Archive for the ‘Anne Polta’ Category

Guest Blog: When Families Clash During the Doctor Visit

Anne Polta
Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

Anne Polta reports on health care for the West Central Tribune in Willmar, Minnesota.  Her personal experiences as a patient include treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 38 and an adverse medical event resulting in injury.  She has covered health care – specifically patient engagement and patient safety – for more than 20 years.  This post originally appeared on her HealthBeat blog on March 30, 2012 and you can follow her on Twitter via @a_polta_wctrib.

Family togetherness is usually a good thing but sometimes it’s a source of conflict, and new research suggests doctors can be slow to recognize when families disagree about the best course of care.

A small-scale study involving patients with advanced lung cancer, their oncologists and caregivers found that the doctors didn’t always notice differences of opinion between patients and families.

In interviews conducted separately with the participants, the researchers found that most of the time, patients and families did agree on important care decisions such as extra tests or options for hospice care. And most of the time, the doctors correctly perceived there were no conflicts between the patient and caregiver.

But in seven cases in which a patient reported conflict with a family caregiver, the doctor picked up on only two of them. Of the 17 cases in which a caregiver reported conflict, five of them were recognized by the doctor. And in the 15 instances in which both the patient and caregiver separately reported some kind of conflict, only two of them were recognized by the doctor.

This was a very small study but the implications are intriguing.

Do the findings mean doctors are often obtuse about what’s going on between patients and caregivers? Sometimes they are, perhaps. “This is not something that oncologists regularly explore with patients,” Laura Siminoff, of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and one of the researchers, told Reuters News.

But it’s equally likely that patients and families often hide their disagreements when they’re in the presence of the doctor. Maybe patients are uncomfortable bringing it up, especially if a family member is in the exam room with them, or maybe they don’t want to bother the doctor with something they perceive as trivial, Siminoff suggested.

There’s a bigger question here, though: Does family involvement help or hinder patient care?

Experts in patient advocacy are unanimous in believing patients fare better when they have a family member or caregiver who’s committed to helping them manage their health and who can advocate for care that’s in their best interests. There’s been considerably less focus on how to deal with families who disagree or don’t function well together.

American Medical News recently explored this topic and what it means for the clinician who’s sometimes caught in the middle:

Even as the push toward the patient-centered medical home stresses the invaluable role that families can play in improving compliance and health outcomes, the presence of a relative raises a host of complicated issues for physicians to navigate.

“Now you’ve got potentially two patients in the room,” says Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. “You even have a kind of third patient, which is the relationship between the family member and the patient. If you ignore that, you ignore it at your own peril.”

Some examples of how the dynamics can get complicated: The patient might not want the family member in the room but is too polite or too intimidated to say so. Family members might have an agenda that conflicts with that of the patient. Relatives who are distrustful might second-guess or undermine the doctor’s assessment and recommendations.

The visit doesn’t have to get adversarial to be difficult, noted the physicians interviewed by American Medical News. Sometimes well-meaning family members simply take over the discussion, talking on behalf of a patient who’s perfectly competent to speak for himself or herself. Or they might appeal to the doctor to take sides in a family dispute over health behaviors, such as a spouse who doesn’t want to stop smoking or an aging parent who doesn’t want to take a medication.

The biggest mistake that can be made, according to Dr. Yul Ejnes, an internist in Cranston, R.I., is “to forget that the patient is the boss.”

Conflict can be magnified a thousandfold in high-stakes situations, such as when end-of-life decisions need to be made. The study involving the lung cancer patients and their caregivers and oncologists didn’t look at whether disagreements – and the doctor’s lack of awareness of them – had an impact on care, but Reuters Health spoke to experts who said the discord often raises the family’s stress level and can complicate the process of making treatment decisions.

Dr. Anthony Back, an oncologist at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said it’s important for oncologists to notice the cues and to call in a social worker or therapist to help resolve family differences. “Sometimes those things are beyond the purview of the oncologist,” he said. “But when (patients and caregivers) have some major issues, they need to figure it out and we have other resources for them.”

Related Links:

Guest Blog: Defining Patient Engagement

Anne Polta
Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

Anne Polta reports on health care for the West Central Tribune in Willmar, Minnesota.  Her personal experiences as a patient include treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 38 and an adverse medical event resulting in injury.  She has covered health care – specifically patient engagement and patient safety – for more than 20 years.  This post originally appeared on her HealthBeat blog on March 30, 2012 and you can follow her on Twitter via @a_polta_wctrib.

Everyone in health care is talking these days about patient engagement, but a funny thing happened on the way to the discussion: There doesn’t seem to be a widely agreed-on definition of what this actually means.

When the National eHealth Collaborative recently released the findings from an online survey conducted in February, the responses were all over the map.

Some thought patient engagement meant the ability to email the doctor, make an appointment online or have online access to the medical record. Others thought it meant access to educational information about health. Some thought it meant a willingness and comfort with asking questions or challenging the doctor’s recommendations.

Virtually everyone who responded to the survey said it was either “important” or “very important” for patients to be engaged in their care.

But how can patients be expected to do this when no one is sure what patient engagement is supposed to look like?

If the survey accomplished anything, it was to shed some light on the lack of widespread consensus and to identify the beginnings of some common points of agreement.

Of the 185 people who took part in the survey (admittedly a very small sample size for drawing any meaningful conclusions), the description on which they agreed the most was “Patient uses educational material and online resources to learn about better health or their own health conditions.” This was closely followed by “Patient uses tools and resources to manage his or her medical record and other health data.”

I was interested to note that “Patient feels comfortable challenging doctor when something doesn’t seem right or when explanations are not clear” ranked third among the responses picked by the survey participants. Does patient engagement mean it’s OK for the patient to disagree with the clinician, then? Plenty of folks would say that engaged patients are the ones who go along with whatever the doctor recommends (and sure enough, 22.7 percent of the survey respondents said “Patient follows their doctor’s orders after a visit” was a sign of an engaged patient).

Since this was a survey carried out by the National eHealth Collaborative, it isn’t surprising that health information technology was seen as a critical piece of patient engagement. But is this the most important ingredient? Can someone who doesn’t even own a computer still be an engaged patient?

What about concepts such as active participation by patients in their health care? Or commitment to learning more about their health at whatever level they’re comfortable with? Or self-management and shared decision making?

More negatively, does patient engagement mean patients will start dictating the terms of their care, even when what they want is medically inappropriate?

And who gets to define patient engagement, anyway? Does this rest with patients alone? With providers? With both of them together?

Here’s how Donna Cryer, CEO of CryerHealth, defines it in a post she wrote last year for the Prepared Patient Forum at the Center for Advancing Health:

Properly done, patient engagement in action looks like shared responsibility between patients (and their families if applicable), health care practitioners (the entire team: surgeons, physicians, nurses) and healthcare administrators (providers of the infrastructure and payment models) to co-develop pathways to optimal individual, community and population health. Patient engagement brought to life means involving patients and caregivers in every step of the process, providing training or financial support if necessary to their participation.

An infographic put together recently by Steve Wilkins of the Mind the Gap blog offers further insight into some of the challenges of defining patient engagement. Simply giving patients access to information doesn’t mean they’ll know how to use it, he writes. And measuring engagement by the patient’s willingness to ask questions and challenge the doctor fails to account for the time constraints in the exam room or the lack of confidence many patients feel in speaking up.

The role of the patient is being redefined in ways that are more far-reaching than perhaps any other time in history. Traditional power structures are being upset, and this can be unsettling to patients and providers alike. Although it may be tough to reach a consensus on what the core principles of patient engagement should be, it’s important to the process – and yes, engagement means patients should be part of it.

Related links:

Guest Blog: Giving the Patient Bad News

Anne Polta
Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

Anne Polta reports on health care for the West Central Tribune in Willmar, Minnesota.  Her personal experiences as a patient include treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 38 and an adverse medical event resulting in injury.  She has covered health care – specifically patient engagement and patient safety – for more than 20 years.  This post originally appeared on her HealthBeat blog and you can follow her on Twitter via @a_polta_wctrib.

The patient, a young rodeo rider from rural Ohio, lies in a hospital bed, sick and in pain. The doctor has the results of his bone marrow biopsy and the news isn’t good: It’s Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system which will require chemotherapy.

But that’s not all. In this excerpt from “The Country Doctor Revisited,” Lorence Gutterman describes what happens next:

I take in a deep breath, prepare myself for the next part. “But there’s another problem. You have AIDS.”

I remain quiet but am unsatisfied that I’ve told him this without a family member or close friend in the room to comfort him after I leave. Carter turns away from me. I notice how thin his black hair is on the back of his head. In this moment, it’s not important how he got AIDS.

“Does Betsy know?” he asks.

“Not yet. Do you want to tell her or should I?”

“Ya tell her. God, I hope she’s okay.”

“She should be tested for AIDS.”

A slight nod and more silence. There are no right words to fill these spaces.

Sooner or later, virtually every doctor is forced to be the bearer of bad news. But although this is an important skill to have, few physicians receive formal training in how to convey difficult news to their patients.

The Journal of Cancer Education reported recently on a promising method of teaching this to medical students: videotaped practice sessions that allow students to role-play with standardized patients and receive feedback from the mock patients themselves.

Medical students who participated in the role-playing said afterwards that they felt more comfortable in their ability to deliver bad news. They especially benefited from the discussions with the standardized patients, many of whom were cancer survivors and familiar with the emotions – shock, denial, tears – that accompany difficult medical news.

The project was carried out at the University of South Florida College of Medicine. USF students who participate in an interdisciplinary oncology clerkship are required to complete two to three hours of training – first with other medical students and then with a patient actor – in how to convey bad medical news to patients. The mock interviews in the exam room are recorded and then analyzed to help the students identify their strengths and weaknesses and how they can improve.

The researchers wanted to know: What did students think of this teaching method? More to the point, did it help them increase their skills?

Overwhelmingly, students found it beneficial, the study’s authors reported. Although nearly all of them at some point during their medical education had seen bad news being delivered to a patient, only half had given the bad news themselves.

They found the feedback from the standardized patients especially valuable – more so than only receiving feedback from an instructor. The students also felt the role-playing exercise resulted in an overall increase in their knowledge of best practices for conveying bad news.

Giving bad news has always been one of the most difficult parts of medicine, and many physicians are highly uncomfortable with it or don’t do it very well. One study carried out in the United Kingdom, using audiotaped interviews with newly diagnosed cancer patients at a London teaching hospital, found that oncologists usually dominated the conversation, were more focused on the medical details than the patient’s emotions, and often failed to respond empathetically to the patient’s distress.

Another study, at Wayne State University in Michigan, evaluated medical residents on their skills in delivering bad news and found “a general lack of competence,” especially in their ability to converse in a way that was patient-centered.

Both of these studies were conducted in the 1990s, when the concept of patient-centeredness wasn’t particularly widespread. The curriculum at most medical schools has greatly expanded since then, incorporating more training to help medical students communicate better with patients and demonstrate more empathy.

It’s one thing, however, for students to practice and get feedback from their instructors and quite another to practice and get feedback from someone who’s actually been a patient, even if only a standardized patient.

The authors of the Journal of Cancer Education study concluded that although role-playing isn’t a substitute for a real-life encounter with a patient, it provides “a safe learning environment for the student. As a result, the students will have a solid background from which to begin developing good communication skills in the oncology setting.”

Related Links:

Guest Blog: A New Breed of Doctor

Anne Polta
Monday, March 5th, 2012

Anne Polta reports on health care for the West Central Tribune in Willmar, Minnesota.  Her personal experiences as a patient include treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 38 and an adverse medical event resulting in injury.  She has covered health care – specifically patient engagement and patient safety – for more than 20 years.  This post originally appeared on her HealthBeat blog and you can follow her on Twitter via @a_polta_wctrib.

Originally posted on HealthBeat on February 21, 2012

Most people probably skipped right over the announcement late last week, but for anyone thinking about going to medical school, it was pretty big news. For the first time in 20 years, the Medical College Admission Test, or MCAT, has been revised.

Starting in 2015, students who aspire to become doctors will be tested on more than just their knowledge of the sciences. They’ll also need to have a good understanding of psychology, sociology and biology and how these forces help shape individual health and behavior.

How best to educate future doctors has long been a subject for debate. Should students be accepted into medical school on the basis of their grades and test scores alone, or should other factors be considered as well? How important is it for pre-med students to have a grounding in non-science disciplines such as psychology or the humanities? Who’s likely to make a better doctor – someone who’s outstanding in science but mediocre in people skills, or someone who’s merely good in science but excellent in people skills?

The MCAT matters because it’s one of the major determinants for who gets into medical school and who doesn’t – and, ultimately, what the future physician workforce will look like.

The revisions to the exam have been brewing for many months and reflect an ever-broadening definition of what it takes to be a good doctor. It’s no longer enough to be a science nerd with a solid background in organic chemistry. As Dr. Darrell D. Kirch, president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges put it, “it also requires an understanding of people.”

The new version of the MCAT adds two sections: one on the psychological, social and biological foundations of behavior, and one on critical analysis and reasoning skills. A writing section has been dropped but the rigor of the science sections remains unchanged, and the test will still be a marathon. It’ll take students about six and a half hours to complete the whole thing, versus the four and a half hours it takes now.

I checked out an online preview guide for the test. Make no mistake, it’s very difficult. Here’s a sample question from the new section on the psychological, social and biological foundations of health: “How does cognitive dissonance explain the occurrence of persistent conformity? Memories change to reduce discomfort resulting from providing answers that differ from: A. answers identified as correct. B. memories of others. C. previously provided answers. D. original memories.” (The answer is D.)

Curious to know what pre-medical students think of these changes in the MCAT, I visited an online student doctors forum, where most of the reaction can be summed up in one word: “Brutal.”

“I think we lucked out not having to take this,” one pre-med student commented.

MedPage Today interviewed an aspiring doctor who had a different perspective. Adam Gardner, 29, earned a master’s degree in international affairs, then decided he wanted to become a doctor. He’s currently loading up on science prerequisites in preparation for taking the MCAT in June.

He said that while he appreciates the idea behind trying to create a more well-rounded doctor who can interact on a deeper level with patients, he worries that the additional test sections may require students like him who decide later in life to go to medical school, to take a greater number of classes in order to prepare for the test.

“Adding these new things to the test could drag this out even longer for people who want to get it done,” he said.

But then again, Gardner said having a knowledge of social sciences would lead to a better doctor-patient relationship.

“I’ve met a lot of doctors … and some of them are pretty cool people,” he said. “But a lot of them are not terribly social and easy to get along with, and I think having a more rounded background will create doctors who can deal with patients better.”

Critics didn’t waste any time weighing in with their reaction to the newly revised MCAT. One of the objections being voiced most frequently is that the heightened emphasis on psychology, sociology and critical thinking skills is too “touchy-feely” and will have the effect of dumbing down the test, thereby lowering the bar for who gets admitted to medical school.

It’s a valid concern. You could just as easily argue, however, that a medical school admissions process that’s structured in favor of the sciences can end up unfairly excluding students who are well-rounded, hard-working, took all the right pre-med college courses, earned good grades, have all the makings of becoming a good doctor but simply didn’t do as well on a science-oriented test.

It comes back to the original question: What are the most important qualities for doctors to have? Knowledge of the sciences will always be critical, but is there room for training programs to also emphasize analytical thought, the social sciences and the underpinnings of human behavior? The new version of the MCAT suggests that indeed there is. In 20 years or so, we’ll find out whether it’s made a difference.

Related links: