between those serious infections and biologic use. Indeed, multiple factors could have also impacted these data. It is not possible to tell from claims data.”
Dr. Kavanaugh said the question is worth investigating further with data from other sources.
The research was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One study coauthor reported ties to UCB; Dr. Murugesan and her other coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Kavanaugh had no disclosures.
The rate of U.S. hospitalizations for three types of serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) appears to have declined from 2012 to 2017, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Several of the standard treatments for PsA have an increased risk of infections, but the rates vary amongst conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, biologics, and other therapies.
“Given the uptake of biological therapies has increased over recent years, we sought to investigate the national trends in serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis from the years 2012 to 2017,” Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a psoriatic arthritis clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, told attendees in a prerecorded poster presentation. Dr. Murugesan was a fellow at Boston University when she conducted the research.
The researchers analyzed data from 2012 to 2017 in the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS), which includes approximately 20% of all discharges from U.S. community hospitals except rehabilitation and long-term acute care institutions. Using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified all discharge records containing a diagnosis of PsA as well as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infection (UTI), and skin and soft-tissue infections. After making adjustments to match U.S. population age distributions over the years, they examined trends in serious infections among patients with PsA for that 6-year period.
Demographics over those years changed little: The average age of discharged patients was 59.5 in 2012 and 60.8 in 2017. Similarly, the patient population was 56% women and 88.5% Whites in 2012 and 57.7% women and 88.4% Whites in 2017. The average length of stay was also similar: 4.7 days in 2012, compared with 4.9 days in 2017.
Among 50,700 discharges of patients with PsA in 2012, the researchers identified 125 with pneumonia, 230 with sepsis, 312 with skin and soft-tissue infections, and 174 with a UTI. Among the 179,400 discharges in 2017 of patients with PsA, 344 had pneumonia, 374 had sepsis, 681 had skin and soft-tissue infections, and 348 had a UTI. After statistical analysis, the researchers found no significant differences in pneumonia diagnoses during the years studied, but they did find a statistically significant decline in sepsis, skin and soft tissue infections, and UTI discharges (P < .001).
A notable limitation of the study is the NIS database’s lack of data on treatments or outpatient data, making it impossible to determine if more infections were occurring but simply being treated in outpatient settings, although it’s not clear why such a substantial shift would occur in just 5 years. It’s also possible that coding practices differ across hospital, but, presumably, the ways they might differ in 2012 would be similar to any differences in 2017.
Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, found the results interesting for what he considers an important topic.
“What makes these data interesting is the same thing that limits their reliability: The authors note that infections decreased ‘despite the increase in use of biologics over this time,’ ” Dr. Kavanaugh said in an interview. “These are claims data, so there is no way to support any association between those serious infections and biologic use. Indeed, multiple factors could have also impacted these data. It is not possible to tell from claims data.”
Dr. Kavanaugh said the question is worth investigating further with data from other sources.
The research was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One study coauthor reported ties to UCB; Dr. Murugesan and her other coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Kavanaugh had no disclosures.
FROM ACR 2021
CDC: Thirty percent of hospital workers in U.S. still unvaccinated
, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.
Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.
The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.
Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.
Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”
“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
Vaccine mandates
The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.
The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).
Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.
A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.
But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.
Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.
Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”
Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.
“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.
Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.
The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.
Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.
Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”
“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
Vaccine mandates
The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.
The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).
Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.
A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.
But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.
Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.
Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”
Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.
“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.
Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.
The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.
Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.
Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”
“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
Vaccine mandates
The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.
The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).
Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.
A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.
But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.
Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.
Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”
Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.
“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How to deal with offensive or impaired doctors
Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.
Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .
“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.
After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
Confront, correct, and/or counsel
The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.
Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.
She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.
She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:
- Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
- Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
- Get advice from a good employment attorney;
- Implement written performance improvement plans;
- Provide resources to change the behavior;
- Follow through with suspension and termination; and
- Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.
Getting impaired doctors help
Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.
Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”
Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.
Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:
- Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
- Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
- Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
- Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.
Aging doctors who won’t retire
Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.
She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.
Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.
She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”
Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.
“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.
Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .
“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.
After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
Confront, correct, and/or counsel
The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.
Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.
She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.
She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:
- Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
- Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
- Get advice from a good employment attorney;
- Implement written performance improvement plans;
- Provide resources to change the behavior;
- Follow through with suspension and termination; and
- Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.
Getting impaired doctors help
Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.
Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”
Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.
Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:
- Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
- Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
- Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
- Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.
Aging doctors who won’t retire
Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.
She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.
Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.
She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”
Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.
“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.
Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .
“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.
After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
Confront, correct, and/or counsel
The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.
Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.
She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.
She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:
- Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
- Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
- Get advice from a good employment attorney;
- Implement written performance improvement plans;
- Provide resources to change the behavior;
- Follow through with suspension and termination; and
- Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.
Getting impaired doctors help
Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.
Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”
Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.
Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:
- Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
- Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
- Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
- Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.
Aging doctors who won’t retire
Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.
She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.
Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.
She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”
Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.
“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.