Managing Your Practice

As more and more physicians, both young and experienced, choose to merge with larger practices or join multispecialty groups, I am getting numerous questions about the contracts they are being asked to sign. Obviously, every circumstance will be unique; but some common issues and avoidable mistakes are worth mentioning.

The most common error I see is failing to retain an attorney in a timely manner. Incredibly, many physicians try to do their own negotiating, and call a lawyer only when unpleasant discoveries are made after the contract has been signed. You will need counsel from the very beginning – and not your brother-in-law, or a family friend. Get referrals from colleagues who have gone through the process and are happy with their contracts.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As more and more physicians, both young and experienced, choose to merge with larger practices or join multispecialty groups, I am getting numerous questions about the contracts they are being asked to sign. Obviously, every circumstance will be unique; but some common issues and avoidable mistakes are worth mentioning.

The most common error I see is failing to retain an attorney in a timely manner. Incredibly, many physicians try to do their own negotiating, and call a lawyer only when unpleasant discoveries are made after the contract has been signed. You will need counsel from the very beginning – and not your brother-in-law, or a family friend. Get referrals from colleagues who have gone through the process and are happy with their contracts.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As more and more physicians, both young and experienced, choose to merge with larger practices or join multispecialty groups, I am getting numerous questions about the contracts they are being asked to sign. Obviously, every circumstance will be unique; but some common issues and avoidable mistakes are worth mentioning.

The most common error I see is failing to retain an attorney in a timely manner. Incredibly, many physicians try to do their own negotiating, and call a lawyer only when unpleasant discoveries are made after the contract has been signed. You will need counsel from the very beginning – and not your brother-in-law, or a family friend. Get referrals from colleagues who have gone through the process and are happy with their contracts.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The latest anniversary of my birth recently passed; I am now a provider and a beneficiary in the Medicare system. Fortunately, I have learned to celebrate these annual events, and the changes they bring, rather than dread them. I now appreciate that life gets better as we get older, on all levels – except, perhaps, the physical.

But I have also learned that birthdays are a good time to pause and consider the various financial arrangements that I’ve set up over the years, and to determine whether any of them need updating.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The latest anniversary of my birth recently passed; I am now a provider and a beneficiary in the Medicare system. Fortunately, I have learned to celebrate these annual events, and the changes they bring, rather than dread them. I now appreciate that life gets better as we get older, on all levels – except, perhaps, the physical.

But I have also learned that birthdays are a good time to pause and consider the various financial arrangements that I’ve set up over the years, and to determine whether any of them need updating.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The latest anniversary of my birth recently passed; I am now a provider and a beneficiary in the Medicare system. Fortunately, I have learned to celebrate these annual events, and the changes they bring, rather than dread them. I now appreciate that life gets better as we get older, on all levels – except, perhaps, the physical.

But I have also learned that birthdays are a good time to pause and consider the various financial arrangements that I’ve set up over the years, and to determine whether any of them need updating.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As third-party payers become stingier and stingier with their payments, it becomes more and more important to hold them accountable for decisions that impact patient care – and your revenue. Physicians have the right to a full and fair appeal review of all rejected and underpaid claims; yet surprisingly, less than 5% of denied dermatology claims are appealed, according to one study.

Many practitioners seem to feel that appeals are simply not worth the time and effort, particularly in a high-volume field such as dermatology; but since the chance that appealing will increase your reimbursement is more than 50%, it is usually well worth the effort – particularly in the current climate of steadily decreasing reimbursements. Furthermore, once insurers become aware that you are scrutinizing your payment statements and challenging all unwarranted rejections, they will be less cavalier in denying legitimate claims.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As third-party payers become stingier and stingier with their payments, it becomes more and more important to hold them accountable for decisions that impact patient care – and your revenue. Physicians have the right to a full and fair appeal review of all rejected and underpaid claims; yet surprisingly, less than 5% of denied dermatology claims are appealed, according to one study.

Many practitioners seem to feel that appeals are simply not worth the time and effort, particularly in a high-volume field such as dermatology; but since the chance that appealing will increase your reimbursement is more than 50%, it is usually well worth the effort – particularly in the current climate of steadily decreasing reimbursements. Furthermore, once insurers become aware that you are scrutinizing your payment statements and challenging all unwarranted rejections, they will be less cavalier in denying legitimate claims.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As third-party payers become stingier and stingier with their payments, it becomes more and more important to hold them accountable for decisions that impact patient care – and your revenue. Physicians have the right to a full and fair appeal review of all rejected and underpaid claims; yet surprisingly, less than 5% of denied dermatology claims are appealed, according to one study.

Many practitioners seem to feel that appeals are simply not worth the time and effort, particularly in a high-volume field such as dermatology; but since the chance that appealing will increase your reimbursement is more than 50%, it is usually well worth the effort – particularly in the current climate of steadily decreasing reimbursements. Furthermore, once insurers become aware that you are scrutinizing your payment statements and challenging all unwarranted rejections, they will be less cavalier in denying legitimate claims.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

An estimated 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors. This is an attention-grabbing statistic—from the year 2000.¹ A recent study (published in 2016) reported that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States, ranking just behind heart disease and cancer.²

As expected, much has been done to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety as a result of these publications. Quality, safety, and outcomes are paramount, as evidenced by the Institute of Health Care Improvement’s “triple aim”: reduce cost of care, improve quality of care, and improve patient outcomes.³

While these 3 aims are of paramount importance, this article seeks to portray the “quadruple aim,” with an additional focus on physician well-being. Patients and their families (first victims) are not the only ones affected by medical errors. Clinicians are, too, and these effects can be devastating. Here I offer concrete strategies to support providers involved in medical errors, including tips on developing a formal support program. First, however, I describe the devastating effects medical errors can have on providers and the signs of a second victim.

Related article:
Medical errors: Caring for the second victim (you)

The scope of the problem

In 2000, it was Dr. Albert Wu’s publication in The British Medical Journal titled “Medical Error: The Second Victim” (the doctor who makes mistakes needs help too), that first addressed this important topic.⁴ In his article he shared a case of another house officer who missed signs of a pericardial tamponade and was judged incompetent by peers due to his mistake.

As physicians, we do not intrinsically support colleagues who have experienced a medical error. We all have taken, with pride and commitment, our Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm,” yet we are often held to standards of perfection by society, peers, and, above all, ourselves. Have technologic wonders and precise laboratory tests supplanted the adage “doctors are only human”? Dr. Wu also points out in this landmark essay his observation and dismay at the lack of empathy, sympathy, and compassion shown by peers when medical errors occur. All of these elements are needed for the healing of those involved to take place. If they are not provided, dysfunctional coping mechanisms ensue.⁴

Incidence of medical errors

Despite the Institute of Medicine report from 2000¹ and the recent study from Johns Hopkins,² determining the exact number of errors and incidents is not easy. Most data reporting is sparse. A prospective longitudinal study of perceived medical errors and resident distress estimated medical errors to be between 5% and 10% in hospitalized patients, but that it could be up to 50%.⁵ According to a 2005 study, approximately one-third of internal medicine residents report at least 1 major medical error during their 3 years of training, while 18% of multidisciplinary residents report an adverse event under their care in the previous week.⁶

Related article:
Medical errors: Meeting ethical obligations and reducing liability with proper communication

Who is at risk of becoming a second victim?

Any and all clinicians can become a second victim, and the state can be realized at varying points in the process of an experienced medical error. The circumstances of the initial error and the severity of the effect on the patient and/or the damaged physician−patient relationship can affect whether or not there is a second victim. A second victim also can emerge as a result of peers’ or colleagues’ comments and lack of empathy or support. Certainly a lawsuit can produce a second victim.⁷

How often do physicians become second victims?

The prevalence of second victims has a large variation in estimates. A 2006 study estimates a prevalence of 10.4%.⁸ In 2010, the estimate was 30%, and a prevalence of 43.3% was reported in 2000.^9,10 Regarding emotional distress within a year of a major adverse event, 30% of almost 900 providers reported these feelings.¹¹ Other studies note 50% of health care workers reported feelings consistent with those of a second victim.⁷

Next: What are the symptoms of a second victim?

The signs of, and long-lasting risks for, a second victim

Second victims are at risk for several well-documented symptoms, regardless of their stage of training, including⁶:

• depression (in fact, they have a 3-fold risk)
• decrease in overall quality of life
• increase in burnout
• increase in feelings of distress, guilt, and shame, which may be long lasting.

Health care providers as second victims also may experience shock and hopelessness, sleep disturbance, social avoidance, intrusive thoughts and nightmares, and poor memory and concentration. Interestingly, these emotions and reactions are indistinguishable from posttraumatic stress disorder. These continued symptoms can have short- and long-term implications for physicians, patients, and the health care organization.¹²

Next: How to support those affected by a medical error

How to support all of those affected by a medical error

Over the past decade or so, much attention has been paid to creating safer health systems, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction, and recognizing the needs of patients and families of first victims when medical errors occur. Much less has been done to acknowledge and address the needs of struggling clinicians.

Provide nurturing discussions and sympathy

Hospital systems do have embedded processes to review outcomes and medical errors, including, among others, peer review, quality improvement, morbidity and mortality review, and root cause analysis. Unfortunately, often a “name, blame, shame game” can result from the overall process, with certain individuals or groups of individuals singled out, and only worsen the incidence and effects of the second victim. Ideally, system processes for addressing medical errors should allow for an environment more focused on nurturing discussions to prevent error and recognize all the factors contributing to an error.

Of course in any outcome or error investigation, the goal is to identify what happened, what factors contributed to the incident, and what can be done to prevent future occurrences. The concern for the family as priority is understandable, as is the desire to prevent a lawsuit. The lack of attention and sympathy to the health care provider involved contributes to the second victim.⁷

It is all too easy to blame, even in a Just Culture. Deficiencies in sympathy and attention can occur without a system whose culture is focused on “name, blame, shame.” A Just Culture, as defined by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is one in which individuals come forward with a mistake without fear of punishment. Such a culture balances the need to learn from our mistakes and the need to have disciplinary action.¹³

David Marx, an outcomes engineer and author of “Whack a Mole: The Price We Pay for Expecting Perfection,” touts a Just Culture as one having the following sets of beliefs:

• recognition that professionals will make mistakes
• recognition that even professionals will develop unhealthy norms
• a fierce intolerance for reckless conduct.

He strongly asserts that human error be consoled while reckless behavior be punished.¹⁴ Punishing human error is a setup for the second victim.

Read on for tips to develop a coping program

Tips for developing a coping program

In 2009, Scott and colleagues described 6 stages of a second victim. These are:

• Stage 1: Chaos and event repair
• Stage 2: Intrusive thoughts, “what if”
• Stage 3: Restoring personal identity
• Stage 4: Enduring the inquisition
• Stage 5: Obtaining emotional first aid
• Stage 6: Moving on or dropping out; surviving and/or thriving

Throughout the stages, second victims look for support and share their experience of the medical error event, as well as their personal and professional impact of the error.¹⁵

A 2007 study that examined the emotional impact of medical errors on physicians revealed some startling data. A full 82% of physicians expressed interest in counseling to help cope with their distress. And 90% felt there was inadequate support at their hospitals or health care organizations for this distress.¹⁶

Use The Joint Commission’s toolkit

Unfortunately, there are only a few well-documented second-victim support programs in the United States, despite the growing evidence of the emotional distress that second victims experience. Many hospitals do not know how to develop or implement such a support system. Recognizing this challenge, The Joint Commission developed a toolkit to assist health care organizations in developing a second-victim program. The toolkit consists of 10 modules (TABLE) designed to assist organizations not only to implement a second-victim support process but also to customize it to their specific institutional culture. This toolkit can be downloaded for free or used online. Within the first year of its availability, over 6,000 people visited the website and there were more than 700 requests for a download.¹⁷

Follow forYOU’s example

An example and well-recognized second-victim support program is the “forYOU” team at the University of Missouri. The program is free to employees, confidential, and available 24-7. Its purpose is “providing care and support to our staff,” by helping members understand the phenomenon of the second victim and quickly returning members to a satisfying professional practice.¹⁸

The “forYOU” team was created in 2007 under the direction of the University of Missouri Health Care’s Office of Clinical Effectiveness with the goals of increasing institutional awareness, providing a second victim with a “safe zone,” and allowing for the expression of emotions and reactions in a confidential setting. Team members are multidisciplinary and include physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, social workers, and chaplains. They strive to normalize the feelings and thoughts second victims experience after a stressful outcome or event. Team members are highly trained in second-victim responses and the stages of coping. The program has established institutional actions to each of the 6 stages (FIGURE).¹⁹

Read on to learn how peer mentors are crucial to a support program

Establish TRUST

At the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Virginia, we too have developed a second-victim support program for all of our employees: TRUST. In the beginning stages, we quickly reaffirmed the challenges in developing such a program.

Initial challenges you will face. First, education on what a second victim is needs to be recognized. The fact that not everyone experiences second-victim emotions needs to be validated. Administrators and staff must be convinced that needing support is not a sign of weakness. And the program must ensure confidentiality and recruit mentors. These are just a few of the obstacles we faced on our path to program realization. Our journey to develop our second-victim program was approximately 5 years and required participation, affirmation, and support from all levels of the organization.

Our program name embodies its inherent purpose and goals. TRUST stands for:

• Treatment that is just. Second victims deserve the right of a presumption that their intentions were good, and should be able to depend on organizational leaders for integrity, fairness, just treatment, and shared accountability for outcomes.
• Respect. Second victims deserve respect and common decency and should not be blamed and shamed for human fallibility.
• Understanding and compassion. Second victims need compassionate help to grieve and heal.
• Supportive care. Second victims are entitled to psychological and support services that are delivered in a professional and organized way.
• Transparency and opportunity to contribute. Second victims have a right to participate in the learning gathered from the event, to share important causal information with the organization, and to be provided with an opportunity to heal by contributing to the prevention of future events.

Employ peer mentors, who serve a vital role

We have identified the need to develop a more direct and active approach to the TRUST program’s recruitment and established a subcommittee to begin this process. We began by asking leaders to nominate potential peer mentors and spoke about the program and asked for volunteers at various hospital committees. Once we had most disciplines represented, leaders were asked to take an assessment for emotional intelligence.

Other than the initial training for the TRUST program, the time requirement for participation for peer mentors is likely less than an hour per month. The dedicated time certainly is dependent on how much support the second victim is requiring, however, and varies. We encourage the peer supporters to be aware of their time constraints and establish parameters for the relationship in a direct but supportive way.

Since the inception of the TRUST Team in September 2014, we have trained 12 peer mentors, 10 of whom currently still serve in that capacity. We have 3 additional peers awaiting training. To date, The TRUST team has supported 19 clinicians/staff, including 3 ACPs, 9 nurses, 6 physicians, and 1 other (pharmacist). Of those 10, 3 are still actively receiving support so closing data have yet to be collected. Of the 16 who have been closed, 6 were referred for ongoing support and 10 were able to return to baseline with TRUST Team Supports.

Related article:
Who is liable when a surgical error occurs?

Just surviving the medical error is not the goal

Medical errors are inevitable, and the effects on providers can be devastating. It is important that physicians and institutions are aware of the signs and symptoms of a second victim as well as provide support to them. Institutions must have a just culture in which all members of the health care team can come forward with medical errors without the fear of punishment. Ideally, these institutions also have a second-victim support system that identifies those who need assistance and assist all health care clinicians not only to survive the effects of medical errors but also to thrive after receiving the necessary support.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

An estimated 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors. This is an attention-grabbing statistic—from the year 2000.¹ A recent study (published in 2016) reported that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States, ranking just behind heart disease and cancer.²

As expected, much has been done to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety as a result of these publications. Quality, safety, and outcomes are paramount, as evidenced by the Institute of Health Care Improvement’s “triple aim”: reduce cost of care, improve quality of care, and improve patient outcomes.³

While these 3 aims are of paramount importance, this article seeks to portray the “quadruple aim,” with an additional focus on physician well-being. Patients and their families (first victims) are not the only ones affected by medical errors. Clinicians are, too, and these effects can be devastating. Here I offer concrete strategies to support providers involved in medical errors, including tips on developing a formal support program. First, however, I describe the devastating effects medical errors can have on providers and the signs of a second victim.

Related article:
Medical errors: Caring for the second victim (you)

The scope of the problem

In 2000, it was Dr. Albert Wu’s publication in The British Medical Journal titled “Medical Error: The Second Victim” (the doctor who makes mistakes needs help too), that first addressed this important topic.⁴ In his article he shared a case of another house officer who missed signs of a pericardial tamponade and was judged incompetent by peers due to his mistake.

As physicians, we do not intrinsically support colleagues who have experienced a medical error. We all have taken, with pride and commitment, our Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm,” yet we are often held to standards of perfection by society, peers, and, above all, ourselves. Have technologic wonders and precise laboratory tests supplanted the adage “doctors are only human”? Dr. Wu also points out in this landmark essay his observation and dismay at the lack of empathy, sympathy, and compassion shown by peers when medical errors occur. All of these elements are needed for the healing of those involved to take place. If they are not provided, dysfunctional coping mechanisms ensue.⁴

Incidence of medical errors

Despite the Institute of Medicine report from 2000¹ and the recent study from Johns Hopkins,² determining the exact number of errors and incidents is not easy. Most data reporting is sparse. A prospective longitudinal study of perceived medical errors and resident distress estimated medical errors to be between 5% and 10% in hospitalized patients, but that it could be up to 50%.⁵ According to a 2005 study, approximately one-third of internal medicine residents report at least 1 major medical error during their 3 years of training, while 18% of multidisciplinary residents report an adverse event under their care in the previous week.⁶

Related article:
Medical errors: Meeting ethical obligations and reducing liability with proper communication

Who is at risk of becoming a second victim?

Any and all clinicians can become a second victim, and the state can be realized at varying points in the process of an experienced medical error. The circumstances of the initial error and the severity of the effect on the patient and/or the damaged physician−patient relationship can affect whether or not there is a second victim. A second victim also can emerge as a result of peers’ or colleagues’ comments and lack of empathy or support. Certainly a lawsuit can produce a second victim.⁷

How often do physicians become second victims?

The prevalence of second victims has a large variation in estimates. A 2006 study estimates a prevalence of 10.4%.⁸ In 2010, the estimate was 30%, and a prevalence of 43.3% was reported in 2000.^9,10 Regarding emotional distress within a year of a major adverse event, 30% of almost 900 providers reported these feelings.¹¹ Other studies note 50% of health care workers reported feelings consistent with those of a second victim.⁷

Next: What are the symptoms of a second victim?

The signs of, and long-lasting risks for, a second victim

Second victims are at risk for several well-documented symptoms, regardless of their stage of training, including⁶:

• depression (in fact, they have a 3-fold risk)
• decrease in overall quality of life
• increase in burnout
• increase in feelings of distress, guilt, and shame, which may be long lasting.

Health care providers as second victims also may experience shock and hopelessness, sleep disturbance, social avoidance, intrusive thoughts and nightmares, and poor memory and concentration. Interestingly, these emotions and reactions are indistinguishable from posttraumatic stress disorder. These continued symptoms can have short- and long-term implications for physicians, patients, and the health care organization.¹²

Next: How to support those affected by a medical error

How to support all of those affected by a medical error

Over the past decade or so, much attention has been paid to creating safer health systems, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction, and recognizing the needs of patients and families of first victims when medical errors occur. Much less has been done to acknowledge and address the needs of struggling clinicians.

Provide nurturing discussions and sympathy

Hospital systems do have embedded processes to review outcomes and medical errors, including, among others, peer review, quality improvement, morbidity and mortality review, and root cause analysis. Unfortunately, often a “name, blame, shame game” can result from the overall process, with certain individuals or groups of individuals singled out, and only worsen the incidence and effects of the second victim. Ideally, system processes for addressing medical errors should allow for an environment more focused on nurturing discussions to prevent error and recognize all the factors contributing to an error.

Of course in any outcome or error investigation, the goal is to identify what happened, what factors contributed to the incident, and what can be done to prevent future occurrences. The concern for the family as priority is understandable, as is the desire to prevent a lawsuit. The lack of attention and sympathy to the health care provider involved contributes to the second victim.⁷

It is all too easy to blame, even in a Just Culture. Deficiencies in sympathy and attention can occur without a system whose culture is focused on “name, blame, shame.” A Just Culture, as defined by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is one in which individuals come forward with a mistake without fear of punishment. Such a culture balances the need to learn from our mistakes and the need to have disciplinary action.¹³

David Marx, an outcomes engineer and author of “Whack a Mole: The Price We Pay for Expecting Perfection,” touts a Just Culture as one having the following sets of beliefs:

• recognition that professionals will make mistakes
• recognition that even professionals will develop unhealthy norms
• a fierce intolerance for reckless conduct.

He strongly asserts that human error be consoled while reckless behavior be punished.¹⁴ Punishing human error is a setup for the second victim.

Read on for tips to develop a coping program

Tips for developing a coping program

In 2009, Scott and colleagues described 6 stages of a second victim. These are:

• Stage 1: Chaos and event repair
• Stage 2: Intrusive thoughts, “what if”
• Stage 3: Restoring personal identity
• Stage 4: Enduring the inquisition
• Stage 5: Obtaining emotional first aid
• Stage 6: Moving on or dropping out; surviving and/or thriving

Throughout the stages, second victims look for support and share their experience of the medical error event, as well as their personal and professional impact of the error.¹⁵

A 2007 study that examined the emotional impact of medical errors on physicians revealed some startling data. A full 82% of physicians expressed interest in counseling to help cope with their distress. And 90% felt there was inadequate support at their hospitals or health care organizations for this distress.¹⁶

Use The Joint Commission’s toolkit

Unfortunately, there are only a few well-documented second-victim support programs in the United States, despite the growing evidence of the emotional distress that second victims experience. Many hospitals do not know how to develop or implement such a support system. Recognizing this challenge, The Joint Commission developed a toolkit to assist health care organizations in developing a second-victim program. The toolkit consists of 10 modules (TABLE) designed to assist organizations not only to implement a second-victim support process but also to customize it to their specific institutional culture. This toolkit can be downloaded for free or used online. Within the first year of its availability, over 6,000 people visited the website and there were more than 700 requests for a download.¹⁷

Follow forYOU’s example

An example and well-recognized second-victim support program is the “forYOU” team at the University of Missouri. The program is free to employees, confidential, and available 24-7. Its purpose is “providing care and support to our staff,” by helping members understand the phenomenon of the second victim and quickly returning members to a satisfying professional practice.¹⁸

The “forYOU” team was created in 2007 under the direction of the University of Missouri Health Care’s Office of Clinical Effectiveness with the goals of increasing institutional awareness, providing a second victim with a “safe zone,” and allowing for the expression of emotions and reactions in a confidential setting. Team members are multidisciplinary and include physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, social workers, and chaplains. They strive to normalize the feelings and thoughts second victims experience after a stressful outcome or event. Team members are highly trained in second-victim responses and the stages of coping. The program has established institutional actions to each of the 6 stages (FIGURE).¹⁹

Read on to learn how peer mentors are crucial to a support program

Establish TRUST

At the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Virginia, we too have developed a second-victim support program for all of our employees: TRUST. In the beginning stages, we quickly reaffirmed the challenges in developing such a program.

Initial challenges you will face. First, education on what a second victim is needs to be recognized. The fact that not everyone experiences second-victim emotions needs to be validated. Administrators and staff must be convinced that needing support is not a sign of weakness. And the program must ensure confidentiality and recruit mentors. These are just a few of the obstacles we faced on our path to program realization. Our journey to develop our second-victim program was approximately 5 years and required participation, affirmation, and support from all levels of the organization.

Our program name embodies its inherent purpose and goals. TRUST stands for:

• Treatment that is just. Second victims deserve the right of a presumption that their intentions were good, and should be able to depend on organizational leaders for integrity, fairness, just treatment, and shared accountability for outcomes.
• Respect. Second victims deserve respect and common decency and should not be blamed and shamed for human fallibility.
• Understanding and compassion. Second victims need compassionate help to grieve and heal.
• Supportive care. Second victims are entitled to psychological and support services that are delivered in a professional and organized way.
• Transparency and opportunity to contribute. Second victims have a right to participate in the learning gathered from the event, to share important causal information with the organization, and to be provided with an opportunity to heal by contributing to the prevention of future events.

Employ peer mentors, who serve a vital role

We have identified the need to develop a more direct and active approach to the TRUST program’s recruitment and established a subcommittee to begin this process. We began by asking leaders to nominate potential peer mentors and spoke about the program and asked for volunteers at various hospital committees. Once we had most disciplines represented, leaders were asked to take an assessment for emotional intelligence.

Other than the initial training for the TRUST program, the time requirement for participation for peer mentors is likely less than an hour per month. The dedicated time certainly is dependent on how much support the second victim is requiring, however, and varies. We encourage the peer supporters to be aware of their time constraints and establish parameters for the relationship in a direct but supportive way.

Since the inception of the TRUST Team in September 2014, we have trained 12 peer mentors, 10 of whom currently still serve in that capacity. We have 3 additional peers awaiting training. To date, The TRUST team has supported 19 clinicians/staff, including 3 ACPs, 9 nurses, 6 physicians, and 1 other (pharmacist). Of those 10, 3 are still actively receiving support so closing data have yet to be collected. Of the 16 who have been closed, 6 were referred for ongoing support and 10 were able to return to baseline with TRUST Team Supports.

Related article:
Who is liable when a surgical error occurs?

Just surviving the medical error is not the goal

Medical errors are inevitable, and the effects on providers can be devastating. It is important that physicians and institutions are aware of the signs and symptoms of a second victim as well as provide support to them. Institutions must have a just culture in which all members of the health care team can come forward with medical errors without the fear of punishment. Ideally, these institutions also have a second-victim support system that identifies those who need assistance and assist all health care clinicians not only to survive the effects of medical errors but also to thrive after receiving the necessary support.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

An estimated 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors. This is an attention-grabbing statistic—from the year 2000.¹ A recent study (published in 2016) reported that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States, ranking just behind heart disease and cancer.²

As expected, much has been done to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety as a result of these publications. Quality, safety, and outcomes are paramount, as evidenced by the Institute of Health Care Improvement’s “triple aim”: reduce cost of care, improve quality of care, and improve patient outcomes.³

While these 3 aims are of paramount importance, this article seeks to portray the “quadruple aim,” with an additional focus on physician well-being. Patients and their families (first victims) are not the only ones affected by medical errors. Clinicians are, too, and these effects can be devastating. Here I offer concrete strategies to support providers involved in medical errors, including tips on developing a formal support program. First, however, I describe the devastating effects medical errors can have on providers and the signs of a second victim.

Related article:
Medical errors: Caring for the second victim (you)

The scope of the problem

In 2000, it was Dr. Albert Wu’s publication in The British Medical Journal titled “Medical Error: The Second Victim” (the doctor who makes mistakes needs help too), that first addressed this important topic.⁴ In his article he shared a case of another house officer who missed signs of a pericardial tamponade and was judged incompetent by peers due to his mistake.

As physicians, we do not intrinsically support colleagues who have experienced a medical error. We all have taken, with pride and commitment, our Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm,” yet we are often held to standards of perfection by society, peers, and, above all, ourselves. Have technologic wonders and precise laboratory tests supplanted the adage “doctors are only human”? Dr. Wu also points out in this landmark essay his observation and dismay at the lack of empathy, sympathy, and compassion shown by peers when medical errors occur. All of these elements are needed for the healing of those involved to take place. If they are not provided, dysfunctional coping mechanisms ensue.⁴

Incidence of medical errors

Despite the Institute of Medicine report from 2000¹ and the recent study from Johns Hopkins,² determining the exact number of errors and incidents is not easy. Most data reporting is sparse. A prospective longitudinal study of perceived medical errors and resident distress estimated medical errors to be between 5% and 10% in hospitalized patients, but that it could be up to 50%.⁵ According to a 2005 study, approximately one-third of internal medicine residents report at least 1 major medical error during their 3 years of training, while 18% of multidisciplinary residents report an adverse event under their care in the previous week.⁶

Related article:
Medical errors: Meeting ethical obligations and reducing liability with proper communication

Who is at risk of becoming a second victim?

Any and all clinicians can become a second victim, and the state can be realized at varying points in the process of an experienced medical error. The circumstances of the initial error and the severity of the effect on the patient and/or the damaged physician−patient relationship can affect whether or not there is a second victim. A second victim also can emerge as a result of peers’ or colleagues’ comments and lack of empathy or support. Certainly a lawsuit can produce a second victim.⁷

How often do physicians become second victims?

The prevalence of second victims has a large variation in estimates. A 2006 study estimates a prevalence of 10.4%.⁸ In 2010, the estimate was 30%, and a prevalence of 43.3% was reported in 2000.^9,10 Regarding emotional distress within a year of a major adverse event, 30% of almost 900 providers reported these feelings.¹¹ Other studies note 50% of health care workers reported feelings consistent with those of a second victim.⁷

Next: What are the symptoms of a second victim?

The signs of, and long-lasting risks for, a second victim

Second victims are at risk for several well-documented symptoms, regardless of their stage of training, including⁶:

• depression (in fact, they have a 3-fold risk)
• decrease in overall quality of life
• increase in burnout
• increase in feelings of distress, guilt, and shame, which may be long lasting.

Health care providers as second victims also may experience shock and hopelessness, sleep disturbance, social avoidance, intrusive thoughts and nightmares, and poor memory and concentration. Interestingly, these emotions and reactions are indistinguishable from posttraumatic stress disorder. These continued symptoms can have short- and long-term implications for physicians, patients, and the health care organization.¹²

Next: How to support those affected by a medical error

How to support all of those affected by a medical error

Over the past decade or so, much attention has been paid to creating safer health systems, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction, and recognizing the needs of patients and families of first victims when medical errors occur. Much less has been done to acknowledge and address the needs of struggling clinicians.

Provide nurturing discussions and sympathy

Hospital systems do have embedded processes to review outcomes and medical errors, including, among others, peer review, quality improvement, morbidity and mortality review, and root cause analysis. Unfortunately, often a “name, blame, shame game” can result from the overall process, with certain individuals or groups of individuals singled out, and only worsen the incidence and effects of the second victim. Ideally, system processes for addressing medical errors should allow for an environment more focused on nurturing discussions to prevent error and recognize all the factors contributing to an error.

Of course in any outcome or error investigation, the goal is to identify what happened, what factors contributed to the incident, and what can be done to prevent future occurrences. The concern for the family as priority is understandable, as is the desire to prevent a lawsuit. The lack of attention and sympathy to the health care provider involved contributes to the second victim.⁷

It is all too easy to blame, even in a Just Culture. Deficiencies in sympathy and attention can occur without a system whose culture is focused on “name, blame, shame.” A Just Culture, as defined by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is one in which individuals come forward with a mistake without fear of punishment. Such a culture balances the need to learn from our mistakes and the need to have disciplinary action.¹³

David Marx, an outcomes engineer and author of “Whack a Mole: The Price We Pay for Expecting Perfection,” touts a Just Culture as one having the following sets of beliefs:

• recognition that professionals will make mistakes
• recognition that even professionals will develop unhealthy norms
• a fierce intolerance for reckless conduct.

He strongly asserts that human error be consoled while reckless behavior be punished.¹⁴ Punishing human error is a setup for the second victim.

Read on for tips to develop a coping program

Tips for developing a coping program

In 2009, Scott and colleagues described 6 stages of a second victim. These are:

• Stage 1: Chaos and event repair
• Stage 2: Intrusive thoughts, “what if”
• Stage 3: Restoring personal identity
• Stage 4: Enduring the inquisition
• Stage 5: Obtaining emotional first aid
• Stage 6: Moving on or dropping out; surviving and/or thriving

Throughout the stages, second victims look for support and share their experience of the medical error event, as well as their personal and professional impact of the error.¹⁵

A 2007 study that examined the emotional impact of medical errors on physicians revealed some startling data. A full 82% of physicians expressed interest in counseling to help cope with their distress. And 90% felt there was inadequate support at their hospitals or health care organizations for this distress.¹⁶

Use The Joint Commission’s toolkit

Unfortunately, there are only a few well-documented second-victim support programs in the United States, despite the growing evidence of the emotional distress that second victims experience. Many hospitals do not know how to develop or implement such a support system. Recognizing this challenge, The Joint Commission developed a toolkit to assist health care organizations in developing a second-victim program. The toolkit consists of 10 modules (TABLE) designed to assist organizations not only to implement a second-victim support process but also to customize it to their specific institutional culture. This toolkit can be downloaded for free or used online. Within the first year of its availability, over 6,000 people visited the website and there were more than 700 requests for a download.¹⁷

Follow forYOU’s example

An example and well-recognized second-victim support program is the “forYOU” team at the University of Missouri. The program is free to employees, confidential, and available 24-7. Its purpose is “providing care and support to our staff,” by helping members understand the phenomenon of the second victim and quickly returning members to a satisfying professional practice.¹⁸

The “forYOU” team was created in 2007 under the direction of the University of Missouri Health Care’s Office of Clinical Effectiveness with the goals of increasing institutional awareness, providing a second victim with a “safe zone,” and allowing for the expression of emotions and reactions in a confidential setting. Team members are multidisciplinary and include physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, social workers, and chaplains. They strive to normalize the feelings and thoughts second victims experience after a stressful outcome or event. Team members are highly trained in second-victim responses and the stages of coping. The program has established institutional actions to each of the 6 stages (FIGURE).¹⁹

Read on to learn how peer mentors are crucial to a support program

Establish TRUST

At the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Virginia, we too have developed a second-victim support program for all of our employees: TRUST. In the beginning stages, we quickly reaffirmed the challenges in developing such a program.

Initial challenges you will face. First, education on what a second victim is needs to be recognized. The fact that not everyone experiences second-victim emotions needs to be validated. Administrators and staff must be convinced that needing support is not a sign of weakness. And the program must ensure confidentiality and recruit mentors. These are just a few of the obstacles we faced on our path to program realization. Our journey to develop our second-victim program was approximately 5 years and required participation, affirmation, and support from all levels of the organization.

Our program name embodies its inherent purpose and goals. TRUST stands for:

• Treatment that is just. Second victims deserve the right of a presumption that their intentions were good, and should be able to depend on organizational leaders for integrity, fairness, just treatment, and shared accountability for outcomes.
• Respect. Second victims deserve respect and common decency and should not be blamed and shamed for human fallibility.
• Understanding and compassion. Second victims need compassionate help to grieve and heal.
• Supportive care. Second victims are entitled to psychological and support services that are delivered in a professional and organized way.
• Transparency and opportunity to contribute. Second victims have a right to participate in the learning gathered from the event, to share important causal information with the organization, and to be provided with an opportunity to heal by contributing to the prevention of future events.

Employ peer mentors, who serve a vital role

We have identified the need to develop a more direct and active approach to the TRUST program’s recruitment and established a subcommittee to begin this process. We began by asking leaders to nominate potential peer mentors and spoke about the program and asked for volunteers at various hospital committees. Once we had most disciplines represented, leaders were asked to take an assessment for emotional intelligence.

Other than the initial training for the TRUST program, the time requirement for participation for peer mentors is likely less than an hour per month. The dedicated time certainly is dependent on how much support the second victim is requiring, however, and varies. We encourage the peer supporters to be aware of their time constraints and establish parameters for the relationship in a direct but supportive way.

Since the inception of the TRUST Team in September 2014, we have trained 12 peer mentors, 10 of whom currently still serve in that capacity. We have 3 additional peers awaiting training. To date, The TRUST team has supported 19 clinicians/staff, including 3 ACPs, 9 nurses, 6 physicians, and 1 other (pharmacist). Of those 10, 3 are still actively receiving support so closing data have yet to be collected. Of the 16 who have been closed, 6 were referred for ongoing support and 10 were able to return to baseline with TRUST Team Supports.

Related article:
Who is liable when a surgical error occurs?

Just surviving the medical error is not the goal

Medical errors are inevitable, and the effects on providers can be devastating. It is important that physicians and institutions are aware of the signs and symptoms of a second victim as well as provide support to them. Institutions must have a just culture in which all members of the health care team can come forward with medical errors without the fear of punishment. Ideally, these institutions also have a second-victim support system that identifies those who need assistance and assist all health care clinicians not only to survive the effects of medical errors but also to thrive after receiving the necessary support.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Since writing about the new MACRA bureaucracy, and the Morton’s Choice facing private practitioners between Scylla (the Merit-based Incentive Payment System) and Charybdis (the still largely undefined Alternate Payment Models), a question I’ve been hearing with increasing frequency is whether it wouldn’t be better to simply opt out of Medicare participation entirely.

It is easy to see why more and more physicians are asking that question. Although the incoming administration has promised significant (but largely unspecified) changes to the health care system – as I wrote last month – reimbursements continue to decrease, onerous regulations continue to increase, and there is no evidence to suggest that either of those trends will change anytime soon. That leaves many physicians wondering whether their continued participation with Medicare (and Medicaid, for those who accept it) is ultimately worth it.

1. Notify your patients that you will be opting out by a specific date, which should be the first day of a calendar quarter.

2. File an affidavit (available at CMS.gov) with your local Medicare carrier at least 30 days before your opt-out date.

3. Draft and post a fee schedule.

4. Draft a private contract to be signed by all Medicare beneficiaries, covering all services that would normally be covered by Medicare. Be sure to run it past your attorney.

5. Install procedures to ensure that your office never files a Medicare claim, and never provides information to enable a patient to file a Medicare claim. The two exceptions – for emergency care, and for covered services that Medicare would deem unnecessary – should be used sparingly, and with caution.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Since writing about the new MACRA bureaucracy, and the Morton’s Choice facing private practitioners between Scylla (the Merit-based Incentive Payment System) and Charybdis (the still largely undefined Alternate Payment Models), a question I’ve been hearing with increasing frequency is whether it wouldn’t be better to simply opt out of Medicare participation entirely.

It is easy to see why more and more physicians are asking that question. Although the incoming administration has promised significant (but largely unspecified) changes to the health care system – as I wrote last month – reimbursements continue to decrease, onerous regulations continue to increase, and there is no evidence to suggest that either of those trends will change anytime soon. That leaves many physicians wondering whether their continued participation with Medicare (and Medicaid, for those who accept it) is ultimately worth it.

1. Notify your patients that you will be opting out by a specific date, which should be the first day of a calendar quarter.

2. File an affidavit (available at CMS.gov) with your local Medicare carrier at least 30 days before your opt-out date.

3. Draft and post a fee schedule.

4. Draft a private contract to be signed by all Medicare beneficiaries, covering all services that would normally be covered by Medicare. Be sure to run it past your attorney.

5. Install procedures to ensure that your office never files a Medicare claim, and never provides information to enable a patient to file a Medicare claim. The two exceptions – for emergency care, and for covered services that Medicare would deem unnecessary – should be used sparingly, and with caution.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Since writing about the new MACRA bureaucracy, and the Morton’s Choice facing private practitioners between Scylla (the Merit-based Incentive Payment System) and Charybdis (the still largely undefined Alternate Payment Models), a question I’ve been hearing with increasing frequency is whether it wouldn’t be better to simply opt out of Medicare participation entirely.

It is easy to see why more and more physicians are asking that question. Although the incoming administration has promised significant (but largely unspecified) changes to the health care system – as I wrote last month – reimbursements continue to decrease, onerous regulations continue to increase, and there is no evidence to suggest that either of those trends will change anytime soon. That leaves many physicians wondering whether their continued participation with Medicare (and Medicaid, for those who accept it) is ultimately worth it.

1. Notify your patients that you will be opting out by a specific date, which should be the first day of a calendar quarter.

2. File an affidavit (available at CMS.gov) with your local Medicare carrier at least 30 days before your opt-out date.

3. Draft and post a fee schedule.

4. Draft a private contract to be signed by all Medicare beneficiaries, covering all services that would normally be covered by Medicare. Be sure to run it past your attorney.

5. Install procedures to ensure that your office never files a Medicare claim, and never provides information to enable a patient to file a Medicare claim. The two exceptions – for emergency care, and for covered services that Medicare would deem unnecessary – should be used sparingly, and with caution.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As a hospitalist, caring for critically ill or injured patients can be stressful and demanding. Working with difficult doctors, those who exhibit intimidating and disruptive behaviors such as verbal outbursts and physical threats as well as passive activities such as refusing to perform assigned tasks, can make the work environment even more challenging.1 Some docs are routinely reluctant—or refuse—to answer questions or return phone calls or pages. Some communicate in condescending language or voice intonation; some are brutally impatient.1

The most difficult doctors to work with are those who are not aligned with the hospital’s or treatment team’s goals and those who aren’t open to feedback and coaching, says Rob Zipper, MD, MMM, SFHM, regional chief medical officer of Sound Physicians, based in Tacoma, Wash.

“If physicians are aware of a practice’s guidelines and goals but simply won’t comply with them, it makes it harder on everyone else who is pulling the ship in the same direction,” he says.

Unruly physicians don’t just annoy their coworkers. According to a sentinel event alert from The Joint Commission, they can:

• foster medical errors;
• contribute to poor patient satisfaction;
• contribute to preventable adverse outcomes;
• increase the cost of care;
• undermine team effectiveness; and
• cause qualified clinicians, administrators, and managers to seek new positions in more professional environments.1

“These issues are all connected,” says Stephen R. Nichols, MD, chief of clinical operations performance at the Schumacher Group in Brownwood, Texas. “Disruptive behaviors create mitigated communications and dissatisfaction among staff, which bleeds over into other aspects that are involved secondarily.”

Stephen M. Paskoff, Esq., president and CEO of ELI in Atlanta, can attest to the most severe consequences of bad behavior on patient care.

At one institution, a surgeon’s disruptive behavior lead to a coworker forgetting to perform a procedure and a patient dying.2 In another incident, the emergency department stopped calling on a medical subspecialist who was predictably abusive. The subspecialist knew how to treat a specific patient with an unusual intervention. Since the specialist was not consulted initially, the patient ended up in the intensive care unit.2

One bad hospitalist can bring down the reputation of an entire team.

“Many programs are incentivized based on medical staff and primary-care physicians’ perceptions of their care, so there are direct and indirect consequences,” Dr. Zipper says.

The bottom line, says Felix Aguirre, MD, SFHM, vice president of medical affairs at IPC Healthcare in North Hollywood, Calif., is that it only takes one bad experience to tarnish a group, but it takes many positive experiences to erase the damage.

The Roots of Evil

Intimidating and disruptive behavior stems from both individual and systemic factors. Care providers who exhibit characteristics such as self-centeredness, immaturity, or defensiveness can be more prone to unprofessional behavior. They can lack interpersonal, coping, or conflict-management skills.1

Systemic factors are marked by pressures related to increased productivity demands, cost-containment requirements, embedded hierarchies, and fear of litigation in the healthcare environment. These pressures can be further exacerbated by changes to or differences in the authority, autonomy, empowerment, and roles or values of professionals on the healthcare team as well as by the continual daily changes in shifts, rotations, and interdepartmental support staff. This dynamic creates challenges for interprofessional communication and development of trust among team members.1

According to The Joint Commission, intimidating and disruptive behaviors are often manifested by healthcare professionals in positions of power.1 But other members of the care team can be problematic as well.

“In my experience, conflicts usually revolve around different perspectives and objectives, even if both parties are acting respectfully,” Dr. Zipper says. “Sometimes, however, providers or other care team members are tired or stressed and don’t behave professionally.”

Paskoff, who has more than 40 years of experience in healthcare-related workplace issues, including serving as an investigator for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, says some doctors learn bad behaviors from their mentors and that behaviors can be passed down through generations because they are tolerated.

“When I asked one physician who had outstanding training and an outstanding technical reputation how he became abusive, he said, ‘I learned from the best.’” Paskoff was actually able to track the doctor’s training to the late 1800s and physicians who were known for similar behaviors.

Confronting Those Who Misbehave

Dr. Zipper says physicians should confront behavioral issues directly.

“I will typically discuss a complaint with a doctor privately, and ask him or her what happened without being accusatory,” he says. “I try to provide as much concrete and objective information as I can. The doctor needs to know that you are trying to help him or her succeed. That said, if something is clearly bad behavior, feedback should be direct and include a statement such as, ‘This is not how we behave in this practice.’”

At times, it may not be possible to discuss an emergent matter, such as during a code blue.

“However, I will often ask if anyone on the code team has any ideas or concerns before ending the code,” Dr. Nichols says. “Then after the critical time has passed, it is important to debrief and reconnect with the team, especially the less-experienced members who may have lingering concerns.”

For many employees, however, it is difficult to report disruptive behaviors. This is due to a fear of retaliation and the stigma associated with “blowing the whistle” on a colleague as well as a general reluctance to confront an intimidator.1

If an employee cannot muster the courage to confront a disruptive coworker or if the issue isn’t resolved by talking with the difficult individual, an employee should be a good citizen and report bad behavior to the appropriate hospital authority in a timely manner, says A. Kevin Troutman, Esq., a partner at Fisher Phillips in Houston and a former healthcare human resources executive.

Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission are required to create a code of conduct that defines disruptive and inappropriate behaviors. In addition, leaders must create and implement a process for managing these behaviors.1

Helping Difficult Doctors

After a physician or another employee has been called out for bad behavior, steps need to be taken to correct the problem. Robert Fuller, Esq., an attorney with Nelson Hardiman, LLP, in Los Angeles, has found a positive-oriented intervention called “the 3-Ds”—which stands for diagnose, design, and do—that has been a successful tool for achieving positive change. The strategy involves a supervisor and employee mutually developing a worksheet to diagnose the problem. Next, they design a remediation and improvement plan. Finally, they implement the plan and specify dates to achieve certain milestones. Coworkers should be informed of the plan and be urged to support it.

“Make it clear that the positive aspect of this plan turns to progressive discipline, including termination, if the employee doesn’t improve or abandons the plan of action,” Fuller says. In most cases, troublemakers will make a sincere effort to control disruptive tendencies.

Troutman suggests enlisting the assistance of a respected peer.

“Have a senior-level doctor help the noncompliant physician understand why his or her behavior creates problems for everyone, including the doctor himself,” he says. “Also, consider connecting compensation and other rewards to job performance, which encompasses good behavior and good citizenship within the organization. Make expectations and consequences clear.”

If an employee has a recent change in behavior, ask if there is a reason.

“It is my experience that sudden changes in behaviors are often the result of a personal or clinical issue, so it is important and humane to make certain that there is not some other cause for the change before assuming someone is simply being disruptive or difficult,” Dr. Nichols says.

Many healthcare institutions are now setting up centers of professionalism. Paskoff reports that The Center for Professionalism and Peer Support (CPPS) was created in 2008 at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston to educate the hospital community regarding professionalism and manage unprofessional behavior.3 CPPS has established standards of behavior and a framework to deal with difficult behaviors.

“An employee is told what he or she is doing wrong, receives counseling, and is given resources to improve,” he explains. “If an employee doesn’t improve, he or she is told that the behavior won’t be tolerated.”

Dismissing Bad Employees

After addressing the specifics of unacceptable behavior and explaining the consequences of repeating it, leadership should monitor subsequent conduct and provide feedback.

“If the employee commits other violations or behaves badly, promptly address the misconduct again and make it clear that further such actions will not be tolerated,” Troutman says. “Expect immediate and sustained improvement and compliance. Be consistent, and if bad conduct continues after an opportunity to improve, do not prolong anyone’s suffering. Instead, terminate the disruptive employee. When you do, make the reasons clear.”

Karen Appold is a medical writer in Pennsylvania.

References

1. Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. The Joint Commission website. Accessed April 17, 2015.
2. Whittemore AD, New England Society for Vascular Surgery. The impact of professionalism on safe surgical care. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(2):415-419.
3. Shapiro J, Whittemore A, Tsen LC. Instituting a culture of professionalism: the establishment of a center for professionalism and peer support. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40(4):168-177.

Are Behaviors Getting Better or Worse?

The Joint Commission issued a sentinel event alert1 on July 9, 2008, as a result of continuous reports to the commission’s Office of Quality and Patient Safety about disruptive behavior. Despite efforts to prevent employees from behaving badly, Ronald Wyatt, MD, MHA, medical director of the Division of Healthcare Improvement, says there is no evidence that the number of instances of bad behavior is decreasing.

According to a 2013 Institute for Safe Medication Practices survey with 4,884 respondents:2

• 73% reported encountering negative comments about colleagues or leaders during the previous year.
• 68% reported condescending language or demeaning comments or insults.
• 77% said they had encountered reluctance or refusal to answer questions or return calls.
• 69% reported they had encountered impatience with questions or hanging up the phone.

In addition, in a 2011 survey of more than 500 physician leaders and more than 300 staff physicians, 71 percent of respondents stated they had witnessed some type of disruptive behavior within the previous month, while 26 percent stated that they had been disruptive at one point in their career.3

Despite the gloomy news, Dr. Wyatt says, “There is increased awareness of disruptive behaviors, and they are being reported more often than in the past.”

As a former chief of medicine at a hospital, Dr. Wyatt says the lack of improvement could be due to hospital leadership.

“This is a critical piece to having a sound patient safety system,” he says.

In order for bad behaviors to improve, hospital leadership needs to be committed to creating a culture of safety. This would involve answering “yes” to the following questions:

• Does staff feel safe to report disruptive behaviors, and will leadership act on those reports?
• Is leadership committed to decreasing these types of behaviors?
• Is there a reporting system in place, and is it being used, monitored, and acted on?
• Can leadership step in and enforce the process if physicians aren’t complying?
• Is a model in place if intervention is necessary?

According to Dr. Wyatt, data show that one intervention is usually enough for most physicians to cease bad behaviors, but a small portion will persist.4

Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission can contact the organization for a template regarding a policy for disruptive behaviors. Some consultants can also provide this.

—Karen Appold

References

1. Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. The Joint Commission website. Accessed April 17, 2015.
2. Patient safety systems. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. The Joint Commission. January 1, 2015:7-8.
3. MacDonald O. Disruptive physician behavior. Quantia Communications, Inc.: Waltham, MA. May 15, 2011.
4. Pichert JW, Moore IN, Karrass J, et al. An intervention model that promotes accountability: peer messengers and patient/family complaints. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(10):435-446.

Proceed with Caution When Hiring Staff

Ideally, an institution won’t hire someone with intimidating and disruptive behavior in the first place. But this is always easier said than done.

In an effort to select and hire the best employees, it is important during the interview process to ask many questions about a candidate’s prior experiences and previous bosses as well as what the employee perceives to be good behavior and reasonable expectations.

“Listen for victim-like responses and criticisms of prior supervisors or employers,” says A. Kevin Troutman, Esq., a partner at Fisher Phillips in Houston and a former healthcare human resources executive. “Such responses are red flags that may help predict how the applicant will work out in your organization.”

Stephen M. Paskoff, Esq., president and CEO of ELI in Atlanta, says it’s best for the candidate to have interviews with multiple staff members in different ranks.

“Sometimes people will show a different side if he or she perceives someone as unimportant or someone that he or she could boss around,” he says. “The interview can be very telling if the applicant is a cultural fit or not.”

Carefully check a candidate’s previous training and employment records. It can be difficult, however, to decipher whether a potential employee will indeed be a good choice because prior employers almost uniformly refuse to provide more than someone’s position and dates of employment when references are checked, says Robert Fuller, Esq., an attorney with Nelson Hardiman, LLP, in Los Angeles.

Consequently, Fuller recommends that hospitals have very specific probation policies, allowing for termination for any reason within the first 90 days of employment and active supervision of new employees to ensure that no red flags are raised within that time frame.

If someone was fired from a previous job, use extra caution in making a hiring decision. Paskoff advises considering the facts: What was the person fired for? What do his or her records look like?

“Just because someone was fired, you shouldn’t dismiss him or her, but know what he or she was fired for and how well the firing was documented and investigated,” he says.

Fuller advises differently.

“If proper policies were followed and the employee failed to comport with improvement recommendations, he or she is not going to be any different the second time around,” he says.

Although the job interview process can be lengthy, “don’t take any shortcuts,” Paskoff says. You may end up costing an organization a lot more than time if you do.

—Karen Appold

As a hospitalist, caring for critically ill or injured patients can be stressful and demanding. Working with difficult doctors, those who exhibit intimidating and disruptive behaviors such as verbal outbursts and physical threats as well as passive activities such as refusing to perform assigned tasks, can make the work environment even more challenging.1 Some docs are routinely reluctant—or refuse—to answer questions or return phone calls or pages. Some communicate in condescending language or voice intonation; some are brutally impatient.1

The most difficult doctors to work with are those who are not aligned with the hospital’s or treatment team’s goals and those who aren’t open to feedback and coaching, says Rob Zipper, MD, MMM, SFHM, regional chief medical officer of Sound Physicians, based in Tacoma, Wash.

“If physicians are aware of a practice’s guidelines and goals but simply won’t comply with them, it makes it harder on everyone else who is pulling the ship in the same direction,” he says.

Unruly physicians don’t just annoy their coworkers. According to a sentinel event alert from The Joint Commission, they can:

• foster medical errors;
• contribute to poor patient satisfaction;
• contribute to preventable adverse outcomes;
• increase the cost of care;
• undermine team effectiveness; and
• cause qualified clinicians, administrators, and managers to seek new positions in more professional environments.1

“These issues are all connected,” says Stephen R. Nichols, MD, chief of clinical operations performance at the Schumacher Group in Brownwood, Texas. “Disruptive behaviors create mitigated communications and dissatisfaction among staff, which bleeds over into other aspects that are involved secondarily.”

Stephen M. Paskoff, Esq., president and CEO of ELI in Atlanta, can attest to the most severe consequences of bad behavior on patient care.

At one institution, a surgeon’s disruptive behavior lead to a coworker forgetting to perform a procedure and a patient dying.2 In another incident, the emergency department stopped calling on a medical subspecialist who was predictably abusive. The subspecialist knew how to treat a specific patient with an unusual intervention. Since the specialist was not consulted initially, the patient ended up in the intensive care unit.2

One bad hospitalist can bring down the reputation of an entire team.

“Many programs are incentivized based on medical staff and primary-care physicians’ perceptions of their care, so there are direct and indirect consequences,” Dr. Zipper says.

The bottom line, says Felix Aguirre, MD, SFHM, vice president of medical affairs at IPC Healthcare in North Hollywood, Calif., is that it only takes one bad experience to tarnish a group, but it takes many positive experiences to erase the damage.

The Roots of Evil

Intimidating and disruptive behavior stems from both individual and systemic factors. Care providers who exhibit characteristics such as self-centeredness, immaturity, or defensiveness can be more prone to unprofessional behavior. They can lack interpersonal, coping, or conflict-management skills.1

Systemic factors are marked by pressures related to increased productivity demands, cost-containment requirements, embedded hierarchies, and fear of litigation in the healthcare environment. These pressures can be further exacerbated by changes to or differences in the authority, autonomy, empowerment, and roles or values of professionals on the healthcare team as well as by the continual daily changes in shifts, rotations, and interdepartmental support staff. This dynamic creates challenges for interprofessional communication and development of trust among team members.1

According to The Joint Commission, intimidating and disruptive behaviors are often manifested by healthcare professionals in positions of power.1 But other members of the care team can be problematic as well.

“In my experience, conflicts usually revolve around different perspectives and objectives, even if both parties are acting respectfully,” Dr. Zipper says. “Sometimes, however, providers or other care team members are tired or stressed and don’t behave professionally.”

Paskoff, who has more than 40 years of experience in healthcare-related workplace issues, including serving as an investigator for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, says some doctors learn bad behaviors from their mentors and that behaviors can be passed down through generations because they are tolerated.

“When I asked one physician who had outstanding training and an outstanding technical reputation how he became abusive, he said, ‘I learned from the best.’” Paskoff was actually able to track the doctor’s training to the late 1800s and physicians who were known for similar behaviors.

Confronting Those Who Misbehave

Dr. Zipper says physicians should confront behavioral issues directly.

“I will typically discuss a complaint with a doctor privately, and ask him or her what happened without being accusatory,” he says. “I try to provide as much concrete and objective information as I can. The doctor needs to know that you are trying to help him or her succeed. That said, if something is clearly bad behavior, feedback should be direct and include a statement such as, ‘This is not how we behave in this practice.’”

At times, it may not be possible to discuss an emergent matter, such as during a code blue.

“However, I will often ask if anyone on the code team has any ideas or concerns before ending the code,” Dr. Nichols says. “Then after the critical time has passed, it is important to debrief and reconnect with the team, especially the less-experienced members who may have lingering concerns.”

For many employees, however, it is difficult to report disruptive behaviors. This is due to a fear of retaliation and the stigma associated with “blowing the whistle” on a colleague as well as a general reluctance to confront an intimidator.1

If an employee cannot muster the courage to confront a disruptive coworker or if the issue isn’t resolved by talking with the difficult individual, an employee should be a good citizen and report bad behavior to the appropriate hospital authority in a timely manner, says A. Kevin Troutman, Esq., a partner at Fisher Phillips in Houston and a former healthcare human resources executive.

Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission are required to create a code of conduct that defines disruptive and inappropriate behaviors. In addition, leaders must create and implement a process for managing these behaviors.1

Helping Difficult Doctors

After a physician or another employee has been called out for bad behavior, steps need to be taken to correct the problem. Robert Fuller, Esq., an attorney with Nelson Hardiman, LLP, in Los Angeles, has found a positive-oriented intervention called “the 3-Ds”—which stands for diagnose, design, and do—that has been a successful tool for achieving positive change. The strategy involves a supervisor and employee mutually developing a worksheet to diagnose the problem. Next, they design a remediation and improvement plan. Finally, they implement the plan and specify dates to achieve certain milestones. Coworkers should be informed of the plan and be urged to support it.

“Make it clear that the positive aspect of this plan turns to progressive discipline, including termination, if the employee doesn’t improve or abandons the plan of action,” Fuller says. In most cases, troublemakers will make a sincere effort to control disruptive tendencies.

Troutman suggests enlisting the assistance of a respected peer.

“Have a senior-level doctor help the noncompliant physician understand why his or her behavior creates problems for everyone, including the doctor himself,” he says. “Also, consider connecting compensation and other rewards to job performance, which encompasses good behavior and good citizenship within the organization. Make expectations and consequences clear.”

If an employee has a recent change in behavior, ask if there is a reason.

“It is my experience that sudden changes in behaviors are often the result of a personal or clinical issue, so it is important and humane to make certain that there is not some other cause for the change before assuming someone is simply being disruptive or difficult,” Dr. Nichols says.

Many healthcare institutions are now setting up centers of professionalism. Paskoff reports that The Center for Professionalism and Peer Support (CPPS) was created in 2008 at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston to educate the hospital community regarding professionalism and manage unprofessional behavior.3 CPPS has established standards of behavior and a framework to deal with difficult behaviors.

“An employee is told what he or she is doing wrong, receives counseling, and is given resources to improve,” he explains. “If an employee doesn’t improve, he or she is told that the behavior won’t be tolerated.”

Dismissing Bad Employees

After addressing the specifics of unacceptable behavior and explaining the consequences of repeating it, leadership should monitor subsequent conduct and provide feedback.

“If the employee commits other violations or behaves badly, promptly address the misconduct again and make it clear that further such actions will not be tolerated,” Troutman says. “Expect immediate and sustained improvement and compliance. Be consistent, and if bad conduct continues after an opportunity to improve, do not prolong anyone’s suffering. Instead, terminate the disruptive employee. When you do, make the reasons clear.”

Karen Appold is a medical writer in Pennsylvania.

References

1. Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. The Joint Commission website. Accessed April 17, 2015.
2. Whittemore AD, New England Society for Vascular Surgery. The impact of professionalism on safe surgical care. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(2):415-419.
3. Shapiro J, Whittemore A, Tsen LC. Instituting a culture of professionalism: the establishment of a center for professionalism and peer support. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40(4):168-177.

Are Behaviors Getting Better or Worse?

The Joint Commission issued a sentinel event alert1 on July 9, 2008, as a result of continuous reports to the commission’s Office of Quality and Patient Safety about disruptive behavior. Despite efforts to prevent employees from behaving badly, Ronald Wyatt, MD, MHA, medical director of the Division of Healthcare Improvement, says there is no evidence that the number of instances of bad behavior is decreasing.

According to a 2013 Institute for Safe Medication Practices survey with 4,884 respondents:2

• 73% reported encountering negative comments about colleagues or leaders during the previous year.
• 68% reported condescending language or demeaning comments or insults.
• 77% said they had encountered reluctance or refusal to answer questions or return calls.
• 69% reported they had encountered impatience with questions or hanging up the phone.

In addition, in a 2011 survey of more than 500 physician leaders and more than 300 staff physicians, 71 percent of respondents stated they had witnessed some type of disruptive behavior within the previous month, while 26 percent stated that they had been disruptive at one point in their career.3

Despite the gloomy news, Dr. Wyatt says, “There is increased awareness of disruptive behaviors, and they are being reported more often than in the past.”

As a former chief of medicine at a hospital, Dr. Wyatt says the lack of improvement could be due to hospital leadership.

“This is a critical piece to having a sound patient safety system,” he says.

In order for bad behaviors to improve, hospital leadership needs to be committed to creating a culture of safety. This would involve answering “yes” to the following questions:

• Does staff feel safe to report disruptive behaviors, and will leadership act on those reports?
• Is leadership committed to decreasing these types of behaviors?
• Is there a reporting system in place, and is it being used, monitored, and acted on?
• Can leadership step in and enforce the process if physicians aren’t complying?
• Is a model in place if intervention is necessary?

According to Dr. Wyatt, data show that one intervention is usually enough for most physicians to cease bad behaviors, but a small portion will persist.4

Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission can contact the organization for a template regarding a policy for disruptive behaviors. Some consultants can also provide this.

—Karen Appold

References

1. Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. The Joint Commission website. Accessed April 17, 2015.
2. Patient safety systems. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. The Joint Commission. January 1, 2015:7-8.
3. MacDonald O. Disruptive physician behavior. Quantia Communications, Inc.: Waltham, MA. May 15, 2011.
4. Pichert JW, Moore IN, Karrass J, et al. An intervention model that promotes accountability: peer messengers and patient/family complaints. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(10):435-446.

Proceed with Caution When Hiring Staff

Ideally, an institution won’t hire someone with intimidating and disruptive behavior in the first place. But this is always easier said than done.

In an effort to select and hire the best employees, it is important during the interview process to ask many questions about a candidate’s prior experiences and previous bosses as well as what the employee perceives to be good behavior and reasonable expectations.

“Listen for victim-like responses and criticisms of prior supervisors or employers,” says A. Kevin Troutman, Esq., a partner at Fisher Phillips in Houston and a former healthcare human resources executive. “Such responses are red flags that may help predict how the applicant will work out in your organization.”

Stephen M. Paskoff, Esq., president and CEO of ELI in Atlanta, says it’s best for the candidate to have interviews with multiple staff members in different ranks.

“Sometimes people will show a different side if he or she perceives someone as unimportant or someone that he or she could boss around,” he says. “The interview can be very telling if the applicant is a cultural fit or not.”

Carefully check a candidate’s previous training and employment records. It can be difficult, however, to decipher whether a potential employee will indeed be a good choice because prior employers almost uniformly refuse to provide more than someone’s position and dates of employment when references are checked, says Robert Fuller, Esq., an attorney with Nelson Hardiman, LLP, in Los Angeles.

Consequently, Fuller recommends that hospitals have very specific probation policies, allowing for termination for any reason within the first 90 days of employment and active supervision of new employees to ensure that no red flags are raised within that time frame.

If someone was fired from a previous job, use extra caution in making a hiring decision. Paskoff advises considering the facts: What was the person fired for? What do his or her records look like?

“Just because someone was fired, you shouldn’t dismiss him or her, but know what he or she was fired for and how well the firing was documented and investigated,” he says.

Fuller advises differently.

“If proper policies were followed and the employee failed to comport with improvement recommendations, he or she is not going to be any different the second time around,” he says.

Although the job interview process can be lengthy, “don’t take any shortcuts,” Paskoff says. You may end up costing an organization a lot more than time if you do.

—Karen Appold

As a hospitalist, caring for critically ill or injured patients can be stressful and demanding. Working with difficult doctors, those who exhibit intimidating and disruptive behaviors such as verbal outbursts and physical threats as well as passive activities such as refusing to perform assigned tasks, can make the work environment even more challenging.1 Some docs are routinely reluctant—or refuse—to answer questions or return phone calls or pages. Some communicate in condescending language or voice intonation; some are brutally impatient.1

The most difficult doctors to work with are those who are not aligned with the hospital’s or treatment team’s goals and those who aren’t open to feedback and coaching, says Rob Zipper, MD, MMM, SFHM, regional chief medical officer of Sound Physicians, based in Tacoma, Wash.

“If physicians are aware of a practice’s guidelines and goals but simply won’t comply with them, it makes it harder on everyone else who is pulling the ship in the same direction,” he says.

Unruly physicians don’t just annoy their coworkers. According to a sentinel event alert from The Joint Commission, they can:

• foster medical errors;
• contribute to poor patient satisfaction;
• contribute to preventable adverse outcomes;
• increase the cost of care;
• undermine team effectiveness; and
• cause qualified clinicians, administrators, and managers to seek new positions in more professional environments.1

“These issues are all connected,” says Stephen R. Nichols, MD, chief of clinical operations performance at the Schumacher Group in Brownwood, Texas. “Disruptive behaviors create mitigated communications and dissatisfaction among staff, which bleeds over into other aspects that are involved secondarily.”

Stephen M. Paskoff, Esq., president and CEO of ELI in Atlanta, can attest to the most severe consequences of bad behavior on patient care.

At one institution, a surgeon’s disruptive behavior lead to a coworker forgetting to perform a procedure and a patient dying.2 In another incident, the emergency department stopped calling on a medical subspecialist who was predictably abusive. The subspecialist knew how to treat a specific patient with an unusual intervention. Since the specialist was not consulted initially, the patient ended up in the intensive care unit.2

One bad hospitalist can bring down the reputation of an entire team.

“Many programs are incentivized based on medical staff and primary-care physicians’ perceptions of their care, so there are direct and indirect consequences,” Dr. Zipper says.

The bottom line, says Felix Aguirre, MD, SFHM, vice president of medical affairs at IPC Healthcare in North Hollywood, Calif., is that it only takes one bad experience to tarnish a group, but it takes many positive experiences to erase the damage.

The Roots of Evil

Intimidating and disruptive behavior stems from both individual and systemic factors. Care providers who exhibit characteristics such as self-centeredness, immaturity, or defensiveness can be more prone to unprofessional behavior. They can lack interpersonal, coping, or conflict-management skills.1

Systemic factors are marked by pressures related to increased productivity demands, cost-containment requirements, embedded hierarchies, and fear of litigation in the healthcare environment. These pressures can be further exacerbated by changes to or differences in the authority, autonomy, empowerment, and roles or values of professionals on the healthcare team as well as by the continual daily changes in shifts, rotations, and interdepartmental support staff. This dynamic creates challenges for interprofessional communication and development of trust among team members.1

According to The Joint Commission, intimidating and disruptive behaviors are often manifested by healthcare professionals in positions of power.1 But other members of the care team can be problematic as well.

“In my experience, conflicts usually revolve around different perspectives and objectives, even if both parties are acting respectfully,” Dr. Zipper says. “Sometimes, however, providers or other care team members are tired or stressed and don’t behave professionally.”

Paskoff, who has more than 40 years of experience in healthcare-related workplace issues, including serving as an investigator for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, says some doctors learn bad behaviors from their mentors and that behaviors can be passed down through generations because they are tolerated.

“When I asked one physician who had outstanding training and an outstanding technical reputation how he became abusive, he said, ‘I learned from the best.’” Paskoff was actually able to track the doctor’s training to the late 1800s and physicians who were known for similar behaviors.

Confronting Those Who Misbehave

Dr. Zipper says physicians should confront behavioral issues directly.

“I will typically discuss a complaint with a doctor privately, and ask him or her what happened without being accusatory,” he says. “I try to provide as much concrete and objective information as I can. The doctor needs to know that you are trying to help him or her succeed. That said, if something is clearly bad behavior, feedback should be direct and include a statement such as, ‘This is not how we behave in this practice.’”

At times, it may not be possible to discuss an emergent matter, such as during a code blue.

“However, I will often ask if anyone on the code team has any ideas or concerns before ending the code,” Dr. Nichols says. “Then after the critical time has passed, it is important to debrief and reconnect with the team, especially the less-experienced members who may have lingering concerns.”

For many employees, however, it is difficult to report disruptive behaviors. This is due to a fear of retaliation and the stigma associated with “blowing the whistle” on a colleague as well as a general reluctance to confront an intimidator.1

If an employee cannot muster the courage to confront a disruptive coworker or if the issue isn’t resolved by talking with the difficult individual, an employee should be a good citizen and report bad behavior to the appropriate hospital authority in a timely manner, says A. Kevin Troutman, Esq., a partner at Fisher Phillips in Houston and a former healthcare human resources executive.

Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission are required to create a code of conduct that defines disruptive and inappropriate behaviors. In addition, leaders must create and implement a process for managing these behaviors.1

Helping Difficult Doctors

After a physician or another employee has been called out for bad behavior, steps need to be taken to correct the problem. Robert Fuller, Esq., an attorney with Nelson Hardiman, LLP, in Los Angeles, has found a positive-oriented intervention called “the 3-Ds”—which stands for diagnose, design, and do—that has been a successful tool for achieving positive change. The strategy involves a supervisor and employee mutually developing a worksheet to diagnose the problem. Next, they design a remediation and improvement plan. Finally, they implement the plan and specify dates to achieve certain milestones. Coworkers should be informed of the plan and be urged to support it.

“Make it clear that the positive aspect of this plan turns to progressive discipline, including termination, if the employee doesn’t improve or abandons the plan of action,” Fuller says. In most cases, troublemakers will make a sincere effort to control disruptive tendencies.

Troutman suggests enlisting the assistance of a respected peer.

“Have a senior-level doctor help the noncompliant physician understand why his or her behavior creates problems for everyone, including the doctor himself,” he says. “Also, consider connecting compensation and other rewards to job performance, which encompasses good behavior and good citizenship within the organization. Make expectations and consequences clear.”

If an employee has a recent change in behavior, ask if there is a reason.

“It is my experience that sudden changes in behaviors are often the result of a personal or clinical issue, so it is important and humane to make certain that there is not some other cause for the change before assuming someone is simply being disruptive or difficult,” Dr. Nichols says.

Many healthcare institutions are now setting up centers of professionalism. Paskoff reports that The Center for Professionalism and Peer Support (CPPS) was created in 2008 at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston to educate the hospital community regarding professionalism and manage unprofessional behavior.3 CPPS has established standards of behavior and a framework to deal with difficult behaviors.

“An employee is told what he or she is doing wrong, receives counseling, and is given resources to improve,” he explains. “If an employee doesn’t improve, he or she is told that the behavior won’t be tolerated.”

Dismissing Bad Employees

After addressing the specifics of unacceptable behavior and explaining the consequences of repeating it, leadership should monitor subsequent conduct and provide feedback.

“If the employee commits other violations or behaves badly, promptly address the misconduct again and make it clear that further such actions will not be tolerated,” Troutman says. “Expect immediate and sustained improvement and compliance. Be consistent, and if bad conduct continues after an opportunity to improve, do not prolong anyone’s suffering. Instead, terminate the disruptive employee. When you do, make the reasons clear.”

Karen Appold is a medical writer in Pennsylvania.

References

1. Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. The Joint Commission website. Accessed April 17, 2015.
2. Whittemore AD, New England Society for Vascular Surgery. The impact of professionalism on safe surgical care. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(2):415-419.
3. Shapiro J, Whittemore A, Tsen LC. Instituting a culture of professionalism: the establishment of a center for professionalism and peer support. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40(4):168-177.

Are Behaviors Getting Better or Worse?

The Joint Commission issued a sentinel event alert1 on July 9, 2008, as a result of continuous reports to the commission’s Office of Quality and Patient Safety about disruptive behavior. Despite efforts to prevent employees from behaving badly, Ronald Wyatt, MD, MHA, medical director of the Division of Healthcare Improvement, says there is no evidence that the number of instances of bad behavior is decreasing.

According to a 2013 Institute for Safe Medication Practices survey with 4,884 respondents:2

• 73% reported encountering negative comments about colleagues or leaders during the previous year.
• 68% reported condescending language or demeaning comments or insults.
• 77% said they had encountered reluctance or refusal to answer questions or return calls.
• 69% reported they had encountered impatience with questions or hanging up the phone.

In addition, in a 2011 survey of more than 500 physician leaders and more than 300 staff physicians, 71 percent of respondents stated they had witnessed some type of disruptive behavior within the previous month, while 26 percent stated that they had been disruptive at one point in their career.3

Despite the gloomy news, Dr. Wyatt says, “There is increased awareness of disruptive behaviors, and they are being reported more often than in the past.”

As a former chief of medicine at a hospital, Dr. Wyatt says the lack of improvement could be due to hospital leadership.

“This is a critical piece to having a sound patient safety system,” he says.

In order for bad behaviors to improve, hospital leadership needs to be committed to creating a culture of safety. This would involve answering “yes” to the following questions:

• Does staff feel safe to report disruptive behaviors, and will leadership act on those reports?
• Is leadership committed to decreasing these types of behaviors?
• Is there a reporting system in place, and is it being used, monitored, and acted on?
• Can leadership step in and enforce the process if physicians aren’t complying?
• Is a model in place if intervention is necessary?

According to Dr. Wyatt, data show that one intervention is usually enough for most physicians to cease bad behaviors, but a small portion will persist.4

Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission can contact the organization for a template regarding a policy for disruptive behaviors. Some consultants can also provide this.

—Karen Appold

References

1. Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. The Joint Commission website. Accessed April 17, 2015.
2. Patient safety systems. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. The Joint Commission. January 1, 2015:7-8.
3. MacDonald O. Disruptive physician behavior. Quantia Communications, Inc.: Waltham, MA. May 15, 2011.
4. Pichert JW, Moore IN, Karrass J, et al. An intervention model that promotes accountability: peer messengers and patient/family complaints. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(10):435-446.

Proceed with Caution When Hiring Staff

Ideally, an institution won’t hire someone with intimidating and disruptive behavior in the first place. But this is always easier said than done.

In an effort to select and hire the best employees, it is important during the interview process to ask many questions about a candidate’s prior experiences and previous bosses as well as what the employee perceives to be good behavior and reasonable expectations.

“Listen for victim-like responses and criticisms of prior supervisors or employers,” says A. Kevin Troutman, Esq., a partner at Fisher Phillips in Houston and a former healthcare human resources executive. “Such responses are red flags that may help predict how the applicant will work out in your organization.”

Stephen M. Paskoff, Esq., president and CEO of ELI in Atlanta, says it’s best for the candidate to have interviews with multiple staff members in different ranks.

“Sometimes people will show a different side if he or she perceives someone as unimportant or someone that he or she could boss around,” he says. “The interview can be very telling if the applicant is a cultural fit or not.”

Carefully check a candidate’s previous training and employment records. It can be difficult, however, to decipher whether a potential employee will indeed be a good choice because prior employers almost uniformly refuse to provide more than someone’s position and dates of employment when references are checked, says Robert Fuller, Esq., an attorney with Nelson Hardiman, LLP, in Los Angeles.

Consequently, Fuller recommends that hospitals have very specific probation policies, allowing for termination for any reason within the first 90 days of employment and active supervision of new employees to ensure that no red flags are raised within that time frame.

If someone was fired from a previous job, use extra caution in making a hiring decision. Paskoff advises considering the facts: What was the person fired for? What do his or her records look like?

“Just because someone was fired, you shouldn’t dismiss him or her, but know what he or she was fired for and how well the firing was documented and investigated,” he says.

Fuller advises differently.

“If proper policies were followed and the employee failed to comport with improvement recommendations, he or she is not going to be any different the second time around,” he says.

Although the job interview process can be lengthy, “don’t take any shortcuts,” Paskoff says. You may end up costing an organization a lot more than time if you do.

—Karen Appold

Much speculation has already been written on what a Trump administration may look like, but comparatively little has been said about the potential impact of that administration on physicians, hospitals, and patients. While details will obviously not be available for some time, some early generalizations are possible, based on the position paper President-elect Donald Trump issued in March and the statements he has made since then.

One of Mr. Trump’s earliest and most repeated pledges was the one to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with “something fantastic.” A repeal would be welcome news to many physicians, even without any idea of what its “fantastic” replacement might be; but Trump has hedged already. In mid-November, he told the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare would be “amended, or repealed and replaced,” which introduces considerable wiggle room.

In an interview with CNN, Mr. Trump indicated he would keep the individual mandate; but the next day, he tweeted – and then reiterated in his position paper – that he would remove the mandate and install a “backstop for preexisting conditions.” In the 1990s, when a few states tried to prohibit discrimination based on preexisting conditions without a corresponding mandate, premiums increased precipitously, driving away healthy customers, forcing insurers to stop selling policies in those states, and demonstrating that one cannot work without the other. Perhaps a more-informed Mr. Trump will come to see this.

Other proposals have been more enlightened. Mr. Trump has said that he favors portability of health insurance from state to state. In theory, this will introduce more competition into the system and drive premiums down. He has also proposed making health insurance premiums fully tax deductible for individuals, as they are now for businesses, further lowering premium costs.

He has proposed expanding the health savings account program, making contributions tax free, cumulative, and part of a patient’s estate. I have been a fan of HSAs since their inception because they eliminate the insurance “middleman,” which is good for physicians as well as for patients, who are more aware of what services they are receiving and what they are paying for them. Along the same lines, he has called for price transparency, so that patients can shop for the best prices for procedures and examinations, which now vary widely from one hospital or clinic to another.

Another good idea, in my opinion, is the removal of barriers to the sale of cheaper foreign-manufactured drugs in this country. Such barriers have kept drug prices higher here than anywhere else; consumers should be able to import their medications, from Canada, India, and elsewhere, as long as they are similarly safe and effective. Mr. Trump has also said that Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices, which should have been true from the outset. The savings, particularly where biologics and other expensive new drugs are concerned, could be significant, since Medicare frequently sets the standard for prices in the industry. He also would raise the Medicare eligibility age, which I believe is a good idea as well.

Less inspired is his proposal to turn over administration of Medicaid to the states, supported by federal block grants. This plan does not take into account that Medicaid, an expensive and inefficient program with a narrow network of doctors, desperately needs an overhaul. Simply expanding it, and handing over full responsibility to the states, is not a viable solution, in my opinion.

Mr. Trump’s position paper also contains the dubious assumption that enforcing immigration laws will significantly decrease health care costs. Sealing the Southern border, he reasons, will help hospitals overburdened by the costs of services they provide to illegal immigrants who can’t pay for them and curtail the burgeoning heroin trade and its associated medical costs. There is little evidence to support either assumption – or even that the border can be effectively sealed in the first place.

So Mr. Trump has a health care plan, of sorts. How it will look by Inauguration Day, and what portion will be implemented, remains to be seen.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Much speculation has already been written on what a Trump administration may look like, but comparatively little has been said about the potential impact of that administration on physicians, hospitals, and patients. While details will obviously not be available for some time, some early generalizations are possible, based on the position paper President-elect Donald Trump issued in March and the statements he has made since then.

One of Mr. Trump’s earliest and most repeated pledges was the one to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with “something fantastic.” A repeal would be welcome news to many physicians, even without any idea of what its “fantastic” replacement might be; but Trump has hedged already. In mid-November, he told the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare would be “amended, or repealed and replaced,” which introduces considerable wiggle room.

In an interview with CNN, Mr. Trump indicated he would keep the individual mandate; but the next day, he tweeted – and then reiterated in his position paper – that he would remove the mandate and install a “backstop for preexisting conditions.” In the 1990s, when a few states tried to prohibit discrimination based on preexisting conditions without a corresponding mandate, premiums increased precipitously, driving away healthy customers, forcing insurers to stop selling policies in those states, and demonstrating that one cannot work without the other. Perhaps a more-informed Mr. Trump will come to see this.

Other proposals have been more enlightened. Mr. Trump has said that he favors portability of health insurance from state to state. In theory, this will introduce more competition into the system and drive premiums down. He has also proposed making health insurance premiums fully tax deductible for individuals, as they are now for businesses, further lowering premium costs.

He has proposed expanding the health savings account program, making contributions tax free, cumulative, and part of a patient’s estate. I have been a fan of HSAs since their inception because they eliminate the insurance “middleman,” which is good for physicians as well as for patients, who are more aware of what services they are receiving and what they are paying for them. Along the same lines, he has called for price transparency, so that patients can shop for the best prices for procedures and examinations, which now vary widely from one hospital or clinic to another.

Another good idea, in my opinion, is the removal of barriers to the sale of cheaper foreign-manufactured drugs in this country. Such barriers have kept drug prices higher here than anywhere else; consumers should be able to import their medications, from Canada, India, and elsewhere, as long as they are similarly safe and effective. Mr. Trump has also said that Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices, which should have been true from the outset. The savings, particularly where biologics and other expensive new drugs are concerned, could be significant, since Medicare frequently sets the standard for prices in the industry. He also would raise the Medicare eligibility age, which I believe is a good idea as well.

Less inspired is his proposal to turn over administration of Medicaid to the states, supported by federal block grants. This plan does not take into account that Medicaid, an expensive and inefficient program with a narrow network of doctors, desperately needs an overhaul. Simply expanding it, and handing over full responsibility to the states, is not a viable solution, in my opinion.

Mr. Trump’s position paper also contains the dubious assumption that enforcing immigration laws will significantly decrease health care costs. Sealing the Southern border, he reasons, will help hospitals overburdened by the costs of services they provide to illegal immigrants who can’t pay for them and curtail the burgeoning heroin trade and its associated medical costs. There is little evidence to support either assumption – or even that the border can be effectively sealed in the first place.

So Mr. Trump has a health care plan, of sorts. How it will look by Inauguration Day, and what portion will be implemented, remains to be seen.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Much speculation has already been written on what a Trump administration may look like, but comparatively little has been said about the potential impact of that administration on physicians, hospitals, and patients. While details will obviously not be available for some time, some early generalizations are possible, based on the position paper President-elect Donald Trump issued in March and the statements he has made since then.

One of Mr. Trump’s earliest and most repeated pledges was the one to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with “something fantastic.” A repeal would be welcome news to many physicians, even without any idea of what its “fantastic” replacement might be; but Trump has hedged already. In mid-November, he told the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare would be “amended, or repealed and replaced,” which introduces considerable wiggle room.

In an interview with CNN, Mr. Trump indicated he would keep the individual mandate; but the next day, he tweeted – and then reiterated in his position paper – that he would remove the mandate and install a “backstop for preexisting conditions.” In the 1990s, when a few states tried to prohibit discrimination based on preexisting conditions without a corresponding mandate, premiums increased precipitously, driving away healthy customers, forcing insurers to stop selling policies in those states, and demonstrating that one cannot work without the other. Perhaps a more-informed Mr. Trump will come to see this.

Other proposals have been more enlightened. Mr. Trump has said that he favors portability of health insurance from state to state. In theory, this will introduce more competition into the system and drive premiums down. He has also proposed making health insurance premiums fully tax deductible for individuals, as they are now for businesses, further lowering premium costs.

He has proposed expanding the health savings account program, making contributions tax free, cumulative, and part of a patient’s estate. I have been a fan of HSAs since their inception because they eliminate the insurance “middleman,” which is good for physicians as well as for patients, who are more aware of what services they are receiving and what they are paying for them. Along the same lines, he has called for price transparency, so that patients can shop for the best prices for procedures and examinations, which now vary widely from one hospital or clinic to another.

Another good idea, in my opinion, is the removal of barriers to the sale of cheaper foreign-manufactured drugs in this country. Such barriers have kept drug prices higher here than anywhere else; consumers should be able to import their medications, from Canada, India, and elsewhere, as long as they are similarly safe and effective. Mr. Trump has also said that Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices, which should have been true from the outset. The savings, particularly where biologics and other expensive new drugs are concerned, could be significant, since Medicare frequently sets the standard for prices in the industry. He also would raise the Medicare eligibility age, which I believe is a good idea as well.

Less inspired is his proposal to turn over administration of Medicaid to the states, supported by federal block grants. This plan does not take into account that Medicaid, an expensive and inefficient program with a narrow network of doctors, desperately needs an overhaul. Simply expanding it, and handing over full responsibility to the states, is not a viable solution, in my opinion.

Mr. Trump’s position paper also contains the dubious assumption that enforcing immigration laws will significantly decrease health care costs. Sealing the Southern border, he reasons, will help hospitals overburdened by the costs of services they provide to illegal immigrants who can’t pay for them and curtail the burgeoning heroin trade and its associated medical costs. There is little evidence to support either assumption – or even that the border can be effectively sealed in the first place.

So Mr. Trump has a health care plan, of sorts. How it will look by Inauguration Day, and what portion will be implemented, remains to be seen.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].