User login
Are doctors savers or spenders?
In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.
Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.
Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.
For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.
So just how do physicians stack up financially?
Habits of physician super savers
Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.
For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.
When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.
When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.
Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.
Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
Barriers to wealth
When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.
“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.
When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).
“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
What’s your financial grade?
Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.
More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.
“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.
Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.
Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.
For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.
So just how do physicians stack up financially?
Habits of physician super savers
Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.
For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.
When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.
When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.
Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.
Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
Barriers to wealth
When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.
“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.
When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).
“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
What’s your financial grade?
Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.
More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.
“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.
Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.
Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.
For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.
So just how do physicians stack up financially?
Habits of physician super savers
Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.
For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.
When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.
When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.
Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.
Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
Barriers to wealth
When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.
“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.
When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).
“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
What’s your financial grade?
Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.
More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.
“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Since when does providing pediatric care require courage?
I have been noticing “jokes” lately about doctors. Magazine cartoons depict doctors as conveying a bad prognosis in abrupt, indirect, vague ways. I remember, from medical school, the joke about pediatricians being doctors for patients “from the waist up” – wimps about tough topics such as sexuality. As an inherently shy person, I have appreciated the structure of the contractual relationship with families that both gives me permission and requires me to be direct about topics that would not be socially acceptable to discuss in other relationships.
Examples include our asking about bowel movements, genital symptoms, marital conflict, past abortions, food insecurity, adherence to medication, history of trauma or discrimination, substance use, illegal conduct, and suicidal ideation, among others. By bringing up these topics nonjudgmentally and with skill, we are demonstrating openness and making it safe for the patient/parent to ask questions about their own concerns.
Since these may be topics for which we lack knowledge or have very little power to help, it is far easier to not bring them up. Yet failing to have the courage to elicit sensitive information may delay the correct diagnosis, result in inappropriate tests or treatments, or miss factors critical in either the cause or solution for the patient’s problems.
Historically, being a physician has conveyed a promise of confidentiality and always trying to do what is best for the patient. The fact that we had to swear an oath to do so may also indicate that these things are not easy to do.
Yes, we need a lot of knowledge to know what is truly in the patient’s best interest. But we need to take personal risks to do it as well. There have been times when a parent has shouted “That is none of your business” at me or stormed out. Although only one patient has ever connected when striking out at me, other clinicians have not been as lucky (or had such small patients); some have even been killed.
For those of us in private practice, upsetting a patient with our well-intentioned words may mean losing them from our income stream or having them post negative comments online, which may affect our reputation in the community. Patients may not return for needed follow-up if a conversation was too uncomfortable for them. Current political divisions make this even trickier.
These days anxiety about getting behind in seeing the next patient may be a covert reason for avoiding difficult conversations as tears or anger take extra time. Certainly, fears of these outcomes can make us hold back from talking about important but potentially upsetting topics.
Of course, courage does not just mean being direct with questions, stating your observations, or giving advice. Courage requires thoughtfulness about possible adverse outcomes and their effect on others. It is not just “stupid bravery,” to proceed even when sensing danger. Courage is thus best paired with skill. It is:
- Setting up potentially difficult discussions with privacy (from the child or parent), seating, and enough time to listen.
- Normalizing questions by saying “I ask all my patients about ...” so patients do not feel singled out.
- Asking the patient or family first what they think is going on and how their own culture might regard the issue.
- Using simple language and arranging a translator when needed.
- Not just stating facts but checking “to be sure I explained well enough” rather than setting a patient up to appear ignorant for not understanding.
- Offering to contact the patient or other family member/support soon to review what you said and answer more questions.
- Offering a second opinion option.
- Promising to get more information when you do not know.
- Always leaving room for hope and sharing in that hope with them.
And it is crucial to have a way to keep notes about past trauma or difficult topics for a patient so neither you nor subsequent clinicians unnecessarily ask about sensitive topics.
Courage includes facing difficult situations without undue delay. Making that call about an abnormal test result right away, even when you are tired and upset, takes courage. Each time you overcome your own reluctance it takes moral strength but tends to make future courageous acts easier. Speaking up to a specialist on rounds when you think he or she is incorrect takes courage to serve the patient’s best interest. Being willing to try a new workflow in your office takes the courage to risk looking awkward or being judged by your team, but can be essential to progress. Asking for help or an opinion, sometimes from a medical assistant or student, can take courage but may reduce status barriers and improve relationships. Standing up for your values when they are not popular may take courage in some organizations. It takes courage to admit a mistake, even when your mistake may not otherwise be noticed.
How can we grow in courage? T. Berry Brazelton, MD, was a model of courage for me during my training – able and willing to tell about a child’s delays or ask about a parent’s well-being with empathy and by giving hope. Dr. Brazelton, pediatrician, developer of the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale, professor at Harvard Medical School and founder of its Child Development Unit, was a world-renowned educator about the development of children and founder of the Touchpoints program. Our goal should be to promise to partner with the family in dealing with the problem, no matter how difficult or tender. I hope you had role models who not only said what to do but also demonstrated it with patients.
We had the privilege of hearing stories of difficult situations from hundreds of pediatricians in group sessions over the years in the Collaborative Office Rounds program. What group members often said that they valued most from these sessions was hearing examples of words they might say in these cases, either modeled by the coleaders or suggested by their pediatrician peers. Opportunities to share the tough times with trusted empathic peers is an important resource rarer and thus even more worth securing for yourself.
Being courageous may not be natural part of your personality but Aristotle said, “We become what we repeatedly do.” Even if you do not consider yourself so now, with practice you can become courageous and reap its benefits for your patients and yourself.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
I have been noticing “jokes” lately about doctors. Magazine cartoons depict doctors as conveying a bad prognosis in abrupt, indirect, vague ways. I remember, from medical school, the joke about pediatricians being doctors for patients “from the waist up” – wimps about tough topics such as sexuality. As an inherently shy person, I have appreciated the structure of the contractual relationship with families that both gives me permission and requires me to be direct about topics that would not be socially acceptable to discuss in other relationships.
Examples include our asking about bowel movements, genital symptoms, marital conflict, past abortions, food insecurity, adherence to medication, history of trauma or discrimination, substance use, illegal conduct, and suicidal ideation, among others. By bringing up these topics nonjudgmentally and with skill, we are demonstrating openness and making it safe for the patient/parent to ask questions about their own concerns.
Since these may be topics for which we lack knowledge or have very little power to help, it is far easier to not bring them up. Yet failing to have the courage to elicit sensitive information may delay the correct diagnosis, result in inappropriate tests or treatments, or miss factors critical in either the cause or solution for the patient’s problems.
Historically, being a physician has conveyed a promise of confidentiality and always trying to do what is best for the patient. The fact that we had to swear an oath to do so may also indicate that these things are not easy to do.
Yes, we need a lot of knowledge to know what is truly in the patient’s best interest. But we need to take personal risks to do it as well. There have been times when a parent has shouted “That is none of your business” at me or stormed out. Although only one patient has ever connected when striking out at me, other clinicians have not been as lucky (or had such small patients); some have even been killed.
For those of us in private practice, upsetting a patient with our well-intentioned words may mean losing them from our income stream or having them post negative comments online, which may affect our reputation in the community. Patients may not return for needed follow-up if a conversation was too uncomfortable for them. Current political divisions make this even trickier.
These days anxiety about getting behind in seeing the next patient may be a covert reason for avoiding difficult conversations as tears or anger take extra time. Certainly, fears of these outcomes can make us hold back from talking about important but potentially upsetting topics.
Of course, courage does not just mean being direct with questions, stating your observations, or giving advice. Courage requires thoughtfulness about possible adverse outcomes and their effect on others. It is not just “stupid bravery,” to proceed even when sensing danger. Courage is thus best paired with skill. It is:
- Setting up potentially difficult discussions with privacy (from the child or parent), seating, and enough time to listen.
- Normalizing questions by saying “I ask all my patients about ...” so patients do not feel singled out.
- Asking the patient or family first what they think is going on and how their own culture might regard the issue.
- Using simple language and arranging a translator when needed.
- Not just stating facts but checking “to be sure I explained well enough” rather than setting a patient up to appear ignorant for not understanding.
- Offering to contact the patient or other family member/support soon to review what you said and answer more questions.
- Offering a second opinion option.
- Promising to get more information when you do not know.
- Always leaving room for hope and sharing in that hope with them.
And it is crucial to have a way to keep notes about past trauma or difficult topics for a patient so neither you nor subsequent clinicians unnecessarily ask about sensitive topics.
Courage includes facing difficult situations without undue delay. Making that call about an abnormal test result right away, even when you are tired and upset, takes courage. Each time you overcome your own reluctance it takes moral strength but tends to make future courageous acts easier. Speaking up to a specialist on rounds when you think he or she is incorrect takes courage to serve the patient’s best interest. Being willing to try a new workflow in your office takes the courage to risk looking awkward or being judged by your team, but can be essential to progress. Asking for help or an opinion, sometimes from a medical assistant or student, can take courage but may reduce status barriers and improve relationships. Standing up for your values when they are not popular may take courage in some organizations. It takes courage to admit a mistake, even when your mistake may not otherwise be noticed.
How can we grow in courage? T. Berry Brazelton, MD, was a model of courage for me during my training – able and willing to tell about a child’s delays or ask about a parent’s well-being with empathy and by giving hope. Dr. Brazelton, pediatrician, developer of the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale, professor at Harvard Medical School and founder of its Child Development Unit, was a world-renowned educator about the development of children and founder of the Touchpoints program. Our goal should be to promise to partner with the family in dealing with the problem, no matter how difficult or tender. I hope you had role models who not only said what to do but also demonstrated it with patients.
We had the privilege of hearing stories of difficult situations from hundreds of pediatricians in group sessions over the years in the Collaborative Office Rounds program. What group members often said that they valued most from these sessions was hearing examples of words they might say in these cases, either modeled by the coleaders or suggested by their pediatrician peers. Opportunities to share the tough times with trusted empathic peers is an important resource rarer and thus even more worth securing for yourself.
Being courageous may not be natural part of your personality but Aristotle said, “We become what we repeatedly do.” Even if you do not consider yourself so now, with practice you can become courageous and reap its benefits for your patients and yourself.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
I have been noticing “jokes” lately about doctors. Magazine cartoons depict doctors as conveying a bad prognosis in abrupt, indirect, vague ways. I remember, from medical school, the joke about pediatricians being doctors for patients “from the waist up” – wimps about tough topics such as sexuality. As an inherently shy person, I have appreciated the structure of the contractual relationship with families that both gives me permission and requires me to be direct about topics that would not be socially acceptable to discuss in other relationships.
Examples include our asking about bowel movements, genital symptoms, marital conflict, past abortions, food insecurity, adherence to medication, history of trauma or discrimination, substance use, illegal conduct, and suicidal ideation, among others. By bringing up these topics nonjudgmentally and with skill, we are demonstrating openness and making it safe for the patient/parent to ask questions about their own concerns.
Since these may be topics for which we lack knowledge or have very little power to help, it is far easier to not bring them up. Yet failing to have the courage to elicit sensitive information may delay the correct diagnosis, result in inappropriate tests or treatments, or miss factors critical in either the cause or solution for the patient’s problems.
Historically, being a physician has conveyed a promise of confidentiality and always trying to do what is best for the patient. The fact that we had to swear an oath to do so may also indicate that these things are not easy to do.
Yes, we need a lot of knowledge to know what is truly in the patient’s best interest. But we need to take personal risks to do it as well. There have been times when a parent has shouted “That is none of your business” at me or stormed out. Although only one patient has ever connected when striking out at me, other clinicians have not been as lucky (or had such small patients); some have even been killed.
For those of us in private practice, upsetting a patient with our well-intentioned words may mean losing them from our income stream or having them post negative comments online, which may affect our reputation in the community. Patients may not return for needed follow-up if a conversation was too uncomfortable for them. Current political divisions make this even trickier.
These days anxiety about getting behind in seeing the next patient may be a covert reason for avoiding difficult conversations as tears or anger take extra time. Certainly, fears of these outcomes can make us hold back from talking about important but potentially upsetting topics.
Of course, courage does not just mean being direct with questions, stating your observations, or giving advice. Courage requires thoughtfulness about possible adverse outcomes and their effect on others. It is not just “stupid bravery,” to proceed even when sensing danger. Courage is thus best paired with skill. It is:
- Setting up potentially difficult discussions with privacy (from the child or parent), seating, and enough time to listen.
- Normalizing questions by saying “I ask all my patients about ...” so patients do not feel singled out.
- Asking the patient or family first what they think is going on and how their own culture might regard the issue.
- Using simple language and arranging a translator when needed.
- Not just stating facts but checking “to be sure I explained well enough” rather than setting a patient up to appear ignorant for not understanding.
- Offering to contact the patient or other family member/support soon to review what you said and answer more questions.
- Offering a second opinion option.
- Promising to get more information when you do not know.
- Always leaving room for hope and sharing in that hope with them.
And it is crucial to have a way to keep notes about past trauma or difficult topics for a patient so neither you nor subsequent clinicians unnecessarily ask about sensitive topics.
Courage includes facing difficult situations without undue delay. Making that call about an abnormal test result right away, even when you are tired and upset, takes courage. Each time you overcome your own reluctance it takes moral strength but tends to make future courageous acts easier. Speaking up to a specialist on rounds when you think he or she is incorrect takes courage to serve the patient’s best interest. Being willing to try a new workflow in your office takes the courage to risk looking awkward or being judged by your team, but can be essential to progress. Asking for help or an opinion, sometimes from a medical assistant or student, can take courage but may reduce status barriers and improve relationships. Standing up for your values when they are not popular may take courage in some organizations. It takes courage to admit a mistake, even when your mistake may not otherwise be noticed.
How can we grow in courage? T. Berry Brazelton, MD, was a model of courage for me during my training – able and willing to tell about a child’s delays or ask about a parent’s well-being with empathy and by giving hope. Dr. Brazelton, pediatrician, developer of the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale, professor at Harvard Medical School and founder of its Child Development Unit, was a world-renowned educator about the development of children and founder of the Touchpoints program. Our goal should be to promise to partner with the family in dealing with the problem, no matter how difficult or tender. I hope you had role models who not only said what to do but also demonstrated it with patients.
We had the privilege of hearing stories of difficult situations from hundreds of pediatricians in group sessions over the years in the Collaborative Office Rounds program. What group members often said that they valued most from these sessions was hearing examples of words they might say in these cases, either modeled by the coleaders or suggested by their pediatrician peers. Opportunities to share the tough times with trusted empathic peers is an important resource rarer and thus even more worth securing for yourself.
Being courageous may not be natural part of your personality but Aristotle said, “We become what we repeatedly do.” Even if you do not consider yourself so now, with practice you can become courageous and reap its benefits for your patients and yourself.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
Drug abusers will find a way
Recently, when I logged on to see what medication refills had come in, I was greeted with a notice that Walgreens would no longer carry promethazine/codeine cough syrup. It wouldn’t surprise me if other pharmacies follow.
This doesn’t affect me much. As a neurologist I’ve never prescribed it, and as a patient I’ve never used it.
The unwritten reason was likely because of its popularity for abuse. It is often mixed with various beverages and called “purple drank.” It has both social, and legal, consequences that can come back and bite the pharmacy.
A friend of mine commented that if everything that can be abused gets banned, all we’ll be left with are Tylenol and Preparation H. Another friend made the comment that it’s a shame, because codeine is a remarkably effective antitussive.
I agree with both of them, but Walgreens is pulling only the combo preparation off the shelves. Codeine and promethazine are still available. The former is on WHO’s list of essential medications.
They’d still find a way to get the components and whip up some equivalent. Human innovation can be remarkable. All of us who trained in the inner city (which is pretty much all of us at some point) have seen people who drank mouthwash, hairspray, and who knows what else in desperation.
No one believes it’s going to stop drug abuse, but it will make it harder to have purple drank, which is often passed around as a low-level drug at parties. Putting Sudafed behind the counter has reduced, though not stopped, meth. Walter White can tell you that.
A patient of mine who’s a pharmacist also was talking about this. He’s in favor of it, as he’s tired of dealing with people trying to get it through faked prescriptions and bogus visits to urgent care pretending to have a cough, not to mention the additional paperwork and reporting requirements that a controlled drug carries.
I agree with it, mostly, but there are those who truly do need it at times, and who now will have to take it as individual components, or find a pharmacy that does carry it. The issue here becomes that, by punishing the abusers, you’re also punishing the responsible.
The vast majority of alcohol users are responsible drinkers. I have the occasional beer myself. Unfortunately, there are a comparative few who aren’t, and their actions can bring tremendous grief to many others. So we have tougher laws all around that we all have to follow.
I agree with Walgreens actions on this, but still find myself wondering how much of a difference it will make.
Probably not as much as I hope.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Recently, when I logged on to see what medication refills had come in, I was greeted with a notice that Walgreens would no longer carry promethazine/codeine cough syrup. It wouldn’t surprise me if other pharmacies follow.
This doesn’t affect me much. As a neurologist I’ve never prescribed it, and as a patient I’ve never used it.
The unwritten reason was likely because of its popularity for abuse. It is often mixed with various beverages and called “purple drank.” It has both social, and legal, consequences that can come back and bite the pharmacy.
A friend of mine commented that if everything that can be abused gets banned, all we’ll be left with are Tylenol and Preparation H. Another friend made the comment that it’s a shame, because codeine is a remarkably effective antitussive.
I agree with both of them, but Walgreens is pulling only the combo preparation off the shelves. Codeine and promethazine are still available. The former is on WHO’s list of essential medications.
They’d still find a way to get the components and whip up some equivalent. Human innovation can be remarkable. All of us who trained in the inner city (which is pretty much all of us at some point) have seen people who drank mouthwash, hairspray, and who knows what else in desperation.
No one believes it’s going to stop drug abuse, but it will make it harder to have purple drank, which is often passed around as a low-level drug at parties. Putting Sudafed behind the counter has reduced, though not stopped, meth. Walter White can tell you that.
A patient of mine who’s a pharmacist also was talking about this. He’s in favor of it, as he’s tired of dealing with people trying to get it through faked prescriptions and bogus visits to urgent care pretending to have a cough, not to mention the additional paperwork and reporting requirements that a controlled drug carries.
I agree with it, mostly, but there are those who truly do need it at times, and who now will have to take it as individual components, or find a pharmacy that does carry it. The issue here becomes that, by punishing the abusers, you’re also punishing the responsible.
The vast majority of alcohol users are responsible drinkers. I have the occasional beer myself. Unfortunately, there are a comparative few who aren’t, and their actions can bring tremendous grief to many others. So we have tougher laws all around that we all have to follow.
I agree with Walgreens actions on this, but still find myself wondering how much of a difference it will make.
Probably not as much as I hope.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Recently, when I logged on to see what medication refills had come in, I was greeted with a notice that Walgreens would no longer carry promethazine/codeine cough syrup. It wouldn’t surprise me if other pharmacies follow.
This doesn’t affect me much. As a neurologist I’ve never prescribed it, and as a patient I’ve never used it.
The unwritten reason was likely because of its popularity for abuse. It is often mixed with various beverages and called “purple drank.” It has both social, and legal, consequences that can come back and bite the pharmacy.
A friend of mine commented that if everything that can be abused gets banned, all we’ll be left with are Tylenol and Preparation H. Another friend made the comment that it’s a shame, because codeine is a remarkably effective antitussive.
I agree with both of them, but Walgreens is pulling only the combo preparation off the shelves. Codeine and promethazine are still available. The former is on WHO’s list of essential medications.
They’d still find a way to get the components and whip up some equivalent. Human innovation can be remarkable. All of us who trained in the inner city (which is pretty much all of us at some point) have seen people who drank mouthwash, hairspray, and who knows what else in desperation.
No one believes it’s going to stop drug abuse, but it will make it harder to have purple drank, which is often passed around as a low-level drug at parties. Putting Sudafed behind the counter has reduced, though not stopped, meth. Walter White can tell you that.
A patient of mine who’s a pharmacist also was talking about this. He’s in favor of it, as he’s tired of dealing with people trying to get it through faked prescriptions and bogus visits to urgent care pretending to have a cough, not to mention the additional paperwork and reporting requirements that a controlled drug carries.
I agree with it, mostly, but there are those who truly do need it at times, and who now will have to take it as individual components, or find a pharmacy that does carry it. The issue here becomes that, by punishing the abusers, you’re also punishing the responsible.
The vast majority of alcohol users are responsible drinkers. I have the occasional beer myself. Unfortunately, there are a comparative few who aren’t, and their actions can bring tremendous grief to many others. So we have tougher laws all around that we all have to follow.
I agree with Walgreens actions on this, but still find myself wondering how much of a difference it will make.
Probably not as much as I hope.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
‘Not in our lane’: Physicians rebel at idea they should discuss gun safety with patients
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.
Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.
Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
Physicians’ lack of qualifications
The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.
“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.
Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:
- “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
- “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
- “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
- “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022
Do mental health issues trump gun talks?
Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.
- “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
- “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
- “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
- “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022
Added responsibility is too much
Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.
- “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
- “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
- “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016
Other ways to communicate
For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.
Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.
“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.
“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.
Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.
Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
Physicians’ lack of qualifications
The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.
“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.
Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:
- “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
- “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
- “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
- “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022
Do mental health issues trump gun talks?
Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.
- “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
- “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
- “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
- “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022
Added responsibility is too much
Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.
- “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
- “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
- “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016
Other ways to communicate
For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.
Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.
“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.
“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.
Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.
Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
Physicians’ lack of qualifications
The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.
“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.
Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:
- “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
- “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
- “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
- “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022
Do mental health issues trump gun talks?
Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.
- “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
- “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
- “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
- “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022
Added responsibility is too much
Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.
- “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
- “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
- “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016
Other ways to communicate
For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.
Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.
“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.
“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
You and the skeptical patient: Who’s the doctor here?
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nurse accused of murdering babies in her neonatal unit
Lucy Letby, 32, who worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital, is accused of multiple baby murders in the hospital’s neonatal unit from June 2015 to June 2016. She denies all charges.
Manchester Crown Court heard how Ms. Letby allegedly attempted to kill the children by injecting them with air, milk, or insulin, including two brothers from a set of triplets and one premature baby girl, who was only 98 minutes old.
Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC said the circumstances of the girl’s death were “an extreme example even by the standards of this case.”
“There were four separate occasions on which we allege Lucy Letby tried to kill her,” he said. “But ultimately at the fourth attempt, Lucy Letby succeeded in killing her.”
Attempts to murder the child ‘cold-blooded’ and ‘calculated’, says prosecutor
In the first alleged attempt, Ms. Letby injected the girl, identified for legal reasons as Child I, with air, but she was “resilient,” said Mr. Johnson. After the second attempt, Ms. Letby had stood in the doorway of Child I’s darkened room and commented that she looked pale. The designated nurse then approached and turned on the light, noticing that the child wasn’t breathing. After a third attempt the child was found to have excess air in her stomach, which had affected her breathing. Child I was then transferred to Arrowe Park Hospital, where she was stabilized before she was returned to Chester.
After the fourth attempt, Child I’s medical alarm rang, leading a nurse to spot Ms. Letby by the child’s incubator. Child I died that morning, said Mr. Johnson, who described the nurse’s attacks as premeditated. “It was persistent, it was calculated, and it was cold-blooded.”
The judge, Mr. Justice Goss, and jury heard how shortly after the parents were told of their child’s death, Ms. Letby approached the mother, who testified that the nurse was “smiling and kept going on about how she was present at the baby’s first bath and how much the baby had loved it.” She also sent a sympathy card to the parents, and the prosecutor says she kept an image of the card on her phone.
Doctor interrupted another alleged attempt
Dr. Ravi Jayaram, a paediatric consultant, had become suspicious of Ms. Letby in a number of unexplained child deaths. He later interrupted her as she allegedly tried to kill another baby, identified as Child K. He noticed that the nurse was alone with the baby and walked into the room, seeing Ms. Letby standing over the child’s incubator. He was “uncomfortable” as he had “started to notice a coincidence between unexplained deaths, serious collapses, and the presence of Lucy Letby,” said the prosecutor.
“Dr. Jayaram could see from the monitor on the wall that Child K’s oxygen saturation level was falling dangerously low, to somewhere in the 80s,” said Mr. Johnson. “He said an alarm should have been sounding as Child K’s oxygen levels were falling.” Despite this, the nurse had not called for assistance.
“We allege she was trying to kill Child K when Dr. Jayaram walked in,” Mr. Johnson said, adding that the child’s breathing tube was found dislodged. The prosecutor said it was possible for this to happen in an active baby, but Child K was very premature and had been sedated.
Despite his concerns, Dr. Jayaram did not make a note of his suspicions. Later that morning, Ms. Letby was again at Child K’s incubator calling for help. The nurse was assisting the baby with her breathing and the breathing tube was found to have slipped too far into her throat. The child was transferred to another hospital but later died. Ms. Letby is not accused of Child K’s murder.
However, after the death of Child K, Ms. Letby was moved to day shifts “because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night shifts,” said Mr. Johnson. She was removed from the neonatal ward in June 2016 and moved to clerical duties where she would not come into contact with children.
Post-it note: Admission or anguish?
At the end of the prosecution’s presentation, Mr. Johnson mentioned a Post-it on which Ms. Letby had written, “I AM EVIL I DID THIS.” In the defense’s opening statements, Ben Myers KC, said the note was an “anguished outpouring of a young woman in fear and despair when she realises the enormity of what’s being said about her, in a moment to herself.”
He added that the nurse was dealing with employment issues at the time it was written, including a grievance procedure with the NHS Trust where she worked. Another note was shown on screens to the jury, which read: “Not good enough. I’m an awful person. I will never have children or marry. Despair.” and “I haven’t done anything wrong.”
Mr. Myers said that Ms. Letby was the type of person who often scribbles things down and the note was “nothing more extraordinary than that.”
In presenting the defense case, Mr. Myers argued that there was no evidence of Letby hurting the children, and that the prosecution’s case was “driven by the assumption that someone was doing deliberate harm” and that this was combined with “coincidence on certain occasions of Miss Letby’s presence.”
“What it isn’t driven by is evidence of Miss Letby actually doing what is alleged against her,” he added.
“There is a real danger that people will simply accept the prosecution theory of guilt, and that’s all we have so far,” Mr. Myers said. “A theory of guilt based firmly on coincidence – if anything can be based firmly on coincidence.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Lucy Letby, 32, who worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital, is accused of multiple baby murders in the hospital’s neonatal unit from June 2015 to June 2016. She denies all charges.
Manchester Crown Court heard how Ms. Letby allegedly attempted to kill the children by injecting them with air, milk, or insulin, including two brothers from a set of triplets and one premature baby girl, who was only 98 minutes old.
Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC said the circumstances of the girl’s death were “an extreme example even by the standards of this case.”
“There were four separate occasions on which we allege Lucy Letby tried to kill her,” he said. “But ultimately at the fourth attempt, Lucy Letby succeeded in killing her.”
Attempts to murder the child ‘cold-blooded’ and ‘calculated’, says prosecutor
In the first alleged attempt, Ms. Letby injected the girl, identified for legal reasons as Child I, with air, but she was “resilient,” said Mr. Johnson. After the second attempt, Ms. Letby had stood in the doorway of Child I’s darkened room and commented that she looked pale. The designated nurse then approached and turned on the light, noticing that the child wasn’t breathing. After a third attempt the child was found to have excess air in her stomach, which had affected her breathing. Child I was then transferred to Arrowe Park Hospital, where she was stabilized before she was returned to Chester.
After the fourth attempt, Child I’s medical alarm rang, leading a nurse to spot Ms. Letby by the child’s incubator. Child I died that morning, said Mr. Johnson, who described the nurse’s attacks as premeditated. “It was persistent, it was calculated, and it was cold-blooded.”
The judge, Mr. Justice Goss, and jury heard how shortly after the parents were told of their child’s death, Ms. Letby approached the mother, who testified that the nurse was “smiling and kept going on about how she was present at the baby’s first bath and how much the baby had loved it.” She also sent a sympathy card to the parents, and the prosecutor says she kept an image of the card on her phone.
Doctor interrupted another alleged attempt
Dr. Ravi Jayaram, a paediatric consultant, had become suspicious of Ms. Letby in a number of unexplained child deaths. He later interrupted her as she allegedly tried to kill another baby, identified as Child K. He noticed that the nurse was alone with the baby and walked into the room, seeing Ms. Letby standing over the child’s incubator. He was “uncomfortable” as he had “started to notice a coincidence between unexplained deaths, serious collapses, and the presence of Lucy Letby,” said the prosecutor.
“Dr. Jayaram could see from the monitor on the wall that Child K’s oxygen saturation level was falling dangerously low, to somewhere in the 80s,” said Mr. Johnson. “He said an alarm should have been sounding as Child K’s oxygen levels were falling.” Despite this, the nurse had not called for assistance.
“We allege she was trying to kill Child K when Dr. Jayaram walked in,” Mr. Johnson said, adding that the child’s breathing tube was found dislodged. The prosecutor said it was possible for this to happen in an active baby, but Child K was very premature and had been sedated.
Despite his concerns, Dr. Jayaram did not make a note of his suspicions. Later that morning, Ms. Letby was again at Child K’s incubator calling for help. The nurse was assisting the baby with her breathing and the breathing tube was found to have slipped too far into her throat. The child was transferred to another hospital but later died. Ms. Letby is not accused of Child K’s murder.
However, after the death of Child K, Ms. Letby was moved to day shifts “because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night shifts,” said Mr. Johnson. She was removed from the neonatal ward in June 2016 and moved to clerical duties where she would not come into contact with children.
Post-it note: Admission or anguish?
At the end of the prosecution’s presentation, Mr. Johnson mentioned a Post-it on which Ms. Letby had written, “I AM EVIL I DID THIS.” In the defense’s opening statements, Ben Myers KC, said the note was an “anguished outpouring of a young woman in fear and despair when she realises the enormity of what’s being said about her, in a moment to herself.”
He added that the nurse was dealing with employment issues at the time it was written, including a grievance procedure with the NHS Trust where she worked. Another note was shown on screens to the jury, which read: “Not good enough. I’m an awful person. I will never have children or marry. Despair.” and “I haven’t done anything wrong.”
Mr. Myers said that Ms. Letby was the type of person who often scribbles things down and the note was “nothing more extraordinary than that.”
In presenting the defense case, Mr. Myers argued that there was no evidence of Letby hurting the children, and that the prosecution’s case was “driven by the assumption that someone was doing deliberate harm” and that this was combined with “coincidence on certain occasions of Miss Letby’s presence.”
“What it isn’t driven by is evidence of Miss Letby actually doing what is alleged against her,” he added.
“There is a real danger that people will simply accept the prosecution theory of guilt, and that’s all we have so far,” Mr. Myers said. “A theory of guilt based firmly on coincidence – if anything can be based firmly on coincidence.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Lucy Letby, 32, who worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital, is accused of multiple baby murders in the hospital’s neonatal unit from June 2015 to June 2016. She denies all charges.
Manchester Crown Court heard how Ms. Letby allegedly attempted to kill the children by injecting them with air, milk, or insulin, including two brothers from a set of triplets and one premature baby girl, who was only 98 minutes old.
Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC said the circumstances of the girl’s death were “an extreme example even by the standards of this case.”
“There were four separate occasions on which we allege Lucy Letby tried to kill her,” he said. “But ultimately at the fourth attempt, Lucy Letby succeeded in killing her.”
Attempts to murder the child ‘cold-blooded’ and ‘calculated’, says prosecutor
In the first alleged attempt, Ms. Letby injected the girl, identified for legal reasons as Child I, with air, but she was “resilient,” said Mr. Johnson. After the second attempt, Ms. Letby had stood in the doorway of Child I’s darkened room and commented that she looked pale. The designated nurse then approached and turned on the light, noticing that the child wasn’t breathing. After a third attempt the child was found to have excess air in her stomach, which had affected her breathing. Child I was then transferred to Arrowe Park Hospital, where she was stabilized before she was returned to Chester.
After the fourth attempt, Child I’s medical alarm rang, leading a nurse to spot Ms. Letby by the child’s incubator. Child I died that morning, said Mr. Johnson, who described the nurse’s attacks as premeditated. “It was persistent, it was calculated, and it was cold-blooded.”
The judge, Mr. Justice Goss, and jury heard how shortly after the parents were told of their child’s death, Ms. Letby approached the mother, who testified that the nurse was “smiling and kept going on about how she was present at the baby’s first bath and how much the baby had loved it.” She also sent a sympathy card to the parents, and the prosecutor says she kept an image of the card on her phone.
Doctor interrupted another alleged attempt
Dr. Ravi Jayaram, a paediatric consultant, had become suspicious of Ms. Letby in a number of unexplained child deaths. He later interrupted her as she allegedly tried to kill another baby, identified as Child K. He noticed that the nurse was alone with the baby and walked into the room, seeing Ms. Letby standing over the child’s incubator. He was “uncomfortable” as he had “started to notice a coincidence between unexplained deaths, serious collapses, and the presence of Lucy Letby,” said the prosecutor.
“Dr. Jayaram could see from the monitor on the wall that Child K’s oxygen saturation level was falling dangerously low, to somewhere in the 80s,” said Mr. Johnson. “He said an alarm should have been sounding as Child K’s oxygen levels were falling.” Despite this, the nurse had not called for assistance.
“We allege she was trying to kill Child K when Dr. Jayaram walked in,” Mr. Johnson said, adding that the child’s breathing tube was found dislodged. The prosecutor said it was possible for this to happen in an active baby, but Child K was very premature and had been sedated.
Despite his concerns, Dr. Jayaram did not make a note of his suspicions. Later that morning, Ms. Letby was again at Child K’s incubator calling for help. The nurse was assisting the baby with her breathing and the breathing tube was found to have slipped too far into her throat. The child was transferred to another hospital but later died. Ms. Letby is not accused of Child K’s murder.
However, after the death of Child K, Ms. Letby was moved to day shifts “because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night shifts,” said Mr. Johnson. She was removed from the neonatal ward in June 2016 and moved to clerical duties where she would not come into contact with children.
Post-it note: Admission or anguish?
At the end of the prosecution’s presentation, Mr. Johnson mentioned a Post-it on which Ms. Letby had written, “I AM EVIL I DID THIS.” In the defense’s opening statements, Ben Myers KC, said the note was an “anguished outpouring of a young woman in fear and despair when she realises the enormity of what’s being said about her, in a moment to herself.”
He added that the nurse was dealing with employment issues at the time it was written, including a grievance procedure with the NHS Trust where she worked. Another note was shown on screens to the jury, which read: “Not good enough. I’m an awful person. I will never have children or marry. Despair.” and “I haven’t done anything wrong.”
Mr. Myers said that Ms. Letby was the type of person who often scribbles things down and the note was “nothing more extraordinary than that.”
In presenting the defense case, Mr. Myers argued that there was no evidence of Letby hurting the children, and that the prosecution’s case was “driven by the assumption that someone was doing deliberate harm” and that this was combined with “coincidence on certain occasions of Miss Letby’s presence.”
“What it isn’t driven by is evidence of Miss Letby actually doing what is alleged against her,” he added.
“There is a real danger that people will simply accept the prosecution theory of guilt, and that’s all we have so far,” Mr. Myers said. “A theory of guilt based firmly on coincidence – if anything can be based firmly on coincidence.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Starting a blog
. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.
Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.
Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.
By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)
The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.
You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.
That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.
Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.
Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.
Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.
If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics.
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].
*This article was updated 10/17/2022.
. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.
Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.
Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.
By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)
The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.
You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.
That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.
Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.
Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.
Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.
If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics.
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].
*This article was updated 10/17/2022.
. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.
Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.
Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.
By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)
The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.
You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.
That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.
Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.
Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.
Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.
If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics.
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].
*This article was updated 10/17/2022.
Climate change: Commentary in four dermatology journals calls for emergency action
“moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.
Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.
“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”
Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.
In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.
The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
‘A threat multiplier’
The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.
In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.
However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.
Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”
Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.
In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.
In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.
But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.
Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.
AAD actions
In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”
Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”
The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.
The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.
And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
‘Be part of the solution’
In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.
In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”
Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”
Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”
Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.
“moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.
Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.
“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”
Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.
In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.
The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
‘A threat multiplier’
The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.
In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.
However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.
Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”
Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.
In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.
In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.
But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.
Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.
AAD actions
In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”
Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”
The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.
The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.
And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
‘Be part of the solution’
In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.
In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”
Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”
Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”
Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.
“moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.
Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.
“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”
Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.
In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.
The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
‘A threat multiplier’
The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.
In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.
However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.
Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”
Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.
In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.
In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.
But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.
Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.
AAD actions
In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”
Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”
The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.
The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.
And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
‘Be part of the solution’
In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.
In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”
Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”
Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”
Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.
ACC calls for more career flexibility in cardiology
A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.
The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.
The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
‘Hard-driving profession’
The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.
“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.
The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.
“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.
“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”
She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”
Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.
“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.
The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.
“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.
“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.
Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.
“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.
As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.
“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
A growing need
“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.
“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.
“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
‘Thoughtful and long overdue’
“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.
“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.
“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”
Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.
The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.
The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
‘Hard-driving profession’
The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.
“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.
The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.
“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.
“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”
She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”
Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.
“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.
The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.
“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.
“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.
Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.
“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.
As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.
“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
A growing need
“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.
“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.
“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
‘Thoughtful and long overdue’
“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.
“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.
“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”
Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.
The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.
The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
‘Hard-driving profession’
The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.
“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.
The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.
“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.
“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”
She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”
Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.
“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.
The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.
“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.
“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.
Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.
“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.
As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.
“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
A growing need
“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.
“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.
“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
‘Thoughtful and long overdue’
“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.
“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.
“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”
Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
CVS cuts prices of menstrual products, covers sales tax in some states
CVS is cutting the cost of its store-branded menstrual products and paying state sales taxes on them in a dozen states.
The drug store chain said that starting Thursday it was reducing prices on CVS Health and Live Better tampons, menstrual pads, liners, and cups by 25%.
“Women deserve quality when it comes to the products they may need each month,” CVS said in a statement. “We’re paying the tax on period products on behalf of our customers where and when possible, and are working to help eliminate the tax nationwide.”
The store is also trying to equalize costs between men’s and women’s hygiene products, like razors.
The chain is paying sales taxes on period products in these 12 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
It can’t pay the taxes in other states that have them because of laws that prevent third parties from paying taxes for a customer.
“This move will highlight their commitment to addressing women’s health and pave the way for reducing menstrual inequity,” Padmini Murthy, MD, the global health lead for the American Medical Women’s Association, said in an email to CNN, “and not just to promote the use of CVS products.”
Twenty-three states don’t tax feminine hygiene products, says the Alliance for Period Supplies, an advocacy group seeking to expand access to menstrual supplies.
“Too often period products are taxed as luxury items and not recognized as basic necessities,” the organization said. “Period products are taxed at a similar rate to items like decor, electronics, makeup, and toys.”
Tampon prices rose 12.2% for the year ending Oct. 2, according to market research firm IRI.
And 25% of women struggle to buy the products because of the expense, says the group.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CVS is cutting the cost of its store-branded menstrual products and paying state sales taxes on them in a dozen states.
The drug store chain said that starting Thursday it was reducing prices on CVS Health and Live Better tampons, menstrual pads, liners, and cups by 25%.
“Women deserve quality when it comes to the products they may need each month,” CVS said in a statement. “We’re paying the tax on period products on behalf of our customers where and when possible, and are working to help eliminate the tax nationwide.”
The store is also trying to equalize costs between men’s and women’s hygiene products, like razors.
The chain is paying sales taxes on period products in these 12 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
It can’t pay the taxes in other states that have them because of laws that prevent third parties from paying taxes for a customer.
“This move will highlight their commitment to addressing women’s health and pave the way for reducing menstrual inequity,” Padmini Murthy, MD, the global health lead for the American Medical Women’s Association, said in an email to CNN, “and not just to promote the use of CVS products.”
Twenty-three states don’t tax feminine hygiene products, says the Alliance for Period Supplies, an advocacy group seeking to expand access to menstrual supplies.
“Too often period products are taxed as luxury items and not recognized as basic necessities,” the organization said. “Period products are taxed at a similar rate to items like decor, electronics, makeup, and toys.”
Tampon prices rose 12.2% for the year ending Oct. 2, according to market research firm IRI.
And 25% of women struggle to buy the products because of the expense, says the group.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CVS is cutting the cost of its store-branded menstrual products and paying state sales taxes on them in a dozen states.
The drug store chain said that starting Thursday it was reducing prices on CVS Health and Live Better tampons, menstrual pads, liners, and cups by 25%.
“Women deserve quality when it comes to the products they may need each month,” CVS said in a statement. “We’re paying the tax on period products on behalf of our customers where and when possible, and are working to help eliminate the tax nationwide.”
The store is also trying to equalize costs between men’s and women’s hygiene products, like razors.
The chain is paying sales taxes on period products in these 12 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
It can’t pay the taxes in other states that have them because of laws that prevent third parties from paying taxes for a customer.
“This move will highlight their commitment to addressing women’s health and pave the way for reducing menstrual inequity,” Padmini Murthy, MD, the global health lead for the American Medical Women’s Association, said in an email to CNN, “and not just to promote the use of CVS products.”
Twenty-three states don’t tax feminine hygiene products, says the Alliance for Period Supplies, an advocacy group seeking to expand access to menstrual supplies.
“Too often period products are taxed as luxury items and not recognized as basic necessities,” the organization said. “Period products are taxed at a similar rate to items like decor, electronics, makeup, and toys.”
Tampon prices rose 12.2% for the year ending Oct. 2, according to market research firm IRI.
And 25% of women struggle to buy the products because of the expense, says the group.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.