June 27th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
No Comments »
Interesting article in the New York Times about doctors talking about themselves too much. Apparently, some doctors spend precious patient interview time talking about unrelated personal information (recent vacation experiences, family members, etc.). In fact, a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that physicians annoy patients with these misguided attempts at building rapport.
We physicians are trained in medical school to be more humanistic and compassionate towards our patients – but we are not given specific direction regarding how to achieve those goals. And let’s face it, we’re kind of geeky in the first place, some of us lack social skills, and we’re under a lot of stress most of the time. The result? Awkward conversations about the most innocuous things we can think of to break the ice – vacations, daily routines, the weather… and perhaps a lot of wasted time.
The research study has its limitations, though. First of all, it only studied physicians in Rochester, New York. Now, my husband is from Rochester – so I dare not say anything unkind… but culturally speaking, the Rochester crew is a little more chatty and casual in their approach to conversations than folks in Manhattan or Boston for example. So there may be a cultural bias at play here in the research.
Second, it’s unclear how much the personal commentary bothers real patients. The conversations were judged by researchers listening to recordings of fake patients who had no previous relationship with the doctor. It’s entirely possible that regular patients might enjoy the personal aspects of the dialogue and actually look forward to hearing how the doctor and his or her family is doing because they have a caring, friendly relationship.
And finally, the study doesn’t address the issue of how to improve the doctor-patient relationship if self-disclosure is so unsuccessful. The poor docs in Rochester are going to be left with a self-conscious uneasiness about idle chatter – and will again not know exactly how to demonstrate humanism as recommended in their medical school training.
But, I must say – that if my doctor spent our entire session talking about herself, I sure would be annoyed, and rightly so. Still, I think I’d like her more if she told me something personal about her own struggles. There’s a balance here – and the complicated interplay of human relationships is hard to measure with standardized patients, audio tapes, and a small geographical location. If your doctor is too chatty, just redirect him/her. You know we do that to YOU all the time. 
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
June 27th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News, Quackery Exposed
1 Comment »
Well, hooray for the FDA. On August 24th a new rule will be phased in, requiring all supplement manufacturers to demonstrate that their products contain the ingredients listed on their labels (nothing more, nothing less). This rule will help to reduce contamination issues (some supplements have been found to contain dangerous levels of lead, bacteria, and other contaminants) and false advertising (some supplements don’t contain as much of an ingredient as the label claims).
This is really good news, and better late than never. Although some manufacturers were already conforming to this rule (kudos to them), this will require compliance for the rest of the companies out there who have been misleading the public about the contents of their supplements.
Some say that this rule doesn’t go far enough to ensure the safety and efficacy of the contents of the supplements, and that these bio-active ingredients should undergo the same degree of testing as pharmaceutical products. Unfortunately, studying all the supplements for efficacy would be an enormous and extremely expensive task that is totally cost-prohibitive. At this point, the best we’ve got is NCCAM, and they are slowly grinding their way through a long list of supplements that are purported to be useful for the treatment of various conditions. They are systematically reviewing them to see if indeed they produce the desired effect, without any undesired effects.
And so at this point, let the buyer beware – supplements may or may not be as helpful as the manufacturer claims, and they may not be as side-effect free as they suggest either. But soon you’ll at least be able to know that they don’t contain toxic chemicals, heavy metals, or dangerous bacteria – and that’s a giant step in the right direction for public safety.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
June 25th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews, News
No Comments »
This is the weird correlation of the week: women who suffer with symptoms of morning sickness during their pregnancies may be less likely to develop breast cancer later on in life. A group of epidemiologists in Buffalo recently reported this finding at a scientific meeting (Society for Epidemiologic Research). No one is sure what this means, and I dare not speculate… but perhaps there’s some kind of link between a woman’s hormone levels produced during pregnancy, the nausea they cause, and the hormonal milieu that is the background for breast cancer? Or maybe this study has turned up a false association. Only time – and a lot more research – will tell. Of course, if anyone should speculate on this, it’s the breast cancer oncologists like Dr. Gluck. So I dropped him an email to ask him what he thinks.
Dr. Gluck said that first of all, the association between morning sickness and decreased breast cancer risk is relatively weak. So here’s what the numbers mean: For the average 50 year old woman, the standard risk for developing breast cancer is about 2% (one in
50). According to this study, that same woman (if she had severe morning sickness at some point during pregnancy), is about 1.4% (~30%
less).
Dr. Gluck speculates (and this is quite fascinating) that women with morning sickness are subjected to a hormonal milieu that may result in permanent alterations in their breast tissue. The breast tissue (having been exposed to surges of hormones, insulin, and changing blood pressure and blood sugar levels) might be less vulnerable to the genetic mutations that cause cancer.
We’ve known for a long time that women who have children are at lower risk for breast cancer than women who don’t… now it seems that there might be something about women who are really sick when they’re pregnant and decreased risk of breast cancer as well.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
June 24th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in True Stories
1 Comment »
During my residency I kept a diary as a way to relieve some of the sadness related to the death and dying that I witnessed. I recorded various encounters in a series of vignettes. Although these are a bit long for a blog, I thought I’d share a few now and then in the hope that they’d preserve the memory of those who are gone. All personal data have been removed so that the identity of the patients is protected.
***
It’s 3:00am and I was paged to examine yet another patient who had fallen out of bed – to rule out a hip fracture.
Too tired to read the chart prior to examining the patient,
I thought I’d leap right into the physical exam. I assumed that the patient would be the usual
elderly woman who, in her sickened delirium, thought she was at home and tried
to walk by herself to the bathroom and fell en route.
I marched into the room and stopped at bed 23. All my pre-conceived notions evaporated as I
looked at the young man before me.
Emaciated and stiff, with all four limbs contracted, he lay on the bed,
clinging to a thin white sheet. The
whites of his eyes flashed in the darkness.
“Hi there.” I said, trying to seem casual at the sight of
the living corpse before me. “I’m Dr. Jones. I heard that you fell. Are you in any pain?”
His eyes suddenly fixed themselves on me and he spoke, not
with a thin raspy voice, but with the robust youthful voice appropriate to his
age rather than the decrepitude of his body.
“I’m in no pain,” he said.
“I was trying to sit down on the chair.
I thought it was against the wall, but it was actually a couple of feet
away. So when I leaned on it, it slid
and I fell on the floor.”
“Do you think you broke anything?” I asked, trusting in his
judgment as his mental status was clearly in tact.
“No, I just scraped my butt,” he said, pointing a frail
finger towards his sacrum.
“Did you hit the floor hard?” I asked as I used my pen-light
to examine his back side.
“Not really,” he said.
“Would you like me to order an X-ray of your pelvis to see
if you broke anything?”
“I don’t think I need it,” he said.
“Well let me see if it hurts when I rotate your leg in your
hip socket, ok?” I pulled down the sheet
and asked the young man to allow his right leg to fall to the side. As I looked down at his hip I gasped slightly
as his inner thigh came into view. A
gaping ulcer lay before me, deep to the bone, exposing tendons and ligaments
with pus, and red knobs of flesh surrounding a football sized hole in the man’s
groin. His paper-thin scrotum lay stuck
to his left thigh. The smell overcame
me, it was at once wet and fetid, with a hint of chemical odor from the
antibiotic ointment that was clinging ineffectively to the fringes of the wound.
“Oh my God. Does that
hurt?” I stammered.
“No, not at all.”
“And does it hurt when I rotate your leg in your hip
socket?” I asked, trying desperately to remain focused on the task at hand.
“No, it doesn’t.”
“Well, then,” I said, gathering my faculties. “I don’t think you broke your hip. And if you don’t want an X-ray, I don’t think
we need one. Perhaps you’d like to go
back to sleep and get some rest?”
“Yes, that sounds good,” he said, drifting off into a
morphine induced altered state of awareness.
I wandered out towards the nursing station, looking around
vaguely for the patient’s chart to make note of my “fall assessment.”
One of the nurses anticipated my need and handed me the
thick plastic folder.
“What does this patient have?” I asked.
“Oh, he has AIDS and metastatic anal cancer” she said as she collected some sputum in a clear plastic cup. “He’s 38 years old.”
“The same age as my boyfriend,” I thought to myself. “And why exactly did he fall?” I asked the
nurse.
“I was trying to help him to get to the commode,” she said printing something on a label. “He fell because I wasn’t strong enough to
hold him up. My right arm is a little
bit weak.”
“And why is your arm weak?” I asked, assuming that it was
because of a small strain injury.
“I have breast cancer,” she said, finally making eye contact
with me.
“Oh my God, I’m so sorry,” I said, feeling the weight of her
diagnosis amidst a ward of terminal cancer patients.
“Well, you know the funny thing is that my husband is
particularly upset. He doesn’t want me
to have a radical mastectomy. He says
that it would hurt to see my body differently than he’s used to… he likes to
think I’m still the bouncy cheerleader I was when we first met. To see me with only one breast is upsetting
to him. And quite frankly, I’m afraid he
won’t be attracted to me anymore. That’s
what scares me the most,” she said, becoming misty-eyed.
My pager let out a familiar series of beeps.
“I’m so sorry,” I said, squeezing the nurse’s shoulder. I paused and tried to be encouraging: “Well, even if you need a mastectomy – I’ve seen some great reconstructive surgeries
where the breast can be reformed at the same time with an implant. Maybe you’ll be a good candidate for that
surgery? I’m so sorry that I have to
run… can we talk later?”
“Sure,” she said, smiling faintly.
***
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
June 22nd, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Medblogger Shout Outs
No Comments »
Dr. Richard Reece wrote a wonderful personal reflection on the value of hospital ratings. As you may know, there has been much recent debate about their usefulness. With all the different rating systems, a single hospital can be ranked #1 in the country by one source and middle of the pack by another. It’s true that there are many variables to be considered, and that measuring quality is a tricky business. But one would hope that if we were getting close to observing something real about a hospital, most different scoring systems would lead to the same general conclusion.
The fact that this isn’t the case yet says to me that there is a lot of work to be done in standardizing scoring, developing transparency in the system, and removing hospital marketing efforts from objective data.
I am glad that we’re beginning to shine the light on institutional quality, but there is an elephant in the room. When it comes to good medicine, the most important factor is the individual healthcare provider.
I have personally witnessed outstanding medical care in the midst of hospitals with poor reputations, and I have observed horrific outcomes at top ranked hospitals as well. What made the difference? The provider taking care of the patient.
My insider perspective is that consumers are on the right track with physician ratings – worrying more about getting into the hands of a good doctor, than into the hands of the right hospital. But physician ratings can be dangerous – if left open to the public without any form of moderation or intelligent analysis, one patient with borderline personality disorder and a grievance could hijack the rating system and destroy a physician’s public reputation. Safeguards against that sort of behavior can and should be put in place.
The most helpful physician rating system will offer data from multiple sources (patient ratings, peer ratings, health plan ratings) and include sophisticated anti-sabotage algorithms. It’s also important for the ratings to be protected from self-interests (so that the physician herself doesn’t game the system and use it as a marketing tactic).
Rating quality care is complex, and there will always be a subjective element to it. Hospitals are run by flawed humans, healthcare providers make mistakes, and yet everyone wants the same thing: consistently excellent medical care.
And that will never happen – so long as humans are imperfect.
As Dr. Reece says,
Unfortunately, variable costs, variable quality, and variable outcomes
are a function of humanity, regional cultures and their constituencies.
Independent variables are part of the human condition. Some of these
variations may be beyond managerial control…
It’s going to take a while to establish criteria to judge and sort out
the good, the bad, and the ugly. Public disclosure of outcome data and
performance data on the processes of care may help, but they are only
part of a complicated human equation.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
