The Mental Health Crisis Among Doctors Is a Problem for Patients

Keren Landman

vox.com

Originally posted 25 OCT 23

Here is an excerpt:

What’s causing such high levels of mental distress among doctors?

Physicians have high rates of mental distress — and they’re only getting higher. One 2023 survey found six out of 10 doctors often had feelings of burnout, compared to four out of 10 pre-pandemic. In a separate 2023 study, nearly a quarter of doctors said they were depressed.

Physicians die by suicide at rates higher than the general population, with women’s risk twice as high as men’s. In a 2022 survey, one in 10 doctors said they’d thought about or attempted suicide.

Not all doctors are at equal risk: Primary care providers — like emergency medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics practitioners — are most likely to say they’re burned out, and female physicians experience burnout at higher rates than male physicians.

(It’s worth noting that other health care professionals — perhaps most prominently nurses — also face high levels of mental distress. But because nurses are more frequently unionized than doctors and because their professional culture isn’t the same as doctor culture, the causes and solutions are also somewhat different.)

The info is here.

Here is my summary:

The article discusses the mental health crisis among doctors and its implications for patients. It notes that doctors are at a higher risk of suicide than any other profession, and that they also experience high rates of burnout and depression.

The mental health crisis among doctors is a problem for patients because it can lead to impaired judgment, medical errors, and reduced quality of care. Additionally, the stigma associated with mental illness can prevent doctors from seeking the help they need, which can further exacerbate the problem.

The article concludes by calling for more attention to the mental health of doctors and for more resources to be made available to help them.

I treat a number of physicians in my practice.

Association of Physician Burnout With Suicidal Ideation and Medical Errors

Menon NK, Shanafelt TD, Sinsky CA, et al. 

JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028780. 

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28780

Key Points

Question  Is burnout associated with increased suicidal ideation and self-reported medical errors among physicians after accounting for depression?

Findings  In this cross-sectional study of 1354 US physicians, burnout was significantly associated with increased odds of suicidal ideation before but not after adjusting for depression and with increased odds of self-reported medical errors before and after adjusting for depression. In adjusted models, depression was significantly associated with increased odds of suicidal ideation but not self-reported medical errors.

Meaning  The findings suggest that depression but not burnout is directly associated with suicidal ideation among physicians.

Conclusions and Relevance  The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that depression but not physician burnout is directly associated with suicidal ideation. Burnout was associated with self-reported medical errors. Future investigation might examine whether burnout represents an upstream intervention target to prevent suicidal ideation by preventing depression.

The research is here.

Death by a Thousand Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong

Erika Fry and Fred Schulte
Fortune.com
Originally posted on March 18, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

Damning evidence came from a whistleblower claim filed in 2011 against the company. Brendan Delaney, a British cop turned EHR expert, was hired in 2010 by New York City to work on the eCW implementation at Rikers Island, a jail complex that then had more than 100,000 inmates. But soon after he was hired, Delaney noticed scores of troubling problems with the system, which became the basis for his lawsuit. The patient medication lists weren’t reliable; prescribed drugs would not show up, while discontinued drugs would appear as current, according to the complaint. The EHR would sometimes display one patient’s medication profile accompanied by the physician’s note for a different patient, making it easy to misdiagnose or prescribe a drug to the wrong individual. Prescriptions, some 30,000 of them in 2010, lacked proper start and stop dates, introducing the opportunity for under- or overmedication. The eCW system did not reliably track lab results, concluded Delaney, who tallied 1,884 tests for which they had never gotten outcomes.

(cut)

Electronic health records were supposed to do a lot: make medicine safer, bring higher-quality care, empower patients, and yes, even save money. Boosters heralded an age when researchers could harness the big data within to reveal the most effective treatments for disease and sharply reduce medical errors. Patients, in turn, would have truly portable health records, being able to share their medical histories in a flash with doctors and hospitals anywhere in the country—essential when life-and-death decisions are being made in the ER.

But 10 years after President Barack Obama signed a law to accelerate the digitization of medical records—with the federal government, so far, sinking $36 billion into the effort—America has little to show for its investment.

The info is here.

Artificial Intelligence and ethics will drive a patient matching revolution in 2019

Mark Larow
MedCity News
Originally posted January 1, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

Yet nowhere can AI have a more immediate and accessible impact than in patient matching. Currently, health systems have teams of data stewards and health information management (HIM) professionals dedicated to finding, reviewing, researching, and resolving records that their EHR or EMPI has flagged as “potential duplicates.” Essentially, these employees are spending hours each day looking at, for example, a record for Jane Jones and another for Jane Smith, trying to decide if both Janes are actually the same person and if her records should be merged.

Referential matching technology can automate 50-to-75 percent of this manual effort by being an intelligent and data-driven technology. It can automatically find and resolve duplicate records that EHRs and EMPIs have missed, enabling data stewards and HIM staff to focus on higher-value projects—while simultaneously lowering the operational costs and inefficiencies plaguing health systems by automating manual work.

Ultimately, automating the discovery and resolution of duplicate records with referential matching technology can reduce claims denials to save up to $1.5 million, reduce operational costs by at least $200,000, improve the ROI of EHR deployments, and enable value-based care and patient engagement initiatives by enabling more complete and accurate patient health histories.

Ethics

Health systems are increasingly making technology investments not just to reduce costs or improve efficiencies, but also because not using new technologies is becoming unethical. We have reached a tipping point where innovative new technologies are prominent, successful, and inexpensive enough for ethics to begin driving technology purchasing decisions.

The info is here.

The 3 faces of clinical reasoning: Epistemological explorations of disparate error reduction strategies.

Sandra Monteiro, Geoff Norman, & Jonathan Sherbino
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Jun;24(3):666-673.

Abstract

There is general consensus that clinical reasoning involves 2 stages: a rapid stage where 1 or more diagnostic hypotheses are advanced and a slower stage where these hypotheses are tested or confirmed. The rapid hypothesis generation stage is considered inaccessible for analysis or observation. Consequently, recent research on clinical reasoning has focused specifically on improving the accuracy of the slower, hypothesis confirmation stage. Three perspectives have developed in this line of research, and each proposes different error reduction strategies for clinical reasoning. This paper considers these 3 perspectives and examines the underlying assumptions. Additionally, this paper reviews the evidence, or lack of, behind each class of error reduction strategies. The first perspective takes an epidemiological stance, appealing to the benefits of incorporating population data and evidence-based medicine in every day clinical reasoning. The second builds on the heuristic and bias research programme, appealing to a special class of dual process reasoning models that theorizes a rapid error prone cognitive process for problem solving with a slower more logical cognitive process capable of correcting those errors. Finally, the third perspective borrows from an exemplar model of categorization that explicitly relates clinical knowledge and experience to diagnostic accuracy.

A pdf can be downloaded here.

Health care, disease care, or killing care?

Hugo Caicedo
Harvard Blogs
Originally published October 1, 2018

Traditional medical practice is rooted in advanced knowledge of diseases, their most appropriate treatment, and adequate proficiency in its applied practice. Notably, today, medical treatment does not typically occur until disease symptoms have manifested. While we now have ways to develop therapies that can halt the progression of some symptomatic diseases, symptomatic solutions are not meant to serve as a cure of disease but palliative treatment of late-stage chronic diseases.

The reactive approach in most medical interventions is magnified in that medicine is prone to errors. In November of 1999, the U.S. National Academy of Science, an organization representing the most highly regarded scientists and physician researchers in the U.S., published the report To Err is Human.

The manuscript noted that medical error was a leading cause of patient deaths killing up to 98,000 people in the U.S. every year. One hypothesis that came up was that patient data was being poorly collected, aggregated, and shared among different hospitals and even within the same health system. Health policies such the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) in 2009 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, primarily focused on optimizing clinical and operational effectiveness through the use of health information technology and expansion of government insurance programs, respectively. However, they did not effectively address the issue of medical errors such as poor judgment, mistaken diagnoses, inadequately coordinated care, and incompetent skill that can directly result in patient harm and death.

The blog post is here.

After medical error, apology goes a long way

Science Daily
Originally posted October 2, 2017

Summary: Discussing hospital errors with patients leads to better patient safety without spurring a barrage of malpractice claims, new research shows.

In patient injury cases, revealing facts, offering apology does not lead to increase in lawsuits, study finds

Sometimes a straightforward explanation and an apology for what went wrong in the hospital goes a long way toward preventing medical malpractice litigation and improving patient safety.

That's what Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, and her colleagues found in a study to be published Oct. 2 in Health Affairs.

Mello, a professor of health research and policy and of law at Stanford University, is the lead author of the study. The senior author is Kenneth Sands, former senior vice president at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Medical injuries are a leading cause of death in the United States. The lawsuits they spawn are also a major concern for physicians and health care facilities. So, hospital risk managers and liability insurers are experimenting with new approaches to resolving these disputes that channel them away from litigation.

The focus is on meeting patients' needs without requiring them to sue. Hospitals disclose accidents to patients, investigate and explain why they occurred, apologize and, in cases in which the harm was due to a medical error, offer compensation and reassurance that steps will be taken to keep it from happening again.

The article is here.

The target article is here.

Physician Burnout Is a Public Health Crisis

Arthur L. Caplan
MedScape
Originally published on March 4, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

We've got a problem in this country with doctors. It's kind of an epidemic, but no one is talking about it. It is burnout. A recent study from the Mayo Clinic showed that in 2011, 45.5% of doctors reported that they felt burned out, and that number has now risen to 54.4% in 2014. More than half of all doctors in this country are saying, "I really feel that some aspect of my work as a doctor is making me feel burned out."

This is really trouble. It's trouble because a doctor who feels this way can commit more errors. They suffer from compassion fatigue, or just not being able to empathize with others because they have their own emotional issues. They may retire early, thereby reducing the workforce. They may have problems managing their own lives; 400 doctors committed suicide last year, which is double the rate of the population average. There's trouble for patients in having a workforce that's burned out. There's trouble for doctors in terms of their own health and well-being. We don't talk about it much. We like to think that doctors can handle everything, but it's clearly not true. It's a problem and there ought to be some solutions.

The article is here.

'Disruptive' doctors rattle nurses, increase safety risks

Jayne O'Donnell and Laura Ungar
USAToday
Originally published September 20, 2015

Here are two excerpts:

Disruptive behavior leads to increased medication errors, more infections and other bad patient outcomes — partly because staff members are often afraid to speak up in the face of bullying by a physician, Wyatt says. That "hidden code of silence" keeps many incidents from being reported or adequately addressed, says physician Alan Rosenstein, an expert in disruptive behavior.

(cut)

Most experts estimate that up to 5% of physicians exhibit disruptive behavior, although fear of retaliation and other factors make it difficult to determine the extent of the problem. A 2008 survey of nurses and doctors at more than 100 hospitals showed that 77% of respondents said they witnessed physicians engaging in disruptive behavior, which often meant the verbal abuse of another staff member. Sixty-five percent said they saw nurses exhibit such behavior.

Most said such actions raise the risk of errors and deaths.

About two-thirds of the most serious medical incidents — those involving death or serious physical or psychological injury — can be traced back to communication errors, according to a health care accrediting organization called the Joint Commission. Getting nurses and other medical assistants rattled during surgery can be a big safety risk, Bartholomew says.

The entire article is here.

Learning From Litigation

By Joanna C. Schwartz
The New York Times - Op Ed
Originally published May 16, 2013

MUCH of the discussion over the Affordable Care Act has focused on whether it will bring down health care costs. Less attention has been paid to another goal of the act: improving patient safety. Each year tens of thousands of people die, and hundreds of thousands more are injured, as a result of medical error.

Experts agree that the best way to reduce medical error is to gather and analyze information about past errors with an eye toward improving future care. But many believe that a major barrier to doing so is the medical malpractice tort system: the threat of being sued is believed to prevent the kind of transparency necessary to identify and learn from errors when they occur.

New evidence, however, contradicts the conventional wisdom that malpractice litigation compromises the patient safety movement’s call for transparency. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring: the openness and transparency promoted by patient safety advocates appear to be influencing hospitals’ responses to litigation risk.

I recently surveyed more than 400 people responsible for hospital risk management, claims management and quality improvement in health care centers around the country, in cooperation with the American Society of Health Care Risk Managers, and I interviewed dozens more.

The entire story is here.

Fewer Hours for Doctors-in-Training Leading To More Mistakes

By Alexandra Sifferlin
Time
Originally published March 26, 2013

Giving residents less time on duty and more time to sleep was supposed to lead to fewer medical errors. But the latest research shows that’s not the case. What’s going on?

Since 2011, new regulations restricting the number of continuous hours first-year residents spend on-call cut the time that trainees spend at the hospital during a typical duty session from 24 hours to 16 hours. Excessively long shifts, studies showed, were leading to fatigue and stress that hampered not just the learning process, but the care these doctors provided to patients.

And there were tragic examples of the high cost of this exhausting schedule. In 1984, 18-year old Libby Zion, who was admitted to a New York City hospital with a fever and convulsions, was treated by residents who ordered opiates and restraints when she became agitated and uncooperative. Busy overseeing other patients, the residents didn’t evaluate Zion again until hours later, by which time her fever has soared to 107 degrees and she went into cardiac arrest, and died. The case highlighted the enormous pressures on doctors-in-training, and the need for reform in the way residents were taught. In 1987, a New York state commission limited the number of hours that doctors could train in the hospital to 80 each week, which was less than the 100 hour a week shifts with 36 hour “call” times that were the norm at the time. In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education followed suit with rules for all programs that mandated that trainees could work no more than 24 consecutive hours.

The entire article is here.

Lying to Patients: No Huge Ethical Failure, Says Bioethicist

By Art Caplan, PhD

Medscape: Ethics

Dr. Art Caplan

Today I would like to talk to you about a pretty thorny subject and one that is fascinating because it is so ethically rich: Should doctors ever lie to their patients?

The trigger for this discussion is a study that just came out that found that doctors do lie. In fact, the study found that 20% of more than 2000 doctors surveyed admitted that they had not told patients the truth when an error had taken place. They found out that more than 10% hadn't discussed financial conflicts of interest, and 15% said they gave a rosier picture about prognosis and risk and benefit with respect to a disease.

There has been a good deal of interest in this survey, and the public and some media reports are saying that this is shocking. We expect our physicians to always be truthful; this survey apparently shows that there is a considerable amount of lying going on, withholding of the truth, and not being forthright. What's wrong? Is there a huge ethical failure going on out there among doctors and medical practitioners?

The answer is no. It is inexcusable and not advisable to lie about an error. You may dodge a bullet on that one by having the patient not find out, but if it really affects their care, if they wind up harmed, if they wind up having to pay more and it comes out later that you didn't tell the truth or that there was an omission of the fact that an error occurred, you are going to get clobbered. I have seen it again and again in courtrooms. It may seem the easiest way out, to avoid telling the truth when an error takes place, but getting it out there and getting it over with early is the best protection in terms of malpractice associated with error. It isn't lying.

The entire story and video is here.

Report Finds Most Errors at Hospitals Go Unreported

By ROBERT PEAR

New York Times - Health

Published: January 6, 2012

Hospital employees recognize and report only one out of seven errors, accidents and other events that harm Medicare patients while they are hospitalized, federal investigators say in a new report.

Yet even after hospitals investigate preventable injuries and infections that have been reported, they rarely change their practices to prevent repetition of the “adverse events,” according to the study, from Daniel R. Levinson, inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services.

In the report, being issued on Friday, Mr. Levinson notes that as a condition of being paid under Medicare, hospitals are to “track medical errors and adverse patient events, analyze their causes” and improve care.

Nearly all hospitals have some type of system for employees to inform hospital managers of adverse events, defined as significant harm experienced by patients as a result of medical care.

“Despite the existence of incident reporting systems,” Mr. Levinson said, “hospital staff did not report most events that harmed Medicare beneficiaries.” Indeed, he said, some of the most serious problems, including some that caused patients to die, were not reported.

Adverse events include medication errors, severe bedsores, infections that patients acquire in hospitals, delirium resulting from overuse of painkillers and excessive bleeding linked to improper use of blood thinners.

The rest of the story is here.

Doctors Might Miss Some Cases of Child Abuse

By Robert Preidt

MedicineNet.com

Many cases of child abuse are not reported by primary health care providers, a new study suggests.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are usually doctors but can also be physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

(cut)

The PCPs and child abuse experts agreed about the suspicion of abuse in 81% of the cases, but PCPs did not report 21% of injuries that the experts said they would have reported to child protective services (CPS).

The story can be read here.

The research article can be found here.

Nurse's suicide highlights twin tragedies of medical errors

by JoNel Aleccia

Health writer - msnbc.com

For registered nurse Kimberly Hiatt, the horror began last Sept. 14, the moment she realized she’d overdosed a fragile baby with 10 times too much medication.

Stunned, she told nearby staff at the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit at Seattle Children’s Hospital what had happened. “It was in the line of, ‘Oh my God, I have given too much calcium,’” recalled a fellow nurse, Michelle Asplin, in a statement to state investigators.

In Hiatt’s 24-year career, all of it at Seattle Children’s, dispensing 1.4 grams of calcium chloride — instead of the correct dose of 140 milligrams — was the only serious medical mistake she’d ever made, public investigation records show.

“She was devastated, just devastated,” said Lyn Hiatt, 49, of Seattle, Kim’s partner and co-parent of their two children, Eli, 18, and Sydney, 16.

That mistake turned out to be the beginning of an unraveled life, contributing not only to the death of the child, 8-month-old Kaia Zautner, but also to Hiatt’s firing, a state nursing commission investigation — and Hiatt's suicide on April 3 at age 50.

Hiatt’s dismissal — and her death — raise larger questions about the impact of errors on providers, the so-called “second victims” of medical mistakes. That’s a phrase coined a decade ago by Dr. Albert Wu, a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

It’s meant to describe the twin casualties caused by a serious medical mistake: The first victim is the patient, the person hurt or killed by a preventable error — but the second victim is the person who has to live with the aftermath of making it.

No question, the patients are the top concern in a nation where 1 in 7 Medicare patients experience serious harm because of medical errors and hospital infections each year, and 180,000 patients die, according to a November 2010 study by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General.

That’s nearly double the 98,000 deaths attributed to preventable errors in the pivotal 2000 report “To Err is Human,” by the Institute of Medicine, which galvanized the nation's patient safety movement.

In reality, though, the doctors, nurses and other medical workers who commit errors are often traumatized as well, with reactions that range from anxiety and sleeping problems to doubt about their professional abilities — and thoughts of suicide, according to two recent studies.

Surgeons who believed they made medical errors were more than three times as likely to have considered suicide as those who didn’t, according to a January survey of more nearly 8,000 participants published in the Archives of Surgery.

      *     *     *     *     *     *     *

 The entire story can be found here.