Business of Medicine

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

California has agreed to settle a lawsuit and pay $300,000 to an organization of Christian physicians and dentists who challenged a new provision in the state’s aid-in-dying law they said would violate their religious beliefs.

A federal judge ruled May 17 that doctors who oppose assisted suicide will not be required to document a terminally ill patient’s request for life-ending medication and refer to another doctor for the medication.

The Christian clinicians objected to the documentation requirement because it counted as one of the two oral requests required for a qualified patient to obtain aid-in-dying drugs under the law, according to their claim filed last February.

“This is a significant victory for religious and conscientious physicians in California. The government can’t force any health care professional to act against his faith or medical ethics,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Kevin Theriot, who represented the plaintiffs, a Christian hospice physician and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

The litigation is one of a number of lawsuits recently filed by doctors in California and around the country regarding rights to free speech and religious expression.

Physicians and advocates including an anti-vaccine group filed two lawsuits claiming another California law violated their free speech rights. Under that law – temporarily halted while the lawsuits proceed – doctors could face medical board sanctions for communicating COVID-related misinformation to patients.

In Arkansas, two physicians joined a lawsuit challenging the state’s law that would prohibit clinicians from referring or providing transgender care. And physicians in April sued Idaho’s attorney general over free speech and other constitutional rights after a legal opinion suggested they could not refer patients for out-of-state abortions.

The provision in California’s aid-in-dying law was unconstitutional because “it violates objectors’ freedom of speech by requiring them to take part in implementing the law,” despite their objections to assisted suicide, U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha of Los Angeles, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled last September. He halted enforcement of the provision while the lawsuit proceeded.

Judge Aenlle-Rocha cited the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that said California violated the free-speech rights of anti-abortion clinics called “crisis pregnancy centers” by requiring them to notify their patients that the state makes abortions available to low-income women at little or no cost, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
 

What led to the aid-in-dying lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed after an amendment to the 2015 California End of Life Option Act which took effect in January.

Under the 2015 law, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state, physicians could voluntarily participate in a patient’s aid-in-dying requests and refuse for “reasons of conscience, morality, or ethics.”

The 2015 law also provided legal immunity to individual physicians who refused to engage in activities such as providing information about the law or referring an individual to a clinician who prescribes aid-in-dying medication, according to the legislation.

The new law allowed state officials to impose criminal or civil penalties, including professional discipline or a licensing sanction, on a California-licensed physician who refused or failed to document a request, refer a patient, or assist a patient in any way with ending his life.

Under the settlement, state officials agreed to not enforce the documentation and referral requirements against objecting physicians, in addition to the paying the plaintiffs $300,000 for attorney’s fees.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

California has agreed to settle a lawsuit and pay $300,000 to an organization of Christian physicians and dentists who challenged a new provision in the state’s aid-in-dying law they said would violate their religious beliefs.

A federal judge ruled May 17 that doctors who oppose assisted suicide will not be required to document a terminally ill patient’s request for life-ending medication and refer to another doctor for the medication.

The Christian clinicians objected to the documentation requirement because it counted as one of the two oral requests required for a qualified patient to obtain aid-in-dying drugs under the law, according to their claim filed last February.

“This is a significant victory for religious and conscientious physicians in California. The government can’t force any health care professional to act against his faith or medical ethics,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Kevin Theriot, who represented the plaintiffs, a Christian hospice physician and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

The litigation is one of a number of lawsuits recently filed by doctors in California and around the country regarding rights to free speech and religious expression.

Physicians and advocates including an anti-vaccine group filed two lawsuits claiming another California law violated their free speech rights. Under that law – temporarily halted while the lawsuits proceed – doctors could face medical board sanctions for communicating COVID-related misinformation to patients.

In Arkansas, two physicians joined a lawsuit challenging the state’s law that would prohibit clinicians from referring or providing transgender care. And physicians in April sued Idaho’s attorney general over free speech and other constitutional rights after a legal opinion suggested they could not refer patients for out-of-state abortions.

The provision in California’s aid-in-dying law was unconstitutional because “it violates objectors’ freedom of speech by requiring them to take part in implementing the law,” despite their objections to assisted suicide, U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha of Los Angeles, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled last September. He halted enforcement of the provision while the lawsuit proceeded.

Judge Aenlle-Rocha cited the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that said California violated the free-speech rights of anti-abortion clinics called “crisis pregnancy centers” by requiring them to notify their patients that the state makes abortions available to low-income women at little or no cost, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
 

What led to the aid-in-dying lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed after an amendment to the 2015 California End of Life Option Act which took effect in January.

Under the 2015 law, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state, physicians could voluntarily participate in a patient’s aid-in-dying requests and refuse for “reasons of conscience, morality, or ethics.”

The 2015 law also provided legal immunity to individual physicians who refused to engage in activities such as providing information about the law or referring an individual to a clinician who prescribes aid-in-dying medication, according to the legislation.

The new law allowed state officials to impose criminal or civil penalties, including professional discipline or a licensing sanction, on a California-licensed physician who refused or failed to document a request, refer a patient, or assist a patient in any way with ending his life.

Under the settlement, state officials agreed to not enforce the documentation and referral requirements against objecting physicians, in addition to the paying the plaintiffs $300,000 for attorney’s fees.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

California has agreed to settle a lawsuit and pay $300,000 to an organization of Christian physicians and dentists who challenged a new provision in the state’s aid-in-dying law they said would violate their religious beliefs.

A federal judge ruled May 17 that doctors who oppose assisted suicide will not be required to document a terminally ill patient’s request for life-ending medication and refer to another doctor for the medication.

The Christian clinicians objected to the documentation requirement because it counted as one of the two oral requests required for a qualified patient to obtain aid-in-dying drugs under the law, according to their claim filed last February.

“This is a significant victory for religious and conscientious physicians in California. The government can’t force any health care professional to act against his faith or medical ethics,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Kevin Theriot, who represented the plaintiffs, a Christian hospice physician and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

The litigation is one of a number of lawsuits recently filed by doctors in California and around the country regarding rights to free speech and religious expression.

Physicians and advocates including an anti-vaccine group filed two lawsuits claiming another California law violated their free speech rights. Under that law – temporarily halted while the lawsuits proceed – doctors could face medical board sanctions for communicating COVID-related misinformation to patients.

In Arkansas, two physicians joined a lawsuit challenging the state’s law that would prohibit clinicians from referring or providing transgender care. And physicians in April sued Idaho’s attorney general over free speech and other constitutional rights after a legal opinion suggested they could not refer patients for out-of-state abortions.

The provision in California’s aid-in-dying law was unconstitutional because “it violates objectors’ freedom of speech by requiring them to take part in implementing the law,” despite their objections to assisted suicide, U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha of Los Angeles, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled last September. He halted enforcement of the provision while the lawsuit proceeded.

Judge Aenlle-Rocha cited the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that said California violated the free-speech rights of anti-abortion clinics called “crisis pregnancy centers” by requiring them to notify their patients that the state makes abortions available to low-income women at little or no cost, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
 

What led to the aid-in-dying lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed after an amendment to the 2015 California End of Life Option Act which took effect in January.

Under the 2015 law, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state, physicians could voluntarily participate in a patient’s aid-in-dying requests and refuse for “reasons of conscience, morality, or ethics.”

The 2015 law also provided legal immunity to individual physicians who refused to engage in activities such as providing information about the law or referring an individual to a clinician who prescribes aid-in-dying medication, according to the legislation.

The new law allowed state officials to impose criminal or civil penalties, including professional discipline or a licensing sanction, on a California-licensed physician who refused or failed to document a request, refer a patient, or assist a patient in any way with ending his life.

Under the settlement, state officials agreed to not enforce the documentation and referral requirements against objecting physicians, in addition to the paying the plaintiffs $300,000 for attorney’s fees.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Linda Bluestein remembers all the doctors who missed, ignored, or incompletely diagnosed her chronic illness.

There was the orthopedic surgeon who noted her hyperextended elbows but failed to check any of her other joints. The gastroenterologist who insisted on performing multiple scoping procedures but wouldn’t discuss how to manage her symptoms. The other surgeon who, after performing arthroscopy on her injured knee, yelled at her: “There is nothing wrong with your knee! You’re fine!” in a room full of people.

And then there was the rheumatologist who said: “Oh, you want something to be wrong with you?”

“No,” she replied, “I want an explanation. I want to keep working. I just want to know why these things keep happening to me.”

The medical frustration she experienced was especially difficult because, like her health care providers, Linda Bluestein has an MD after her name. She is a board-certified anesthesiologist and integrative medicine physician.

Living with a chronic illness is a challenge for any patient. But physicians who are diagnosed with chronic conditions face a unique set of personal and professional issues.

Along with the physically demanding schedule of medical practice, they must cope with what many call a “culture of invincibility” within medicine. Doctors are not supposed to get sick. In fact, the unwritten rule is presenteeism – to function without adequate food or sleep and to never prioritize their own self-care over their dedication to their patients.

Whether their conditions are visible, such as muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis, or invisible, such as fibromyalgia and mental illnesses – and now, long COVID – these doctors often meet significant stigma. They fight the assumption that they are less capable than their colleagues.

But they also experience an invaluable benefit: They gain firsthand knowledge of the patient experience, a profound understanding which, they say, enhances how they care for their own patients.
 

What it takes to become a doctor when you have a chronic condition

In short, it’s not easy.

Data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey show that more than half of U.S. adults had at least one of several chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney problems. Nearly a third of respondents had more than one condition. But fewer than 5% of medical students and 3% of practicing physicians report having a chronic illness or disability, according to studies from 2019 and 2021.

While that could mean that fewer people with chronic illness enter medicine, cases also exist in which aspiring physicians with conditions were dissuaded from pursuing a career in medicine at all.

Amy Stenehjem, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, is one of the exceptions. Diagnosed with several autoimmune-related conditions as a teenager and young adult, Dr. Stenehjem was determined to become a doctor. In her 20s, her health was relatively stable, and she was able to manage medical school and residency. Her training institutions agreed to provide some accommodations that helped her succeed.

“They let me build some flexibility into the training,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “In medical school, when I knew I wasn’t going to be able to do a particular specialty as a career, they let me work with an attending doctor that did not require a lot of on-call time during that particular rotation.”

Dr. Stenehjem specialized in chronic neck and back disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and autoimmune-related diseases. She practiced for more than a decade. But in 2011, her condition spiraled. She couldn’t walk a few steps or even sit upright without experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath. She had debilitating fatigue and episodes of fever, rash, headaches, and joint pain.

It would take 7 years and more than 20 doctors to determine Dr. Stenehjem’s multiple diagnoses. In addition to her autoimmune diseases, she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autoinflammatory periodic fever syndrome, Lyme disease, and reactivated Epstein-Barr infection.

While she suspects that her providers gave her more “leeway” because she was a physician, many did not show a deep understanding of the severity of her symptoms and the impact those symptoms had.

“When I was practicing, I really didn’t fully understand the impact chronic illness had on my patients,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “Things like chronic dizziness, headaches, fatigue, pain, or brain fog can be really hard to understand unless you’ve experienced these symptoms. When I got sick, I finally realized, ‘Oh my goodness, when a patient says they’re dealing with fatigue, this is not your normal, I’m-super-tired-from-being-on-call fatigue. This is I-can’t-get-out-of-bed fatigue.’ That’s what people with chronic illness often deal with on a daily basis.”
 

Treating the individual

Dr. Stenehjem was aware that her chronic illness would affect her medical career. For Jason Baker, MD, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, it came as a shock. Dr. Baker was a third-year medical student when he experienced increased urination and rapid weight loss. It was only when friends pressed him to visit student health that a blood test revealed type 1 diabetes. Dr. Baker suddenly found himself lying in a hospital bed.

He remembers an attending physician who simply handed him a textbook on diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and a resident who informed him that he had kidney damage, which turned out to be untrue. Neither discussed the psychological issues from a frightening diagnosis that would require lifelong, daily management.

“There certainly could have been a bit more empathy from some of the people I dealt with early on,” he said.

Although his training gave him a stark picture of worst-case scenarios, Dr. Baker found that knowledge motivating. “I’d already seen patients come in who had diabetes complications,” Dr. Baker says. “I vowed to never ever get those complications. It was a good balance of fear and motivation.”

Dr. Baker had not planned to specialize in endocrinology, but he quickly realized that his personal diagnosis could help others. Now he often shares his experience with his patients who have diabetes, which he says makes them more comfortable discussing their own problems.

His approach, Dr. Baker explained, is to treat everyone as an individual. Trying to neatly classify patients with chronic illness is a common mistake he notices among physicians.

“There’s a lot of misunderstanding about type 1 versus type 2 [diabetes],” Dr. Baker said, “and trying to categorize people when sometimes people can’t be categorized. That’s really with any chronic condition; there’s no one size fits all.”

Managing his health is still a time-consuming task. At work, he needs breaks to eat, check his blood sugar, or take insulin. “During the workday seeing patients, I have to also remember that I’m a patient,” Dr. Baker said. “I have to be okay with prioritizing my own health. Otherwise I can’t help anybody.”
 

‘I am not the doctor for you’

Chronic diseases such as diabetes or hypertension are familiar to most doctors, and with good management, patients can usually function normally. When chronic conditions become disabling, however, attitudes in the medical field can change.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from studies, people with disabilities experience significant disparities and barriers to care. Some of this can be linked to social determinants of health. People with disabilities are more likely to be poor and to rely on Medicare and Medicaid for insurance coverage. But lack of training, unwillingness to provide accommodations, ignorance of legal requirements, and inaccurate assumptions among physicians also play a role.

These are themes that Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has heard from hundreds of patients with disabilities during the more than 25 years that she has conducted research.

In late 2019, Dr. Iezzoni and coinvestigators fielded a national survey of 714 practicing physicians. Only 40.7% reported they were “very confident” that they could provide the same quality of care to patients with disabilities as they do for other patients. And only 56.5% “strongly agreed” that they welcomed these patients into their practices.

The survey was conducted through a series of small focus groups that Dr. Iezzoni held with physicians in 2018. These yielded views that were startling, and in some cases, overtly discriminatory:

• Doctors complained about the “burden” of caring for a patient with a disability.
• They lacked the time or equipment, such as accessible exam tables or weight scales.
• They admitted to inventing excuses for why appointments were not available or routine diagnostic tests were not performed.
• They described being fearful of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The overall message was summed up in one doctor’s statement: “I am not the doctor for you.”

“Doctors are people too,” Dr. Iezzoni pointed out. “And so they reflect the same prejudices and stigmatized attitudes of the rest of the population. It might be implicit, so they might not be aware of it. [But] it might be explicit.”

Ableism in the medical field is all too familiar to Dr. Iezzoni. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 26 during her first year at Harvard Medical School in the early 1980s. Despite symptom flare-ups, Dr. Iezzoni was able to graduate with her class, but many instructors and administrators had little interest in accommodating her physical limitations. In fact, several physicians discouraged her from continuing to train.

Unable to take call, run up flights of stairs, or stand for hours at a time, Dr. Iezzoni remembers being told by a senior surgeon that she shouldn’t become a doctor since she lacked the “most important quality,” which was “24/7 availability.” A hospital CEO informed her: “There are too many doctors in the country right now for us to worry about training a handicapped physician. If that means that some people get left by the wayside, so be it.”

Ultimately, Harvard Medical School declined to write Dr. Iezzoni a letter of recommendation for an internship. She would never practice medicine. “My career was just truncated from the start,” Dr. Iezzoni said. “It never happened because of discrimination.”

She later learned the legal term for her treatment: constructive dismissal.

“The medical school didn’t outright say, ‘Go away. We’re not allowing you to graduate.’ ” Dr. Iezzoni explained. “But they made my life so difficult that I did so voluntarily.”

Dr. Iezzoni graduated in 1984, before the passage of the ADA in 1990, and she refers to her experience as a “ghost from the past,” a historical reminder of how the legal landscape has changed – even though the tendency toward bias may not have.
 

The fight for inclusion

Zainub Dhanani, a fifth-year medical student at Stanford (Calif.) University, won’t forget an interview at one of the other schools to which she applied. The interviewer asked how she expected to be in a hospital all day if she had a chronic illness.

“Does it really make sense?” he wanted to know.

The question shocked her in the moment, but now she sees this type of bias as linked to the inequalities that many marginalized groups face in health care and beyond. That’s also why she believes physician-patients are crucial to improve the quality of care for people with chronic illness and other groups that face discrimination.

Who else, she wonders, could provide that “reaffirming” experience for patients or have that “unique edge” other than a provider who has navigated the same world?

Ms. Dhanani is the executive director and founder of Medical Students With Disability and Chronic Illness, an organization dedicated to empowering these students through advocacy, education, accessibility, and community. The group now has 19 chapters at medical schools across the country.

Ms. Dhanani said she has received excellent accommodations from Stanford for her own condition (which she prefers not to disclose), but all medical schools are not as responsive to students with various physical needs. Her organization offers support and resources to inform these future physicians about their options and rights.

“Disability justice is also racial justice,” Ms. Dhanani stressed. “It’s also environmental justice. It’s also gender and sexuality-based justice. Those compounded layers of biases lead to worse and worse levels of care. As a patient, it’s terrifying. And as a future physician, it’s tragic to know that this is something so pervasive and yet so under-addressed in medicine.”
 

Soldiering on

Unfortunately, for some physicians with chronic illness, there are no practical accommodations that could save their careers in clinical practice.

Dr. Stenehjem now works part-time as a health consultant, helping those with chronic illnesses navigate their health care systems.

Dr. Bluestein offers a similar coaching service to patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) and other connective tissue and hypermobility disorders. Because of her own EDS, she can no longer practice as an anesthesiologist but instead opened an integrative pain management practice for patients with complex pain conditions..

She believes the idea that doctors are “invincible” needs to change. She recalls the time her former group practice told her in no uncertain terms to “never call in sick.”

The stories she hears from her current clients are similar to her own. She can empathize, knowing firsthand the physical and psychological damage these attitudes can cause.

“When I was at my worst physically, I was also at my worst psychologically,” said Dr. Bluestein. “We tend to think of them as separate, but they go hand in hand. If we can validate people’s experiences rather than disregard them, it has a positive forward cycle, as opposed to the reverse, which is what usually happens.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Linda Bluestein remembers all the doctors who missed, ignored, or incompletely diagnosed her chronic illness.

There was the orthopedic surgeon who noted her hyperextended elbows but failed to check any of her other joints. The gastroenterologist who insisted on performing multiple scoping procedures but wouldn’t discuss how to manage her symptoms. The other surgeon who, after performing arthroscopy on her injured knee, yelled at her: “There is nothing wrong with your knee! You’re fine!” in a room full of people.

And then there was the rheumatologist who said: “Oh, you want something to be wrong with you?”

“No,” she replied, “I want an explanation. I want to keep working. I just want to know why these things keep happening to me.”

The medical frustration she experienced was especially difficult because, like her health care providers, Linda Bluestein has an MD after her name. She is a board-certified anesthesiologist and integrative medicine physician.

Living with a chronic illness is a challenge for any patient. But physicians who are diagnosed with chronic conditions face a unique set of personal and professional issues.

Along with the physically demanding schedule of medical practice, they must cope with what many call a “culture of invincibility” within medicine. Doctors are not supposed to get sick. In fact, the unwritten rule is presenteeism – to function without adequate food or sleep and to never prioritize their own self-care over their dedication to their patients.

Whether their conditions are visible, such as muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis, or invisible, such as fibromyalgia and mental illnesses – and now, long COVID – these doctors often meet significant stigma. They fight the assumption that they are less capable than their colleagues.

But they also experience an invaluable benefit: They gain firsthand knowledge of the patient experience, a profound understanding which, they say, enhances how they care for their own patients.
 

What it takes to become a doctor when you have a chronic condition

In short, it’s not easy.

Data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey show that more than half of U.S. adults had at least one of several chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney problems. Nearly a third of respondents had more than one condition. But fewer than 5% of medical students and 3% of practicing physicians report having a chronic illness or disability, according to studies from 2019 and 2021.

While that could mean that fewer people with chronic illness enter medicine, cases also exist in which aspiring physicians with conditions were dissuaded from pursuing a career in medicine at all.

Amy Stenehjem, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, is one of the exceptions. Diagnosed with several autoimmune-related conditions as a teenager and young adult, Dr. Stenehjem was determined to become a doctor. In her 20s, her health was relatively stable, and she was able to manage medical school and residency. Her training institutions agreed to provide some accommodations that helped her succeed.

“They let me build some flexibility into the training,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “In medical school, when I knew I wasn’t going to be able to do a particular specialty as a career, they let me work with an attending doctor that did not require a lot of on-call time during that particular rotation.”

Dr. Stenehjem specialized in chronic neck and back disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and autoimmune-related diseases. She practiced for more than a decade. But in 2011, her condition spiraled. She couldn’t walk a few steps or even sit upright without experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath. She had debilitating fatigue and episodes of fever, rash, headaches, and joint pain.

It would take 7 years and more than 20 doctors to determine Dr. Stenehjem’s multiple diagnoses. In addition to her autoimmune diseases, she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autoinflammatory periodic fever syndrome, Lyme disease, and reactivated Epstein-Barr infection.

While she suspects that her providers gave her more “leeway” because she was a physician, many did not show a deep understanding of the severity of her symptoms and the impact those symptoms had.

“When I was practicing, I really didn’t fully understand the impact chronic illness had on my patients,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “Things like chronic dizziness, headaches, fatigue, pain, or brain fog can be really hard to understand unless you’ve experienced these symptoms. When I got sick, I finally realized, ‘Oh my goodness, when a patient says they’re dealing with fatigue, this is not your normal, I’m-super-tired-from-being-on-call fatigue. This is I-can’t-get-out-of-bed fatigue.’ That’s what people with chronic illness often deal with on a daily basis.”
 

Treating the individual

Dr. Stenehjem was aware that her chronic illness would affect her medical career. For Jason Baker, MD, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, it came as a shock. Dr. Baker was a third-year medical student when he experienced increased urination and rapid weight loss. It was only when friends pressed him to visit student health that a blood test revealed type 1 diabetes. Dr. Baker suddenly found himself lying in a hospital bed.

He remembers an attending physician who simply handed him a textbook on diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and a resident who informed him that he had kidney damage, which turned out to be untrue. Neither discussed the psychological issues from a frightening diagnosis that would require lifelong, daily management.

“There certainly could have been a bit more empathy from some of the people I dealt with early on,” he said.

Although his training gave him a stark picture of worst-case scenarios, Dr. Baker found that knowledge motivating. “I’d already seen patients come in who had diabetes complications,” Dr. Baker says. “I vowed to never ever get those complications. It was a good balance of fear and motivation.”

Dr. Baker had not planned to specialize in endocrinology, but he quickly realized that his personal diagnosis could help others. Now he often shares his experience with his patients who have diabetes, which he says makes them more comfortable discussing their own problems.

His approach, Dr. Baker explained, is to treat everyone as an individual. Trying to neatly classify patients with chronic illness is a common mistake he notices among physicians.

“There’s a lot of misunderstanding about type 1 versus type 2 [diabetes],” Dr. Baker said, “and trying to categorize people when sometimes people can’t be categorized. That’s really with any chronic condition; there’s no one size fits all.”

Managing his health is still a time-consuming task. At work, he needs breaks to eat, check his blood sugar, or take insulin. “During the workday seeing patients, I have to also remember that I’m a patient,” Dr. Baker said. “I have to be okay with prioritizing my own health. Otherwise I can’t help anybody.”
 

‘I am not the doctor for you’

Chronic diseases such as diabetes or hypertension are familiar to most doctors, and with good management, patients can usually function normally. When chronic conditions become disabling, however, attitudes in the medical field can change.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from studies, people with disabilities experience significant disparities and barriers to care. Some of this can be linked to social determinants of health. People with disabilities are more likely to be poor and to rely on Medicare and Medicaid for insurance coverage. But lack of training, unwillingness to provide accommodations, ignorance of legal requirements, and inaccurate assumptions among physicians also play a role.

These are themes that Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has heard from hundreds of patients with disabilities during the more than 25 years that she has conducted research.

In late 2019, Dr. Iezzoni and coinvestigators fielded a national survey of 714 practicing physicians. Only 40.7% reported they were “very confident” that they could provide the same quality of care to patients with disabilities as they do for other patients. And only 56.5% “strongly agreed” that they welcomed these patients into their practices.

The survey was conducted through a series of small focus groups that Dr. Iezzoni held with physicians in 2018. These yielded views that were startling, and in some cases, overtly discriminatory:

• Doctors complained about the “burden” of caring for a patient with a disability.
• They lacked the time or equipment, such as accessible exam tables or weight scales.
• They admitted to inventing excuses for why appointments were not available or routine diagnostic tests were not performed.
• They described being fearful of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The overall message was summed up in one doctor’s statement: “I am not the doctor for you.”

“Doctors are people too,” Dr. Iezzoni pointed out. “And so they reflect the same prejudices and stigmatized attitudes of the rest of the population. It might be implicit, so they might not be aware of it. [But] it might be explicit.”

Ableism in the medical field is all too familiar to Dr. Iezzoni. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 26 during her first year at Harvard Medical School in the early 1980s. Despite symptom flare-ups, Dr. Iezzoni was able to graduate with her class, but many instructors and administrators had little interest in accommodating her physical limitations. In fact, several physicians discouraged her from continuing to train.

Unable to take call, run up flights of stairs, or stand for hours at a time, Dr. Iezzoni remembers being told by a senior surgeon that she shouldn’t become a doctor since she lacked the “most important quality,” which was “24/7 availability.” A hospital CEO informed her: “There are too many doctors in the country right now for us to worry about training a handicapped physician. If that means that some people get left by the wayside, so be it.”

Ultimately, Harvard Medical School declined to write Dr. Iezzoni a letter of recommendation for an internship. She would never practice medicine. “My career was just truncated from the start,” Dr. Iezzoni said. “It never happened because of discrimination.”

She later learned the legal term for her treatment: constructive dismissal.

“The medical school didn’t outright say, ‘Go away. We’re not allowing you to graduate.’ ” Dr. Iezzoni explained. “But they made my life so difficult that I did so voluntarily.”

Dr. Iezzoni graduated in 1984, before the passage of the ADA in 1990, and she refers to her experience as a “ghost from the past,” a historical reminder of how the legal landscape has changed – even though the tendency toward bias may not have.
 

The fight for inclusion

Zainub Dhanani, a fifth-year medical student at Stanford (Calif.) University, won’t forget an interview at one of the other schools to which she applied. The interviewer asked how she expected to be in a hospital all day if she had a chronic illness.

“Does it really make sense?” he wanted to know.

The question shocked her in the moment, but now she sees this type of bias as linked to the inequalities that many marginalized groups face in health care and beyond. That’s also why she believes physician-patients are crucial to improve the quality of care for people with chronic illness and other groups that face discrimination.

Who else, she wonders, could provide that “reaffirming” experience for patients or have that “unique edge” other than a provider who has navigated the same world?

Ms. Dhanani is the executive director and founder of Medical Students With Disability and Chronic Illness, an organization dedicated to empowering these students through advocacy, education, accessibility, and community. The group now has 19 chapters at medical schools across the country.

Ms. Dhanani said she has received excellent accommodations from Stanford for her own condition (which she prefers not to disclose), but all medical schools are not as responsive to students with various physical needs. Her organization offers support and resources to inform these future physicians about their options and rights.

“Disability justice is also racial justice,” Ms. Dhanani stressed. “It’s also environmental justice. It’s also gender and sexuality-based justice. Those compounded layers of biases lead to worse and worse levels of care. As a patient, it’s terrifying. And as a future physician, it’s tragic to know that this is something so pervasive and yet so under-addressed in medicine.”
 

Soldiering on

Unfortunately, for some physicians with chronic illness, there are no practical accommodations that could save their careers in clinical practice.

Dr. Stenehjem now works part-time as a health consultant, helping those with chronic illnesses navigate their health care systems.

Dr. Bluestein offers a similar coaching service to patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) and other connective tissue and hypermobility disorders. Because of her own EDS, she can no longer practice as an anesthesiologist but instead opened an integrative pain management practice for patients with complex pain conditions..

She believes the idea that doctors are “invincible” needs to change. She recalls the time her former group practice told her in no uncertain terms to “never call in sick.”

The stories she hears from her current clients are similar to her own. She can empathize, knowing firsthand the physical and psychological damage these attitudes can cause.

“When I was at my worst physically, I was also at my worst psychologically,” said Dr. Bluestein. “We tend to think of them as separate, but they go hand in hand. If we can validate people’s experiences rather than disregard them, it has a positive forward cycle, as opposed to the reverse, which is what usually happens.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Linda Bluestein remembers all the doctors who missed, ignored, or incompletely diagnosed her chronic illness.

There was the orthopedic surgeon who noted her hyperextended elbows but failed to check any of her other joints. The gastroenterologist who insisted on performing multiple scoping procedures but wouldn’t discuss how to manage her symptoms. The other surgeon who, after performing arthroscopy on her injured knee, yelled at her: “There is nothing wrong with your knee! You’re fine!” in a room full of people.

And then there was the rheumatologist who said: “Oh, you want something to be wrong with you?”

“No,” she replied, “I want an explanation. I want to keep working. I just want to know why these things keep happening to me.”

The medical frustration she experienced was especially difficult because, like her health care providers, Linda Bluestein has an MD after her name. She is a board-certified anesthesiologist and integrative medicine physician.

Living with a chronic illness is a challenge for any patient. But physicians who are diagnosed with chronic conditions face a unique set of personal and professional issues.

Along with the physically demanding schedule of medical practice, they must cope with what many call a “culture of invincibility” within medicine. Doctors are not supposed to get sick. In fact, the unwritten rule is presenteeism – to function without adequate food or sleep and to never prioritize their own self-care over their dedication to their patients.

Whether their conditions are visible, such as muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis, or invisible, such as fibromyalgia and mental illnesses – and now, long COVID – these doctors often meet significant stigma. They fight the assumption that they are less capable than their colleagues.

But they also experience an invaluable benefit: They gain firsthand knowledge of the patient experience, a profound understanding which, they say, enhances how they care for their own patients.
 

What it takes to become a doctor when you have a chronic condition

In short, it’s not easy.

Data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey show that more than half of U.S. adults had at least one of several chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney problems. Nearly a third of respondents had more than one condition. But fewer than 5% of medical students and 3% of practicing physicians report having a chronic illness or disability, according to studies from 2019 and 2021.

While that could mean that fewer people with chronic illness enter medicine, cases also exist in which aspiring physicians with conditions were dissuaded from pursuing a career in medicine at all.

Amy Stenehjem, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, is one of the exceptions. Diagnosed with several autoimmune-related conditions as a teenager and young adult, Dr. Stenehjem was determined to become a doctor. In her 20s, her health was relatively stable, and she was able to manage medical school and residency. Her training institutions agreed to provide some accommodations that helped her succeed.

“They let me build some flexibility into the training,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “In medical school, when I knew I wasn’t going to be able to do a particular specialty as a career, they let me work with an attending doctor that did not require a lot of on-call time during that particular rotation.”

Dr. Stenehjem specialized in chronic neck and back disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and autoimmune-related diseases. She practiced for more than a decade. But in 2011, her condition spiraled. She couldn’t walk a few steps or even sit upright without experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath. She had debilitating fatigue and episodes of fever, rash, headaches, and joint pain.

It would take 7 years and more than 20 doctors to determine Dr. Stenehjem’s multiple diagnoses. In addition to her autoimmune diseases, she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autoinflammatory periodic fever syndrome, Lyme disease, and reactivated Epstein-Barr infection.

While she suspects that her providers gave her more “leeway” because she was a physician, many did not show a deep understanding of the severity of her symptoms and the impact those symptoms had.

“When I was practicing, I really didn’t fully understand the impact chronic illness had on my patients,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “Things like chronic dizziness, headaches, fatigue, pain, or brain fog can be really hard to understand unless you’ve experienced these symptoms. When I got sick, I finally realized, ‘Oh my goodness, when a patient says they’re dealing with fatigue, this is not your normal, I’m-super-tired-from-being-on-call fatigue. This is I-can’t-get-out-of-bed fatigue.’ That’s what people with chronic illness often deal with on a daily basis.”
 

Treating the individual

Dr. Stenehjem was aware that her chronic illness would affect her medical career. For Jason Baker, MD, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, it came as a shock. Dr. Baker was a third-year medical student when he experienced increased urination and rapid weight loss. It was only when friends pressed him to visit student health that a blood test revealed type 1 diabetes. Dr. Baker suddenly found himself lying in a hospital bed.

He remembers an attending physician who simply handed him a textbook on diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and a resident who informed him that he had kidney damage, which turned out to be untrue. Neither discussed the psychological issues from a frightening diagnosis that would require lifelong, daily management.

“There certainly could have been a bit more empathy from some of the people I dealt with early on,” he said.

Although his training gave him a stark picture of worst-case scenarios, Dr. Baker found that knowledge motivating. “I’d already seen patients come in who had diabetes complications,” Dr. Baker says. “I vowed to never ever get those complications. It was a good balance of fear and motivation.”

Dr. Baker had not planned to specialize in endocrinology, but he quickly realized that his personal diagnosis could help others. Now he often shares his experience with his patients who have diabetes, which he says makes them more comfortable discussing their own problems.

His approach, Dr. Baker explained, is to treat everyone as an individual. Trying to neatly classify patients with chronic illness is a common mistake he notices among physicians.

“There’s a lot of misunderstanding about type 1 versus type 2 [diabetes],” Dr. Baker said, “and trying to categorize people when sometimes people can’t be categorized. That’s really with any chronic condition; there’s no one size fits all.”

Managing his health is still a time-consuming task. At work, he needs breaks to eat, check his blood sugar, or take insulin. “During the workday seeing patients, I have to also remember that I’m a patient,” Dr. Baker said. “I have to be okay with prioritizing my own health. Otherwise I can’t help anybody.”
 

‘I am not the doctor for you’

Chronic diseases such as diabetes or hypertension are familiar to most doctors, and with good management, patients can usually function normally. When chronic conditions become disabling, however, attitudes in the medical field can change.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from studies, people with disabilities experience significant disparities and barriers to care. Some of this can be linked to social determinants of health. People with disabilities are more likely to be poor and to rely on Medicare and Medicaid for insurance coverage. But lack of training, unwillingness to provide accommodations, ignorance of legal requirements, and inaccurate assumptions among physicians also play a role.

These are themes that Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has heard from hundreds of patients with disabilities during the more than 25 years that she has conducted research.

In late 2019, Dr. Iezzoni and coinvestigators fielded a national survey of 714 practicing physicians. Only 40.7% reported they were “very confident” that they could provide the same quality of care to patients with disabilities as they do for other patients. And only 56.5% “strongly agreed” that they welcomed these patients into their practices.

The survey was conducted through a series of small focus groups that Dr. Iezzoni held with physicians in 2018. These yielded views that were startling, and in some cases, overtly discriminatory:

• Doctors complained about the “burden” of caring for a patient with a disability.
• They lacked the time or equipment, such as accessible exam tables or weight scales.
• They admitted to inventing excuses for why appointments were not available or routine diagnostic tests were not performed.
• They described being fearful of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The overall message was summed up in one doctor’s statement: “I am not the doctor for you.”

“Doctors are people too,” Dr. Iezzoni pointed out. “And so they reflect the same prejudices and stigmatized attitudes of the rest of the population. It might be implicit, so they might not be aware of it. [But] it might be explicit.”

Ableism in the medical field is all too familiar to Dr. Iezzoni. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 26 during her first year at Harvard Medical School in the early 1980s. Despite symptom flare-ups, Dr. Iezzoni was able to graduate with her class, but many instructors and administrators had little interest in accommodating her physical limitations. In fact, several physicians discouraged her from continuing to train.

Unable to take call, run up flights of stairs, or stand for hours at a time, Dr. Iezzoni remembers being told by a senior surgeon that she shouldn’t become a doctor since she lacked the “most important quality,” which was “24/7 availability.” A hospital CEO informed her: “There are too many doctors in the country right now for us to worry about training a handicapped physician. If that means that some people get left by the wayside, so be it.”

Ultimately, Harvard Medical School declined to write Dr. Iezzoni a letter of recommendation for an internship. She would never practice medicine. “My career was just truncated from the start,” Dr. Iezzoni said. “It never happened because of discrimination.”

She later learned the legal term for her treatment: constructive dismissal.

“The medical school didn’t outright say, ‘Go away. We’re not allowing you to graduate.’ ” Dr. Iezzoni explained. “But they made my life so difficult that I did so voluntarily.”

Dr. Iezzoni graduated in 1984, before the passage of the ADA in 1990, and she refers to her experience as a “ghost from the past,” a historical reminder of how the legal landscape has changed – even though the tendency toward bias may not have.
 

The fight for inclusion

Zainub Dhanani, a fifth-year medical student at Stanford (Calif.) University, won’t forget an interview at one of the other schools to which she applied. The interviewer asked how she expected to be in a hospital all day if she had a chronic illness.

“Does it really make sense?” he wanted to know.

The question shocked her in the moment, but now she sees this type of bias as linked to the inequalities that many marginalized groups face in health care and beyond. That’s also why she believes physician-patients are crucial to improve the quality of care for people with chronic illness and other groups that face discrimination.

Who else, she wonders, could provide that “reaffirming” experience for patients or have that “unique edge” other than a provider who has navigated the same world?

Ms. Dhanani is the executive director and founder of Medical Students With Disability and Chronic Illness, an organization dedicated to empowering these students through advocacy, education, accessibility, and community. The group now has 19 chapters at medical schools across the country.

Ms. Dhanani said she has received excellent accommodations from Stanford for her own condition (which she prefers not to disclose), but all medical schools are not as responsive to students with various physical needs. Her organization offers support and resources to inform these future physicians about their options and rights.

“Disability justice is also racial justice,” Ms. Dhanani stressed. “It’s also environmental justice. It’s also gender and sexuality-based justice. Those compounded layers of biases lead to worse and worse levels of care. As a patient, it’s terrifying. And as a future physician, it’s tragic to know that this is something so pervasive and yet so under-addressed in medicine.”
 

Soldiering on

Unfortunately, for some physicians with chronic illness, there are no practical accommodations that could save their careers in clinical practice.

Dr. Stenehjem now works part-time as a health consultant, helping those with chronic illnesses navigate their health care systems.

Dr. Bluestein offers a similar coaching service to patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) and other connective tissue and hypermobility disorders. Because of her own EDS, she can no longer practice as an anesthesiologist but instead opened an integrative pain management practice for patients with complex pain conditions..

She believes the idea that doctors are “invincible” needs to change. She recalls the time her former group practice told her in no uncertain terms to “never call in sick.”

The stories she hears from her current clients are similar to her own. She can empathize, knowing firsthand the physical and psychological damage these attitudes can cause.

“When I was at my worst physically, I was also at my worst psychologically,” said Dr. Bluestein. “We tend to think of them as separate, but they go hand in hand. If we can validate people’s experiences rather than disregard them, it has a positive forward cycle, as opposed to the reverse, which is what usually happens.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – A pilot project that trains lay community members to screen for and address common psychiatric disorders, addiction issues, and suicide risk promises to bring timely, evidence-based health services to those with little to no access to effective care.

The current shortage of mental health clinicians is driven by increased demand from a population more willing to seek psychiatric help and clinicians leaving the workforce. Both factors were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It would be costly to address the problem through additional specialist training, and doing so would take decades to see any changes,” project director Milton L. Wainberg, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, said in an interview.

Pauline Anderson

Unfeasible model

“The historic paradigm of ongoing long-term care is costly and not a feasible public mental health model. There is no evidence that it works, and there is increasing demand for brief interventions,” said Dr. Wainberg.

The new initiative – called ENGAGE – has its origins in parts of Africa, where nurses had to be trained during the AIDS crisis as there weren’t enough doctors to roll out antiretroviral therapy.

In the United States, the program trains and certifies community workers who are passionate about their community. “Members of the community want to learn how to help their neighbors,” said Dr. Wainberg. “When we give them the opportunity to learn skills that can actually change community members’ symptoms, they are excited.”

The training involves a didactic component and an experiential component, in which trainees work with at least three cases under supervision to demonstrate competency. Technical assistance and other supports, such as refresher training, are offered for a year after training.

Workers ask three initial questions to quickly determine if a person has a mental health disorder. Asking 10 additional questions tells the worker if the person has a common mental health disorder like depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a substance use disorder involving alcohol or drugs, suicide risk, or a severe disorder requiring referral to a mental health specialist.

Those who do not require a referral are offered an intervention personalized to their need.

The training costs $5,000 per person. “We calculated for New York State it would cost only $18 million to train everybody we need,” said Dr. Wainberg.
 

Cost effective

He stressed the program, which is funded by the New York Office of Mental Health, is cost effective. Just like patients don’t need to see a plastic surgeon to have a small mole removed, they don’t always need to see a psychiatrist for run-of-the-mill mild depression, he said.

To date, 20 workers have been trained and have started to meet with clients in clinics in four New York City neighborhoods/boroughs (Harlem, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Washington Heights). Additional clinics in West Harlem and Staten Island are expected to begin training soon.

Dr. Wainberg has been inundated with interest in the initiative. “Over the last 3 months I have been having 15 meetings a day” with parties interested in getting more information or wanting to know how to start such a program.

He plans to examine the program’s effectiveness in a number of areas, including patient symptoms, timeliness of services, access, sustainability, and cost. And he aims to expand the project beyond New York.

Mental health specialists shouldn’t worry about becoming irrelevant with the addition of community workers, as the demand is so great, said Dr. Wainberg. “There will always be a need for the kind of care mental health specialists are trained for. This initiative aims to expand capacity for those with less severe symptoms, who might not need an intensive level of intervention.”
 

Unique program

In a comment, Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said the project is “unique” and an “excellent” idea.

Courtesy Dr. Jonathan E. Alpert

“This is one of the first pilots that I know of in this country to train lay-members of the community to screen for mental illness and substance use disorders and even to provide evidence-based treatment for people who may have more mild symptoms and might not yet need to see a professional but otherwise would not have access to care.”

Dr. Alpert noted the current challenges of accessing care for a mental health or substance abuse disorder. “Many clinics have wait lists of 3-6 months.”

Another issue is the “stigma and lack of trust” among minority communities when it comes to formal mental health treatments. “Having lay-members who know the community, who look like the community, who understand the community, and who are available for screening and treatment is exceptionally important.”

Although this pilot program will have to be assessed for effectiveness, “the concept behind it is very important,” said Dr. Alpert. “If you’re relying on MDs and PhDs to provide mental health services, there just aren’t enough of us to go around.”

Dr. Wainberg and Dr. Alpert report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – A pilot project that trains lay community members to screen for and address common psychiatric disorders, addiction issues, and suicide risk promises to bring timely, evidence-based health services to those with little to no access to effective care.

The current shortage of mental health clinicians is driven by increased demand from a population more willing to seek psychiatric help and clinicians leaving the workforce. Both factors were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It would be costly to address the problem through additional specialist training, and doing so would take decades to see any changes,” project director Milton L. Wainberg, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, said in an interview.

Pauline Anderson

Unfeasible model

“The historic paradigm of ongoing long-term care is costly and not a feasible public mental health model. There is no evidence that it works, and there is increasing demand for brief interventions,” said Dr. Wainberg.

The new initiative – called ENGAGE – has its origins in parts of Africa, where nurses had to be trained during the AIDS crisis as there weren’t enough doctors to roll out antiretroviral therapy.

In the United States, the program trains and certifies community workers who are passionate about their community. “Members of the community want to learn how to help their neighbors,” said Dr. Wainberg. “When we give them the opportunity to learn skills that can actually change community members’ symptoms, they are excited.”

The training involves a didactic component and an experiential component, in which trainees work with at least three cases under supervision to demonstrate competency. Technical assistance and other supports, such as refresher training, are offered for a year after training.

Workers ask three initial questions to quickly determine if a person has a mental health disorder. Asking 10 additional questions tells the worker if the person has a common mental health disorder like depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a substance use disorder involving alcohol or drugs, suicide risk, or a severe disorder requiring referral to a mental health specialist.

Those who do not require a referral are offered an intervention personalized to their need.

The training costs $5,000 per person. “We calculated for New York State it would cost only $18 million to train everybody we need,” said Dr. Wainberg.
 

Cost effective

He stressed the program, which is funded by the New York Office of Mental Health, is cost effective. Just like patients don’t need to see a plastic surgeon to have a small mole removed, they don’t always need to see a psychiatrist for run-of-the-mill mild depression, he said.

To date, 20 workers have been trained and have started to meet with clients in clinics in four New York City neighborhoods/boroughs (Harlem, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Washington Heights). Additional clinics in West Harlem and Staten Island are expected to begin training soon.

Dr. Wainberg has been inundated with interest in the initiative. “Over the last 3 months I have been having 15 meetings a day” with parties interested in getting more information or wanting to know how to start such a program.

He plans to examine the program’s effectiveness in a number of areas, including patient symptoms, timeliness of services, access, sustainability, and cost. And he aims to expand the project beyond New York.

Mental health specialists shouldn’t worry about becoming irrelevant with the addition of community workers, as the demand is so great, said Dr. Wainberg. “There will always be a need for the kind of care mental health specialists are trained for. This initiative aims to expand capacity for those with less severe symptoms, who might not need an intensive level of intervention.”
 

Unique program

In a comment, Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said the project is “unique” and an “excellent” idea.

Courtesy Dr. Jonathan E. Alpert

“This is one of the first pilots that I know of in this country to train lay-members of the community to screen for mental illness and substance use disorders and even to provide evidence-based treatment for people who may have more mild symptoms and might not yet need to see a professional but otherwise would not have access to care.”

Dr. Alpert noted the current challenges of accessing care for a mental health or substance abuse disorder. “Many clinics have wait lists of 3-6 months.”

Another issue is the “stigma and lack of trust” among minority communities when it comes to formal mental health treatments. “Having lay-members who know the community, who look like the community, who understand the community, and who are available for screening and treatment is exceptionally important.”

Although this pilot program will have to be assessed for effectiveness, “the concept behind it is very important,” said Dr. Alpert. “If you’re relying on MDs and PhDs to provide mental health services, there just aren’t enough of us to go around.”

Dr. Wainberg and Dr. Alpert report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – A pilot project that trains lay community members to screen for and address common psychiatric disorders, addiction issues, and suicide risk promises to bring timely, evidence-based health services to those with little to no access to effective care.

The current shortage of mental health clinicians is driven by increased demand from a population more willing to seek psychiatric help and clinicians leaving the workforce. Both factors were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It would be costly to address the problem through additional specialist training, and doing so would take decades to see any changes,” project director Milton L. Wainberg, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, said in an interview.

Pauline Anderson

Unfeasible model

“The historic paradigm of ongoing long-term care is costly and not a feasible public mental health model. There is no evidence that it works, and there is increasing demand for brief interventions,” said Dr. Wainberg.

The new initiative – called ENGAGE – has its origins in parts of Africa, where nurses had to be trained during the AIDS crisis as there weren’t enough doctors to roll out antiretroviral therapy.

In the United States, the program trains and certifies community workers who are passionate about their community. “Members of the community want to learn how to help their neighbors,” said Dr. Wainberg. “When we give them the opportunity to learn skills that can actually change community members’ symptoms, they are excited.”

The training involves a didactic component and an experiential component, in which trainees work with at least three cases under supervision to demonstrate competency. Technical assistance and other supports, such as refresher training, are offered for a year after training.

Workers ask three initial questions to quickly determine if a person has a mental health disorder. Asking 10 additional questions tells the worker if the person has a common mental health disorder like depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a substance use disorder involving alcohol or drugs, suicide risk, or a severe disorder requiring referral to a mental health specialist.

Those who do not require a referral are offered an intervention personalized to their need.

The training costs $5,000 per person. “We calculated for New York State it would cost only $18 million to train everybody we need,” said Dr. Wainberg.
 

Cost effective

He stressed the program, which is funded by the New York Office of Mental Health, is cost effective. Just like patients don’t need to see a plastic surgeon to have a small mole removed, they don’t always need to see a psychiatrist for run-of-the-mill mild depression, he said.

To date, 20 workers have been trained and have started to meet with clients in clinics in four New York City neighborhoods/boroughs (Harlem, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Washington Heights). Additional clinics in West Harlem and Staten Island are expected to begin training soon.

Dr. Wainberg has been inundated with interest in the initiative. “Over the last 3 months I have been having 15 meetings a day” with parties interested in getting more information or wanting to know how to start such a program.

He plans to examine the program’s effectiveness in a number of areas, including patient symptoms, timeliness of services, access, sustainability, and cost. And he aims to expand the project beyond New York.

Mental health specialists shouldn’t worry about becoming irrelevant with the addition of community workers, as the demand is so great, said Dr. Wainberg. “There will always be a need for the kind of care mental health specialists are trained for. This initiative aims to expand capacity for those with less severe symptoms, who might not need an intensive level of intervention.”
 

Unique program

In a comment, Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said the project is “unique” and an “excellent” idea.

Courtesy Dr. Jonathan E. Alpert

“This is one of the first pilots that I know of in this country to train lay-members of the community to screen for mental illness and substance use disorders and even to provide evidence-based treatment for people who may have more mild symptoms and might not yet need to see a professional but otherwise would not have access to care.”

Dr. Alpert noted the current challenges of accessing care for a mental health or substance abuse disorder. “Many clinics have wait lists of 3-6 months.”

Another issue is the “stigma and lack of trust” among minority communities when it comes to formal mental health treatments. “Having lay-members who know the community, who look like the community, who understand the community, and who are available for screening and treatment is exceptionally important.”

Although this pilot program will have to be assessed for effectiveness, “the concept behind it is very important,” said Dr. Alpert. “If you’re relying on MDs and PhDs to provide mental health services, there just aren’t enough of us to go around.”

Dr. Wainberg and Dr. Alpert report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Securing an appointment with a mental health professional in the United States continues to be a challenge, with wait times for an in-person appointment north of 2 months and over 1 month for a telepsychiatry visit, a new study shows.

“Long wait times for mental health care were a huge problem even before the pandemic but especially during the pandemic,” study investigator Erin McDaid, BS, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, said in an interview.

Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Few psychiatrists taking new patients

To find out just how big an issue wait times are, the researchers examined general psychiatry outpatient availability during the COVID-19 pandemic in five states – New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled. Simulated adult patients made 864 calls seeking an initial psychiatric evaluation for general mental health care. The calls were made late in the pandemic, between May and July 2022.

Only 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients. The median wait time was 67 days for in-person appointments and 43 days for telepsychiatry appointments (P < .001).

More than half of psychiatrists who were contacted said they were not taking new patients, which was the most common reason given for unavailability.

“This is happening at the worst time, when we are seeing mental health issues spike,” Ms. McDaid said.
 

Telepsychiatry helpful but no panacea

The fact that wait times were a bit shorter for telepsychiatry is encouraging, Ms. McDaid said.

Telepsychiatry is a potential solution to provider shortages and geographic barriers, but it does not resolve the concerning shortage of psychiatric outpatient care, she noted.

“Psychiatrists adapted very well to telepsychiatry during COVID,” Saul Levin, MD, MPA, chief executive officer and medical director of the APA, noted during a preconference briefing with reporters.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Securing an appointment with a mental health professional in the United States continues to be a challenge, with wait times for an in-person appointment north of 2 months and over 1 month for a telepsychiatry visit, a new study shows.

“Long wait times for mental health care were a huge problem even before the pandemic but especially during the pandemic,” study investigator Erin McDaid, BS, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, said in an interview.

Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Few psychiatrists taking new patients

To find out just how big an issue wait times are, the researchers examined general psychiatry outpatient availability during the COVID-19 pandemic in five states – New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled. Simulated adult patients made 864 calls seeking an initial psychiatric evaluation for general mental health care. The calls were made late in the pandemic, between May and July 2022.

Only 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients. The median wait time was 67 days for in-person appointments and 43 days for telepsychiatry appointments (P < .001).

More than half of psychiatrists who were contacted said they were not taking new patients, which was the most common reason given for unavailability.

“This is happening at the worst time, when we are seeing mental health issues spike,” Ms. McDaid said.
 

Telepsychiatry helpful but no panacea

The fact that wait times were a bit shorter for telepsychiatry is encouraging, Ms. McDaid said.

Telepsychiatry is a potential solution to provider shortages and geographic barriers, but it does not resolve the concerning shortage of psychiatric outpatient care, she noted.

“Psychiatrists adapted very well to telepsychiatry during COVID,” Saul Levin, MD, MPA, chief executive officer and medical director of the APA, noted during a preconference briefing with reporters.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Securing an appointment with a mental health professional in the United States continues to be a challenge, with wait times for an in-person appointment north of 2 months and over 1 month for a telepsychiatry visit, a new study shows.

“Long wait times for mental health care were a huge problem even before the pandemic but especially during the pandemic,” study investigator Erin McDaid, BS, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, said in an interview.

Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Few psychiatrists taking new patients

To find out just how big an issue wait times are, the researchers examined general psychiatry outpatient availability during the COVID-19 pandemic in five states – New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled. Simulated adult patients made 864 calls seeking an initial psychiatric evaluation for general mental health care. The calls were made late in the pandemic, between May and July 2022.

Only 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients. The median wait time was 67 days for in-person appointments and 43 days for telepsychiatry appointments (P < .001).

More than half of psychiatrists who were contacted said they were not taking new patients, which was the most common reason given for unavailability.

“This is happening at the worst time, when we are seeing mental health issues spike,” Ms. McDaid said.
 

Telepsychiatry helpful but no panacea

The fact that wait times were a bit shorter for telepsychiatry is encouraging, Ms. McDaid said.

Telepsychiatry is a potential solution to provider shortages and geographic barriers, but it does not resolve the concerning shortage of psychiatric outpatient care, she noted.

“Psychiatrists adapted very well to telepsychiatry during COVID,” Saul Levin, MD, MPA, chief executive officer and medical director of the APA, noted during a preconference briefing with reporters.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Perched on a meditation cushion with the day’s first light creeping up the Himalayan foothills around me, I felt more at ease within myself than I could ever recall over my previous 19 years.

Alec Terrana

My immersion in daily conversations within the Tibetan monastic community on achieving a more harmonious relationship to our thoughts and feelings awoke a consideration of myself and my inner life in a way that I’d never truly contemplated before. These reflections gave me a vocabulary and a toolkit for navigating my own internal landscape that I have used ever since.

However, upon returning home, I was forced to acknowledge how fortunate I had been, and that these tools and the underlying spirit of inquiry are not commonplace in our society. Despite great strides in shifting views toward mental illness over the past few decades, our public discourse rarely captures the nuances of the mental health crisis that our culture has faced well before COVID-19 catalyzed even greater distress. We all pay the price of this cultural deficit to varying degrees, and I became captivated by the notion that things could be different.

I followed that thread of inquiry through the practices of Buddhist studies, massage therapy, yoga instruction, and refugee aid before coming to psychiatry as the unlikely yet ideal crucible for integrating my experiences in these spaces. Since arriving at medical school, however, my vision of myself as a psychiatrist has changed dramatically as my aspirations have collided with the realities of clinical experience and been tempered by the wisdom of mentors, colleagues, and patients, opening up a space for a deeper appreciation of what psychiatry might offer.
 

Clinical experience changes perspective

Short on clinical experience, I had previously imagined my future practice primarily as one of mindful listening and finding presence with each patient as a kind ear, supplemented by the ability to prescribe medication. Since then, working with patients has offered me insight into the ways in which my personality, perception, and potential access to a range of affective stances can serve as tools for skillfully developing the therapeutic encounter.

Moreover, “challenging” patients have taught me that my role is not always to offer unbounded empathetic support, but to potentially initiate compassionately tactful confrontation, shifting my sense of my role in the therapeutic relationship.

My responsibility is neither to passively support my patients by unambiguously endorsing the validity of experiences, nor to win them over to a particular way of viewing and approaching the world, but to help them get better. This is a lofty goal, which might entail modeling the successful navigation of potential ruptures and the subsequent repair of relationships so that they can live more adaptably in the world.

However, while I can support their envisioning of a realistic future for themselves and facilitate their acquisition of the tools needed to get there, my role is significant yet limited. This has been a hard truth to reckon with, but one that’s opened up pathways to greater empathy and a deeper understanding of each patient’s struggles. As a result, my view of pathology as a state has shifted to one of a dynamic process that emerges through the interaction of their genes, environment, life history, pharmacological supplements, psychodynamic tendencies, diet, and more.

Yet, while holding this reality of the complexities of mental illness, clinical decision-making often hinges on making binary choices regarding diagnoses, medications, and criteria for legal determinations. Developing this capacity to simultaneously practice different ways of knowing and sit with uncertainty excites me tremendously, not only equipping me to balance clinical practice with the demands of the modern health care system, but also nourishing the roots of a rich and ethical life.

Psychiatry calls to me for this expectation of sustaining an appropriate tension between uncertainty and decisiveness. It also inspires a deeper dive into the history of the field in order to learn the roots of its theories and perspectives so I can better understand how those inform contemporary practice in ways that are both helpful and harmful.
 

From individual to community

In tandem with this outer work of learning to appropriately position myself within individual patient relationships, the broader health care system, and the legacy of the field, I’ve also sought to develop a better understanding of how my own history, beliefs, and motivations shape my collaborative efforts.

Through my mindfulness practice and participation in exploratory psychoanalysis, I’ve caught glimpses of my own countertransference investments and opened up space for seeing how patients might experience me as a clinician. This has allowed for tuning in to my own response to them, identifying where in the typology of personality structures our reciprocal experiences might exist, and learning to manage those feelings to ultimately foster empathy through the interaction.

This has shifted my sense of the work from solely mindfully listening and thoughtfully responding to honing deliberate ways of both listening and responding in a way that is directly informed by the person sitting in front of me so I can best support them in creating change.

Given the responsibility inherent to this work, I have treated my medical education as an opportunity to build a foundation for stepping into this role. This has involved going beyond exploring these dynamics within individual clinician-patient relationships and carried over into my experiences with community-based research and program development. It has asked me to recognize the perceptual frames and prioritization of values that I bring to any given project.

This process has sharpened my aim of discovering each community’s understanding of their mental health needs so that I’m not implicitly imposing my own notions of psychological wholeness and “wellness” on others.

Working with San Diego’s Somali and Spanish-speaking populations has helped me to better understand each community’s own conceptualization of their strengths and needs, teaching me how to engage in reciprocal partnerships that honor each of our areas of expertise. Investing myself in medical school curricular reform represents the flip side of this coin, serving as an attempt to better understand my own medical community, how we think about health, and how we can best care for ourselves.

These experiences have offered opportunities to refine my skills in appreciative inquiry, coalition building, navigating institutional dynamics, and initiating and sustaining change within complex systems to carry the lessons of psychiatry beyond explicitly clinical spaces.
 

Toward integrative care

Ultimately, I view my community-based research and academic program development as outgrowths of my commitment to clinical psychiatry and my desire to learn how to provide people with the tools for changing their relationship to themselves, others, and their communities.

Equipped with formal medical training as the bedrock of this skill set, I have actively sought out opportunities to draw from practices that are outside the scope of the formal curriculum. These range from psychoanalysis and narrative medicine to cultural psychiatry and psychological anthropology, as well as my background in bodywork and mindfulness education. I’m eager to dive more fully into psychiatric practice as I work to integrate these disparate knowledge bases with the biomedical and psychodynamic views of the mind to develop a strengths-based practice that tends to patients’ bodies, minds, and spirits by bringing forth their own knowledge of themselves and their lives as they imagine what could be.

These realizations bring me back to that Himalayan sunrise more than a decade ago. They affirm that my heart lies with traversing disciplines to provide integrative psychiatric care in the community and developing infrastructure that supports these efforts. I’m filled with enthusiasm by the breadth of what psychiatry training offers as I continue expanding my capacity to support patients in this lifelong healing journey.

Alec Terrana is a rising fourth-year medical student at the University of California, San Diego, who intends to apply into psychiatry residency programs. He’s invested in exploring how we can more effectively conceptualize and measure mental health outcomes within San Diego’s Somali and Spanish-speaking communities, as well as advancing mindfulness and compassion training in undergraduate medical education. His professional interests also include implementation science, cultural psychiatry, psychodynamics, and strengthening public mental health infrastructure.

Perched on a meditation cushion with the day’s first light creeping up the Himalayan foothills around me, I felt more at ease within myself than I could ever recall over my previous 19 years.

Alec Terrana

My immersion in daily conversations within the Tibetan monastic community on achieving a more harmonious relationship to our thoughts and feelings awoke a consideration of myself and my inner life in a way that I’d never truly contemplated before. These reflections gave me a vocabulary and a toolkit for navigating my own internal landscape that I have used ever since.

However, upon returning home, I was forced to acknowledge how fortunate I had been, and that these tools and the underlying spirit of inquiry are not commonplace in our society. Despite great strides in shifting views toward mental illness over the past few decades, our public discourse rarely captures the nuances of the mental health crisis that our culture has faced well before COVID-19 catalyzed even greater distress. We all pay the price of this cultural deficit to varying degrees, and I became captivated by the notion that things could be different.

I followed that thread of inquiry through the practices of Buddhist studies, massage therapy, yoga instruction, and refugee aid before coming to psychiatry as the unlikely yet ideal crucible for integrating my experiences in these spaces. Since arriving at medical school, however, my vision of myself as a psychiatrist has changed dramatically as my aspirations have collided with the realities of clinical experience and been tempered by the wisdom of mentors, colleagues, and patients, opening up a space for a deeper appreciation of what psychiatry might offer.
 

Clinical experience changes perspective

Short on clinical experience, I had previously imagined my future practice primarily as one of mindful listening and finding presence with each patient as a kind ear, supplemented by the ability to prescribe medication. Since then, working with patients has offered me insight into the ways in which my personality, perception, and potential access to a range of affective stances can serve as tools for skillfully developing the therapeutic encounter.

Moreover, “challenging” patients have taught me that my role is not always to offer unbounded empathetic support, but to potentially initiate compassionately tactful confrontation, shifting my sense of my role in the therapeutic relationship.

My responsibility is neither to passively support my patients by unambiguously endorsing the validity of experiences, nor to win them over to a particular way of viewing and approaching the world, but to help them get better. This is a lofty goal, which might entail modeling the successful navigation of potential ruptures and the subsequent repair of relationships so that they can live more adaptably in the world.

However, while I can support their envisioning of a realistic future for themselves and facilitate their acquisition of the tools needed to get there, my role is significant yet limited. This has been a hard truth to reckon with, but one that’s opened up pathways to greater empathy and a deeper understanding of each patient’s struggles. As a result, my view of pathology as a state has shifted to one of a dynamic process that emerges through the interaction of their genes, environment, life history, pharmacological supplements, psychodynamic tendencies, diet, and more.

Yet, while holding this reality of the complexities of mental illness, clinical decision-making often hinges on making binary choices regarding diagnoses, medications, and criteria for legal determinations. Developing this capacity to simultaneously practice different ways of knowing and sit with uncertainty excites me tremendously, not only equipping me to balance clinical practice with the demands of the modern health care system, but also nourishing the roots of a rich and ethical life.

Psychiatry calls to me for this expectation of sustaining an appropriate tension between uncertainty and decisiveness. It also inspires a deeper dive into the history of the field in order to learn the roots of its theories and perspectives so I can better understand how those inform contemporary practice in ways that are both helpful and harmful.
 

From individual to community

In tandem with this outer work of learning to appropriately position myself within individual patient relationships, the broader health care system, and the legacy of the field, I’ve also sought to develop a better understanding of how my own history, beliefs, and motivations shape my collaborative efforts.

Through my mindfulness practice and participation in exploratory psychoanalysis, I’ve caught glimpses of my own countertransference investments and opened up space for seeing how patients might experience me as a clinician. This has allowed for tuning in to my own response to them, identifying where in the typology of personality structures our reciprocal experiences might exist, and learning to manage those feelings to ultimately foster empathy through the interaction.

This has shifted my sense of the work from solely mindfully listening and thoughtfully responding to honing deliberate ways of both listening and responding in a way that is directly informed by the person sitting in front of me so I can best support them in creating change.

Given the responsibility inherent to this work, I have treated my medical education as an opportunity to build a foundation for stepping into this role. This has involved going beyond exploring these dynamics within individual clinician-patient relationships and carried over into my experiences with community-based research and program development. It has asked me to recognize the perceptual frames and prioritization of values that I bring to any given project.

This process has sharpened my aim of discovering each community’s understanding of their mental health needs so that I’m not implicitly imposing my own notions of psychological wholeness and “wellness” on others.

Working with San Diego’s Somali and Spanish-speaking populations has helped me to better understand each community’s own conceptualization of their strengths and needs, teaching me how to engage in reciprocal partnerships that honor each of our areas of expertise. Investing myself in medical school curricular reform represents the flip side of this coin, serving as an attempt to better understand my own medical community, how we think about health, and how we can best care for ourselves.

These experiences have offered opportunities to refine my skills in appreciative inquiry, coalition building, navigating institutional dynamics, and initiating and sustaining change within complex systems to carry the lessons of psychiatry beyond explicitly clinical spaces.
 

Toward integrative care

Ultimately, I view my community-based research and academic program development as outgrowths of my commitment to clinical psychiatry and my desire to learn how to provide people with the tools for changing their relationship to themselves, others, and their communities.

Equipped with formal medical training as the bedrock of this skill set, I have actively sought out opportunities to draw from practices that are outside the scope of the formal curriculum. These range from psychoanalysis and narrative medicine to cultural psychiatry and psychological anthropology, as well as my background in bodywork and mindfulness education. I’m eager to dive more fully into psychiatric practice as I work to integrate these disparate knowledge bases with the biomedical and psychodynamic views of the mind to develop a strengths-based practice that tends to patients’ bodies, minds, and spirits by bringing forth their own knowledge of themselves and their lives as they imagine what could be.

These realizations bring me back to that Himalayan sunrise more than a decade ago. They affirm that my heart lies with traversing disciplines to provide integrative psychiatric care in the community and developing infrastructure that supports these efforts. I’m filled with enthusiasm by the breadth of what psychiatry training offers as I continue expanding my capacity to support patients in this lifelong healing journey.

Alec Terrana is a rising fourth-year medical student at the University of California, San Diego, who intends to apply into psychiatry residency programs. He’s invested in exploring how we can more effectively conceptualize and measure mental health outcomes within San Diego’s Somali and Spanish-speaking communities, as well as advancing mindfulness and compassion training in undergraduate medical education. His professional interests also include implementation science, cultural psychiatry, psychodynamics, and strengthening public mental health infrastructure.

Perched on a meditation cushion with the day’s first light creeping up the Himalayan foothills around me, I felt more at ease within myself than I could ever recall over my previous 19 years.

Alec Terrana

My immersion in daily conversations within the Tibetan monastic community on achieving a more harmonious relationship to our thoughts and feelings awoke a consideration of myself and my inner life in a way that I’d never truly contemplated before. These reflections gave me a vocabulary and a toolkit for navigating my own internal landscape that I have used ever since.

However, upon returning home, I was forced to acknowledge how fortunate I had been, and that these tools and the underlying spirit of inquiry are not commonplace in our society. Despite great strides in shifting views toward mental illness over the past few decades, our public discourse rarely captures the nuances of the mental health crisis that our culture has faced well before COVID-19 catalyzed even greater distress. We all pay the price of this cultural deficit to varying degrees, and I became captivated by the notion that things could be different.

I followed that thread of inquiry through the practices of Buddhist studies, massage therapy, yoga instruction, and refugee aid before coming to psychiatry as the unlikely yet ideal crucible for integrating my experiences in these spaces. Since arriving at medical school, however, my vision of myself as a psychiatrist has changed dramatically as my aspirations have collided with the realities of clinical experience and been tempered by the wisdom of mentors, colleagues, and patients, opening up a space for a deeper appreciation of what psychiatry might offer.
 

Clinical experience changes perspective

Short on clinical experience, I had previously imagined my future practice primarily as one of mindful listening and finding presence with each patient as a kind ear, supplemented by the ability to prescribe medication. Since then, working with patients has offered me insight into the ways in which my personality, perception, and potential access to a range of affective stances can serve as tools for skillfully developing the therapeutic encounter.

Moreover, “challenging” patients have taught me that my role is not always to offer unbounded empathetic support, but to potentially initiate compassionately tactful confrontation, shifting my sense of my role in the therapeutic relationship.

My responsibility is neither to passively support my patients by unambiguously endorsing the validity of experiences, nor to win them over to a particular way of viewing and approaching the world, but to help them get better. This is a lofty goal, which might entail modeling the successful navigation of potential ruptures and the subsequent repair of relationships so that they can live more adaptably in the world.

However, while I can support their envisioning of a realistic future for themselves and facilitate their acquisition of the tools needed to get there, my role is significant yet limited. This has been a hard truth to reckon with, but one that’s opened up pathways to greater empathy and a deeper understanding of each patient’s struggles. As a result, my view of pathology as a state has shifted to one of a dynamic process that emerges through the interaction of their genes, environment, life history, pharmacological supplements, psychodynamic tendencies, diet, and more.

Yet, while holding this reality of the complexities of mental illness, clinical decision-making often hinges on making binary choices regarding diagnoses, medications, and criteria for legal determinations. Developing this capacity to simultaneously practice different ways of knowing and sit with uncertainty excites me tremendously, not only equipping me to balance clinical practice with the demands of the modern health care system, but also nourishing the roots of a rich and ethical life.

Psychiatry calls to me for this expectation of sustaining an appropriate tension between uncertainty and decisiveness. It also inspires a deeper dive into the history of the field in order to learn the roots of its theories and perspectives so I can better understand how those inform contemporary practice in ways that are both helpful and harmful.
 

From individual to community

In tandem with this outer work of learning to appropriately position myself within individual patient relationships, the broader health care system, and the legacy of the field, I’ve also sought to develop a better understanding of how my own history, beliefs, and motivations shape my collaborative efforts.

Through my mindfulness practice and participation in exploratory psychoanalysis, I’ve caught glimpses of my own countertransference investments and opened up space for seeing how patients might experience me as a clinician. This has allowed for tuning in to my own response to them, identifying where in the typology of personality structures our reciprocal experiences might exist, and learning to manage those feelings to ultimately foster empathy through the interaction.

This has shifted my sense of the work from solely mindfully listening and thoughtfully responding to honing deliberate ways of both listening and responding in a way that is directly informed by the person sitting in front of me so I can best support them in creating change.

Given the responsibility inherent to this work, I have treated my medical education as an opportunity to build a foundation for stepping into this role. This has involved going beyond exploring these dynamics within individual clinician-patient relationships and carried over into my experiences with community-based research and program development. It has asked me to recognize the perceptual frames and prioritization of values that I bring to any given project.

This process has sharpened my aim of discovering each community’s understanding of their mental health needs so that I’m not implicitly imposing my own notions of psychological wholeness and “wellness” on others.

Working with San Diego’s Somali and Spanish-speaking populations has helped me to better understand each community’s own conceptualization of their strengths and needs, teaching me how to engage in reciprocal partnerships that honor each of our areas of expertise. Investing myself in medical school curricular reform represents the flip side of this coin, serving as an attempt to better understand my own medical community, how we think about health, and how we can best care for ourselves.

These experiences have offered opportunities to refine my skills in appreciative inquiry, coalition building, navigating institutional dynamics, and initiating and sustaining change within complex systems to carry the lessons of psychiatry beyond explicitly clinical spaces.
 

Toward integrative care

Ultimately, I view my community-based research and academic program development as outgrowths of my commitment to clinical psychiatry and my desire to learn how to provide people with the tools for changing their relationship to themselves, others, and their communities.

Equipped with formal medical training as the bedrock of this skill set, I have actively sought out opportunities to draw from practices that are outside the scope of the formal curriculum. These range from psychoanalysis and narrative medicine to cultural psychiatry and psychological anthropology, as well as my background in bodywork and mindfulness education. I’m eager to dive more fully into psychiatric practice as I work to integrate these disparate knowledge bases with the biomedical and psychodynamic views of the mind to develop a strengths-based practice that tends to patients’ bodies, minds, and spirits by bringing forth their own knowledge of themselves and their lives as they imagine what could be.

These realizations bring me back to that Himalayan sunrise more than a decade ago. They affirm that my heart lies with traversing disciplines to provide integrative psychiatric care in the community and developing infrastructure that supports these efforts. I’m filled with enthusiasm by the breadth of what psychiatry training offers as I continue expanding my capacity to support patients in this lifelong healing journey.

Alec Terrana is a rising fourth-year medical student at the University of California, San Diego, who intends to apply into psychiatry residency programs. He’s invested in exploring how we can more effectively conceptualize and measure mental health outcomes within San Diego’s Somali and Spanish-speaking communities, as well as advancing mindfulness and compassion training in undergraduate medical education. His professional interests also include implementation science, cultural psychiatry, psychodynamics, and strengthening public mental health infrastructure.

My use of drug names is a mixed bag of terms.

In medical school we learn drugs by their generic names, but it doesn’t take long before we realize that each has both a generic name and one (or more) brand names. I suppose there’s also the chemical names, but no one outside the lab uses those. They’re waaaaay too long.

There is, for better or worse, a lot of variability in this. The purists (almost always academics, or cardiologists, or academic cardiologists) insist on generic names only. In their notes, conversations, presentations, whatever. If you’re a medical student or resident under them, you learn fast not to use the brand name.

After 30 years of doing this ... I don’t care. My notes are a mishmash of both.

Let’s face it, brand names are generally shorter and easier to type, spell, and pronounce than the generic names. I still need to know both, but when I’m writing up a note Keppra is far easier than levetiracetam. And most patients find the brand names a lot easier to say and remember.

An even weirder point, which is my own, is that one of my teaching attendings insisted that we capitalize both generic and brand names while on his rotation. Why? He never explained that, but he was pretty insistent. Now, for whatever reason, the habit has stuck with me. I’m sure the cardiologist down the hall would love to send my notes back, heavily marked up with red ink.

There’s even a weird subdivisions in this: Aspirin is a brand name by Bayer. Shouldn’t it be capitalized in our notes? But it isn’t, and to make things more confusing that varies by country. Why? (if you’re curious, it’s a strange combination of 100-year-old patent claims, generic trademark rulings, and also what country you’re in, whether it was involved in World War I, and, if so, which side. Really).

So the medical lists in my notes are certainly understandable, though aren’t going to score me any points for academic correctness. Not that I care. As a medical Shakespeare might have written, Imitrex, Onzetra, Zembrace, Tosymra, Sumavel, Alsuma, Imigran, Migraitan, and Zecuity ... are still sumatriptan by any other name.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

My use of drug names is a mixed bag of terms.

In medical school we learn drugs by their generic names, but it doesn’t take long before we realize that each has both a generic name and one (or more) brand names. I suppose there’s also the chemical names, but no one outside the lab uses those. They’re waaaaay too long.

There is, for better or worse, a lot of variability in this. The purists (almost always academics, or cardiologists, or academic cardiologists) insist on generic names only. In their notes, conversations, presentations, whatever. If you’re a medical student or resident under them, you learn fast not to use the brand name.

After 30 years of doing this ... I don’t care. My notes are a mishmash of both.

Let’s face it, brand names are generally shorter and easier to type, spell, and pronounce than the generic names. I still need to know both, but when I’m writing up a note Keppra is far easier than levetiracetam. And most patients find the brand names a lot easier to say and remember.

An even weirder point, which is my own, is that one of my teaching attendings insisted that we capitalize both generic and brand names while on his rotation. Why? He never explained that, but he was pretty insistent. Now, for whatever reason, the habit has stuck with me. I’m sure the cardiologist down the hall would love to send my notes back, heavily marked up with red ink.

There’s even a weird subdivisions in this: Aspirin is a brand name by Bayer. Shouldn’t it be capitalized in our notes? But it isn’t, and to make things more confusing that varies by country. Why? (if you’re curious, it’s a strange combination of 100-year-old patent claims, generic trademark rulings, and also what country you’re in, whether it was involved in World War I, and, if so, which side. Really).

So the medical lists in my notes are certainly understandable, though aren’t going to score me any points for academic correctness. Not that I care. As a medical Shakespeare might have written, Imitrex, Onzetra, Zembrace, Tosymra, Sumavel, Alsuma, Imigran, Migraitan, and Zecuity ... are still sumatriptan by any other name.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

My use of drug names is a mixed bag of terms.

In medical school we learn drugs by their generic names, but it doesn’t take long before we realize that each has both a generic name and one (or more) brand names. I suppose there’s also the chemical names, but no one outside the lab uses those. They’re waaaaay too long.

There is, for better or worse, a lot of variability in this. The purists (almost always academics, or cardiologists, or academic cardiologists) insist on generic names only. In their notes, conversations, presentations, whatever. If you’re a medical student or resident under them, you learn fast not to use the brand name.

After 30 years of doing this ... I don’t care. My notes are a mishmash of both.

Let’s face it, brand names are generally shorter and easier to type, spell, and pronounce than the generic names. I still need to know both, but when I’m writing up a note Keppra is far easier than levetiracetam. And most patients find the brand names a lot easier to say and remember.

An even weirder point, which is my own, is that one of my teaching attendings insisted that we capitalize both generic and brand names while on his rotation. Why? He never explained that, but he was pretty insistent. Now, for whatever reason, the habit has stuck with me. I’m sure the cardiologist down the hall would love to send my notes back, heavily marked up with red ink.

There’s even a weird subdivisions in this: Aspirin is a brand name by Bayer. Shouldn’t it be capitalized in our notes? But it isn’t, and to make things more confusing that varies by country. Why? (if you’re curious, it’s a strange combination of 100-year-old patent claims, generic trademark rulings, and also what country you’re in, whether it was involved in World War I, and, if so, which side. Really).

So the medical lists in my notes are certainly understandable, though aren’t going to score me any points for academic correctness. Not that I care. As a medical Shakespeare might have written, Imitrex, Onzetra, Zembrace, Tosymra, Sumavel, Alsuma, Imigran, Migraitan, and Zecuity ... are still sumatriptan by any other name.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.