Misconceptions about oxygen by alternative medicine practitioners

An article called “Simple ‘4-7-8? breathing trick can induce sleep in 60 seconds” claims that this trick can get you to go to sleep within 60 seconds. All you have to do is the following:

? Exhale completely through your mouth, making a whoosh sound.
? Close your mouth and inhale quietly through your nose to a mental count of four.
? Hold your breath for a count of seven.
? Exhale completely through your mouth, making a whoosh sound to a count of eight.
? This is one breath. Now inhale again and repeat the cycle three more times for a total of four breaths

An integrative medicine expert, Dr. Andrew Weil, said it works because it allows the lungs to become fully charged with air, allowing more oxygen into the body, which promotes a state of calm.

“Promotes a state of calm” is nonsense. Let’s concentrate on the science. Does it allow more oxygen into the body? Ich dont think so.

The air we breathe contains about 21% oxygen. Nearly all oxygen in the blood is carried by hemoglobin. No matter how many deep breaths you take, you cannot get the oxygen saturation of hemoglobin (normally > 92%, closer to 98% in healthy people) above 100%. This is explained in more detail in a previous post of mine about why athletes don’t benefit from breathing pure oxygen after exertion.

This simple trick would be hard to remember but might work through the power of suggestion. It doesn’t cost anything, and unless you hyperventilate and pass out (but youll be in bed anyway), it is harmless.

The next misconception about oxygen is neither inexpensive nor harmless.

Two naturopathic “doctors” have been accused of injecting a woman with oxygen or perhaps purified water that had been taken from an Octozone machine. The oxygen was supposed to destroy any pathogens in the woman’s blood. In the process of trying to kill the pathogens, the injection killed the patient who paid $500 for the treatment.

The naturopathic duo left town and were at large for several months before eventually being caught and charged with homicide.

An autopsy found her death was due to an air embolism.

According to a recent review of the subject, “Traditionally, it has been estimated that more than 5 mL/kg of air displaced into the intravenous space is required for significant injury (shock or cardiac arrest) to occur. However, complications have been reported with as little as 20 mL of air (the length of an unprimed IV infusion tubing) that was injected intravenously.”

Pure water should never be injected IV either because it causes blood cells to die from hemolysis.

How about we just take our oxygen the old-fashioned way—normal breaths and never intravenously?

Read More..

1 in 20 Americans are misdiagnosed every year

Really?

A paper published in April found that about 12 million Americans, or 5% of adults in this country, are being misdiagnosed every year. This news exploded all over Twitter. Anxious reports from media outlets such as NBC News, CBS News, the Boston Globe, and others fanned the flames.

The paper involves a fair amount of extrapolation and estimation reminiscent of the "440,000 deaths per year caused by medical error" study from last year.

Data from the authors prior published works involving 81,000 patients and 212,000 doctor visits yielded about 1600 records for analysis.

A misdiagnosis was determined by either an unplanned hospitalization (trigger 1) or a primary care physician revisit within 14 days of an index visit (trigger 2).

A quote from the paper [Emphasis added] : For trigger 1, 141 errors were found in 674 visits reviewed, yielding an error rate of 20.9%. Extrapolating to all 1086 trigger 1 visits yielded an estimate of 227.2 errors. For trigger 2, 36 errors were found in 669 visits reviewed, yielding an error rate of 5.4%. Extrapolating to all 14,777 trigger 2 visits yielded an estimate of 795.2 errors. Finally, for the control visits, 13 errors were found in 614 visits reviewed, yielding an error rate of 2.1%. Extrapolating to all 193,810 control visits yielded an estimate of 4,103.5 errors. Thus, we estimated that 5126 errors would have occurred across the three groups. We then divided this figure by the number of unique primary care patients in the initial cohort (81,483) and arrived at an estimated error rate of 6.29%. Because approximately 80.5% of US adults seek outpatient care annually, the same rate when applied to all US adults gives an estimate of 5.06%.
The diagnoses that were missed and the implications of the misses were not described, but one anecdote from a paper the study was based on mentioned carpal tunnel syndrome as one of the diagnoses.

Another quote from the paper: Although it is unknown how many patients will be harmed from diagnostic errors, our previous work suggests that about one-half of diagnostic errors have the potential to lead to severe harm. While this is only an estimate and does not imply all those affected will actually have harm, this risk potentially translates to about 6 million outpatients per year. [Emphasis mine]

Is a 14-day interval between the supposed miss of the diagnosis and an admission or a return visit really a huge problem?

Because we dont really know how many patients were actually harmed by these supposed diagnostic errors, we cant tell. If carpal tunnel syndrome was the delayed diagnosis, Id say "probably not."

Half of the patients in the study were from a VA and the other half were from a large clinic cohort so these diagnostic error rates may not be generalizable to the entire population of the US.

The words "misdiagnosis" and "error" were used interchangeably. As the authors admit, every misdiagnosis is not necessarily the result of a physicians error.

Among the limitations of the study noted in the paper [but omitted from all news reports] was that it was not designed to identify the root cause of the delayed care or missed diagnosis. For example, reviewers noted many cases where delays in follow-up were beyond the control of primary care providers, such as difficulty obtaining timely appointments with specialists [which we now know is a huge problem at many VA hospitals], or patients failing to show up at scheduled appointments.

No doubt diagnostic errors occur, but this paper does not tell us how many people were seriously harmed, what the root causes of the errors were, who was responsible for the errors, or most importantly whether diagnostic errors really occur in 5% of Americans.

Read More..

Can a surgeon who is sitting perform abdominal operations

A loyal reader alerted me to news of a lawsuit brought by an obstetrician in South Carolina who is suing a hospital for suspending his privileges. He had performed a cesarean section while sitting on a stool because he had a foot fracture secondary to diabetes. Several witnesses said that the doctor "had been unable to properly view the surgical field, unable to properly handle the baby and unable to address hemorrhaging." The patient later developed a serious infection.

A seated surgeon can operate on the hand and arm. In fact, thats the way everyone does it. The surgeons knees easily fit under the small table holding the outstretched arm. Certain anorectal operations and gynecologic procedures done through the vagina can be done by a surgeon who is sitting, but abdominal and pelvic operations done via laparotomy cant be safely done that way.

The problem is that when a surgeon is sitting, she cant get close enough to the OR table and the patient to see way down into the abdomen and pelvis. If bleeding occurs deep in the wound, controlling it would be challenging to a surgeon who is sitting. Tying a secure knot in the pelvis while sitting might even be impossible.

With the exception of robot-assisted surgery where the surgeon sits a console remote from the operating table, a seated surgeon would have trouble doing both open and laparoscopic procedures. Even with a robotic operation, there can be problems. If the surgeon cant stand, an assistant would have to help insert the robotic ports. What if something went wrong and the abdomen had to be opened?

In a laparoscopic case, the video monitor could be seen by a sitting surgeon, but manipulating the rigid instruments would be difficult because of the angles created by the locations of the ports through which the instruments are passed.

As a retired surgeon, I sympathize with anyone who might be forced to quit operating because of illness or disability, but the safety of the patient comes first.

I hope that the suit is resolved quickly and we learn what the outcome is.

Read More..

How to get the answers you want from a survey

This isnt about religion or politics, two subjects I tend to avoid. This is about surveys and how they can mislead.

I received this survey in the mail last week. It is from CatholicVote.org and is touted as the "largest survey of Catholics ever conducted on the issue of ObamaCare."

CatholicVote.org promises that the results will "send a strong and clear message to every politician running for election or reelection in the 2014 midterm congressional elections, that the overwhelming majority of Catholic voters demand ObamaCare be repealed."

Judging from the way the questions are framed, I think the message will be clear.

Here are a few examples:

From Section B "ObamaCares War on Christianity and Morality"

Question #2: Do you think ObamaCare is violating the Constitutions First Amendment protections for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience by forcing pro-life Americans to purchase health coverage that includes abortion inducing drugs?

A) Yes, this is certainly a violation of the Constitutions First Amendment protections.
B) No, this is not a violation of the Constitution
C) Not Sure
D) Other

Question #4: As a state lawmaker in Illinois, Barack Obama voted twice to deny lifesaving medical care to babies born in botched abortions. What is your reaction to this fact?

A) I support President Obama on this.
B) I am horrified and angered by this.
C) Not Sure
D) Other

From Section C "ObamaCares War on Freedom"

Question #5: Do you think President Obama knew about the crushing cost of ObamaCare for families across America, and was just lying about the cost to get ObamaCare passed into law? Or do you think he shares our shock and dismay at the staggering cost of ObamaCare?

A) I believe President Obama knew about the crushing cost of ObamaCare for families across America, and was just lying about the cost to get ObamaCare passed into law.
B) I think he shares our shock at the staggering cost of ObamaCare and was just unaware of it.
C) Not Sure
D) Other

Question #6: How do you think the mass exodus of doctors from medicine will impact your ability to see a doctor and get the medical treatments you need?

A) A doctor shortage on this scale will certainly drive healthcare costs up dramatically and make it far more difficult for me to see a doctor and get the medical care I need.
B) I dont think well see much impact from this doctor shortage.
C) Not Sure
D) Other

Had enough?

I look forward to seeing the results.

Read More..

Is the surgeon still captain of the ship

A Kentucky appeals court ruled that a surgeon was not responsible for a burn caused by an instrument that had been removed from an autoclave and placed on an anesthetized patients abdomen.

According to an article in Outpatient Surgery, the surgeon was not in the room when the injury occurred and only discovered it when he was about to begin the procedure.

An insufflator valve had been sterilized and was apparently still hot when an unknown hospital staff member put it down on the patients exposed skin. [An insufflator is a machine that is used to pump CO2 through tubing into the abdomen for laparoscopic surgery.] When the doctor saw the mild second-degree burn, he asked what happened, but "but no one in the OR claimed any knowledge or responsibility."

The hospital had settled the suit on behalf of its staff, but the surgeon, who as a private practitioner had his own malpractice insurance, held out. The original lower court ruling dismissing the suit against him had been based on the plaintiffs lawyers failure to prove that the surgeon was responsible for the actions of the hospital staff.

In December 2012, I wrote a post stating my opinion that activities such as counting the sponges during an operation were not the responsibility of the surgeon. Many who commented on the post were highly indignant that I could suggest such a thing.

I wrote another post last year on the subject in response to another surgeons blog entitled "Everythings my fault: How a surgeon says Im sorry." I felt that many things that happened to patients were beyond the control of the surgeon. Most of the comments agreed with me.

I keep hearing that medical care has become a team sport. If thats true, then the surgeon, like everyone else, is simply a member of the team. People on teams have different roles and must execute properly for the team to succeed.

One of the most interesting things about the case in question was that none of the OR team members had any idea how that hot insufflator valve found its way to the patients abdomen.

One thing we know for sure, at least in Kentucky, is that a surgeon is not legally responsible for everything that happens to a patient in the operating room, particularly when he is not even present.

Is this decision the first nail in the coffin of the "captain of the ship" doctrine?

Read More..

Chance can turn a surgeon into a killer

Risk-adjusted 30- to 90-day outcome data for selected types of operations done by specific surgeons and hospitals are now being publicly posted online by Englands National Health Service.

According to the site, "Any hospital or consultant [attending surgeon in the UK] identified as an outlier will be investigated and action taken to improve data quality and/or patient care."

After cardiac surgery outcomes data were made public in New York, some interesting unexpected consequences were noted.

Surgeons and hospitals resorted to "gaming the system" by declining to operate on patients who were high-risk and tinkering with patient charts to make those they did operate on seem sicker. This can be done by scouring the charts for all co-morbidities and making sure none are overlooked when they are coded. An article from New York Magazine explains it in more detail.

Interpreting outcomes data can be tricky.

In a post three years ago about a report that nine Maryland hospitals had higher-than-average complication rates, I pointed out that whenever you have averages, some hospitals are going to be worse than average unless all hospitals perform exactly the same way or, like medical students, are all above average.

A much more sophisticated way of looking at this subject appeared in a fascinating 2010 BBC News piece by Michael Blastland, who is the Nate Silver of England [or maybe Nate Silver is the Michael Blastland of the US], called "Can chance make you a killer?"

Blastland set up a statistical chance calculator for a hypothetical set of 100 hospitals or 100 surgeons performing 100 operations each. The model assumes that every patient has the same chance of dying and that every surgeon is equally competent. The standard is that a mortality rate 60% worse than the norm set by the government for any hospital or surgeon is not acceptable.

You are assigned one hospital. Using a slider, you may choose an operative mortality rate anywhere from 1% to 15%. After you do this a number of times and recalculate for each mortality rate, you will notice that the number of unacceptably performing hospitals or surgeons changes randomly for each percent mortality and your hospital may appear in the underperforming group strictly by chance alone.

The whole concept is explained in more detail on the site. I encourage you to try it for yourself. The link is here.

So it may be difficult for the NHS to separate the true outliers from the unlucky surgeons who happened to fall outside the established norms.

What do you think about this?

Read More..

Applicants want to be a resident but don’t write good Here’s help

Thanks to a spammer trying to comment on some of my posts, I have been introduced to the world of online personal statement services.

On a website called internalmedicineresidency.biz, $54.09 (discounted to $43.27 if you order by June 30) will get you a 275-word personal statement. As the website points out, “Coming up with a personal statement internal medicine of this quality is far from easy, but it’s what our professional service is here to help you achieve.”

Under the heading “How to create a killer statement, item #2 is “Argue why you suit for the course.”

The site offers a sample personal statement that begins, “I’ve always admired those who work in the health care industry not only because my mother was one but the fact that these people are the ones who care for our well being.”

In case you are after bigger game, the same company offers similar services for obtaining a neurosurgical residency. This site says, “Getting a neurosurgery residency can give your career a boost which can have a positive effect at your future in this field.”

I must agree that if you want to become a neurosurgeon, failure to obtain a neurosurgical residency position is a definite disadvantage. In fact, I think it would pretty much preclude your becoming a neurosurgeon.

It may be more difficult to obtain a neurosurgical residency than one in internal medicine, but the price for a neurosurgery personal statement, at a mere $27.19, is much lower.

For some reason when you click on the Sample tab, the site displays a “Pre Med Personal Statement” followed by this paragraph:

Pre Med personal statement writing is nowadays proven as beneficial using online services. Nowadays, students are showing more interest for the pre-med programs because of its value and prospective value for the future medicine studies. There is a great competition every year for this program and thousands of students applying every year too. Here, it is indicating, how important it is to add your application with a personal statement. If you fail to satiate this factor, then admission success is hard to expect. Our service is definitely wise option here to come up with a neurosurgery residency personal statement and any winning personal statement.

If that doesn’t convince you to try this service, I don’t know what will.

A USMLE Forum lists 18 other websites that provide personal statement writing services. I wish I had time to check out all of them.

Read More..

Big data is not big enough

Today ProPublica released its “Surgeon Scorecard” touting it as the best way to pick the right surgeon.

It took me less than a minute to discover some interesting omissions from the application.

For laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the only general surgery procedure listed, the app omits approximately one-third of the hospitals in my state including two where I have practiced.

It looks like the problem is that using Medicare fee-for-service data does not yield enough surgeons performing 20 or more cases in some categories such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the five years included in the database.

At one of the biggest hospitals in my state, apparently only one surgeon performed 20 laparoscopic cholecystectomies on fee-for-service Medicare patients in the five years studied; 23 other surgeons were listed as having performed fewer than 20 laparoscopic cholecystectomies on patients in the target population. I don’t see how patients who want to use that hospital for their gallbladder surgery will benefit from the Surgeon Scorecard.

In general, the complication rate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy is low, but I think I understand why ProPublica chose that procedure to review. They needed to select a procedure that was done frequently enough to yield a sufficient number of cases for analysis. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of the Medicare fee-for-service data and the low complication rate of the procedure, the Surgeon Scorecard is useless for anyone looking to compare general surgeons.

Similar problems with the scorecard may be in play for prostate surgery. Again, the procedure was chosen because of its high frequency, but in quickly looking through some searches in that area, I note that a number of urologists I know also did not perform 20 cases on fee-for-service Medicare patients.

Perhaps the next iteration of the scorecard will utilize a data set that contains enough patient and surgeon records to make a meaningful comparison.

Until then, general surgeons can relax. They will not have to explain away their complications but will simply have to explain why they aren’t listed in the Surgeon Scorecard.

Read More..

A medical riddle Where do incident reports go

Incident reports are frequently submitted by hospital personnel. Did you ever wonder what happens to them? I have.

Over the years, I estimate that I’ve heard of hundreds of such reports being filed, but rarely have I heard of a problem being solved or for that matter, any action being taken at all.

In fact, I don’t even know where they went or who dealt with them. When I was a department chairman, I sat on quality assurance and risk management committees. Yet we never discussed individual incident reports.

The original intent of incident reports was to identify patient harms and increase patient safety.

According to a 2009 post by patient safety expert Dr. Bob Wachter, hospital incident reports are a spinoff from the Aviation Safety Reporting System which had successfully used them for identifying potential safety issues such as near misses.

At Dr. Wachters hospital, San Francisco General, about 20,000 incident reports were filed every year. That is about half of what the Aviation Safety Reporting System receives per year, and San Francisco General Is only one of about 6000 hospitals in the United States.

Dr. Wachter feels that analyzing incident reports is not worth it. He estimates that each incident report creates about 80 minutes of work times 20,000 reports, which equals about 26,600 hours of wasted time. He also estimated that about one fourth of US hospitals do nothing with incident reports. That saves time but renders the reports useless.

He says an even bigger problem is that incident reports in his hospital fail to capture most events that harm patients.

That has also been my experience. I think most incident reports were filed by people wanting to "cover their asses" and most of the reported incidents were minor. A reference in Wachters article states that most incident reports are submitted by nurses with only about 2% by doctors.

Incident reports can backfire too. From a 2002 Medscape article: "In some states, under certain conditions, the incident report is considered confidential and cannot be used against the nurse practitioner in a lawsuit. However, if copies are made or the chart reflects that an incident report was completed, the incident report can then be subpoenaed by the patient and used against the defendants in court."

And from the Louisiana State University School of Law: "The nonjudgmental nature of an incident report is very important because in most cases the incident report will be discoverable in litigation. An accusatory remark in an incident report may gain unintended weight in a legal proceeding."

Since incident reports generate a massive amount of wasted time, fail to identify most events that harm patients, are frequently ignored, and can possibly have a negative effect on lawsuits, why are they still being filled out by the thousands?

Read More..

Dr Topols bad day

Dr. Eric Topol is a cardiologist, author, editor-in-chief of Medscape, and genomics professor. In 2009, he was named one of the 12 Rock Stars of Science by none other than GQ magazine.

But even rock stars occasionally have a bad day. After blogging for almost 5 years, I sometimes have trouble thinking of things to write about. This apparently happened to Dr. Topol the other day. He published a Medscape article with an accompanying video about how doctors are being squeezed by many outside forces that require them to do things they dont want to do.

It was kind of a rambling discourse in which he suggested that doctors should offload the responsibility to do these "more mundane aspects of care" to the patients. He thinks this would make medicine more exciting "the way it used to be."

Dr. Topol offered this cartoon to illustrate the outside forces that are squeezing doctors.

Genomics is a focus of Dr. Topols research, but I dont think a lot of doctors are concerned that they lack knowledge about it.

His post created a lot of controversy prompting Medscape to take down all of the comments.

With great foresight, one physician, Dr. Kristin Held, preserved her comment with a screenshot which I have thoughtfully provided for you below.

What do you think she really wanted to say with the start of her second paragraph? Could it have been "How about growing a _ _ _ _ of _ _ _ _s?

Like Dr. Held, I have no idea which of the "mundane aspects of this new world" Dr. Topol had in mind to offload on the patients. Of the 16 forces squeezing doctors that he illustrated, I dont see many of them being taken over by patients. They already control patient satisfaction and whats written on Yelp. Maybe they can cover the lack of genomic knowledge too.

Its sad that an influential doctor like Topol is so lost in the woods. However, the bright side is that gave me something to write about.

Read More..

The Surgeon Scorecard My analysis

Ive got nothing against ProPublica. If a valid way to rate surgeons is ever discovered, I would support it completely. However, ProPublicas Surgeon Scorecard is not the answer.

I keep hearing its defenders say, "Some data is better than no data at all." I disagree strongly with that. To me, bad data is worse than no data at all. People with much more statistical sophistication than I have pointed out the flaws in the scorecard.

Digression: Having written many posts about statistics, I can tell you that the mere mention of the word drives readers away about as fast as if you were to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

I want to focus on a different area. The scorecard has created a lot of chatter on Twitter, and just about everyone I know has blogged about it.

This reminds me of a couple of posts I wrote back in 2011. [Links here and here.] I pointed out that Twitter might not be as important as those of us who use it think it is.

While we were busy arguing about the merits of the scorecard on Twitter, Im not so sure what the general public was doing.

For example, ProPublica says the Surgeon Scorecard has had over 1 million visitors since its launch. That sounds like a lot until you consider that the current population of the United States is estimated at 321 million. So 1 million people would be 0.3%. We do not know how many of those 1 million were unique visitors. It could be that many of them were doctors looking for their own statistics and bloggers looking for ideas.

That the public may not care was reinforced by a rather tepid response to the ProPublica AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit today.

By 1:00 PM EDT, which was two hours into the AMA, there were 80 comments, 31 of which were by ProPublica staff or the spine surgeon who had consulted on the scorecards methods.

Just to give you some perspective, an AMA last year by a guy with two penises drew 17,134 comments.

Because the demographic is skewed toward younger people, perhaps Reddit may not have been the right venue. Although Reddit boasts 169 million unique visitors per month, the most recent figures show that 33% of the Reddit users are mostly men between 18 and 49 years old. Those under 18 are not counted but represent "a substantial percentage of Reddit users."

My two favorite questions asked of ProPublica were "How can I tell if my doctor is capable of making an error?" and "Do you fix the leg which is broken completely?" [Did the question refer to a leg that was completely broken, or did it mean should the leg be completely fixed?]

What have we learned here? Its hard to say.

If you want to read a measured critique of the scorecard, go to Dr. John Mandrolas piece on Medscape.

Read More..

Are surgeons the cause of high postoperative readmission rates

No, according to a recent paper published online in JAMA Surgery.

The authors concluded, "The majority of the variation in readmission was attributable to patient-related factors (82.8%) while surgical subspecialty accounted for 14.5% of the variability, and individual surgeon-level factors accounted for 2.8%."

The investigators looked at data for over 22,000 surgical patients treated at Johns Hopkins and found the overall rate of readmission within 30 days was 13.2%. After the exclusion of those who performed fewer than 21 operations per year, 56 surgeons made up the study cohort.

Multivariable analysis showed significant non-modifiable patient-related factors associated with readmission were African-American race/ethnicity, more comorbidities, occurrence of postoperative complications, and an extended length of stay.

Variation in readmission by subspecialty ranged from 2.1% after breast, melanoma, or endocrine surgery to 37% following cardiac surgery.

The authors pointed out that this study "echoes growing concerns regarding the use of readmission as a quality metric based on its current methods."

Lets compare it to the controversial ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard.

Both the Surgeon Scorecard and the JAMA Surgery paper used data from the years 2009 through 2013. The scorecard involved only eight high-volume low-risk in-patient procedures while the paper looked at in-patient surgery of all types.

From an article written by the authors of the Surgeon Scorecard: "If a patient was readmitted to any hospital (not just the hospital where the surgery was performed) within 30 days of a surgery for one of the conditions we identified, we counted the case as a complication for the surgeon who performed the initial procedure."

What we learned from the JAMA Surgery paper raises some questions about the the Surgeon Scorecard. On Twitter, I asked for comment from Marshall Allen, the lead author of a white paper [not peer-reviewed] describing the methodology of the Surgeon Scorecard.

Between attacks on my credibility because I choose to use a pseudonym, he said that they did not count most readmissions as complications. It is unclear from the article, the white paper, or its appendices exactly which complications were included. For clarification, we could ask the "surgeon experts" who advised ProPublica, but their names have not been disclosed. They are anonymous, just like me.

According to the white paper, surgeons were blamed for 64,367 (46%) of all complications incorporated into the Surgeon Scorecard. Table 3 of the white paper lists the 20 most frequent complications. The top three, comprising 26,795 complications, were postoperative infection, iatrogenic pulmonary embolism, and infection/inflammatory reaction due to internal joint prosthesis.

Other studies have shown that not all occurrences of those three complications are attributable to a surgeons misdeed. Among the rest of the top 20 causes of readmission were postoperative pain, fever, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing)—again possibly not the fault of a surgeon.

So the JAMA Surgery paper says surgeons are responsible for 2.8% of readmissions within 30 days, but ProPublicas self-published white paper says 46% of all readmissions are due to something a surgeon did or did not do.

Who to believe?

Note added at 7:27 a.m. on 9/2/15: See my next post for a clarification about causation and variation. 

The full text of the peer-reviewed JAMA Surgery paper is available here.

Read More..

Should I go to med school

A young man writes

I am thinking about pursuing medicine as a career. However, it is not something that I am entirely sure of because of the changing healthcare landscape.

Suppose I enter medical school at age 26. Four years later I have my MD. Five or six years later I will be done with a surgery residency and two years after that with my fellowship. I will 37-38 years of age with kids, a wife, and most likely a home. My kids will be around 9-11 years of age. In addition, I will be near $250K in debt from medical school because of interest accumulated throughout my residency and fellowship. This is of course not including retirement, car, house, investment, and kids’ college savings.

My friends tell me not to think about it, but if I don’t, I can end up in a position that I don’t want to be in. Even if I pay off my debt at age 50, I still have all those other things to address. And even if I do, when will I enjoy my money? What is perhaps most important though, is the time component. I am essentially giving up my entire life to a profession that will not allow me to transfer laterally to other professions if I choose to. I can be pursuing my other interests in the time that I would be becoming a surgeon such as business or engineering.

Lastly, I grew up in poverty and have no financial assets. It will take me years to accumulate wealth. And once I do (at around age 60), that wealth will be passed down to my children.

Did I miss something? What are your thoughts? 

While rereading and editing your email, I realized you did miss something. Whats missing is enthusiasm for becoming a doctor. You listed several reasons not to go to med school, but nothing about why you want to do it. If you don’t truly love the idea, you will be very unhappy.

I think you need to reassess your future.

For those who want more information, I have written a couple of posts about questions related to this one [links here and here.] The comments on the more recent post are worth reading..

Read More..

Those who can publish Those who can’t blog

What’s your view on social media and science? For example, the role of science blogs in critiquing published papers? "Those who can, publish. Those who can’t, blog," says Jingmai OConnor.

According to Cell.com, Dr. O’Connor is a professor at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and her comment was part of an interview published last month.

Dr. OConnor says, "It often seems those who criticize or spend large amounts of time blogging are also those who don’t generate much [sic] publications themselves." She thinks comments should be peer-reviewed and published only in journals. She worries about the public who may not realize "a published paper passed rigorous review by experts, which carries more validity than the opinion of some disgruntled scientist or amateur on the internet." She adds, "criticism in social media is damaging to science, as it is to most aspects of our culture."

Apparently she isnt aware that peer review is under fire from a number of respectable sources.

"If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market," said Drummond Rennie, a contributing deputy editor of JAMA. Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ agrees "because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws."

In 2015, 107 scientific papers were retracted by several journals because their authors, nearly all of whom were Chinese academics, had performed fraudulent peer review by creating fictitious names and email addresses of suggested reviewers so they could write glowing reviews of their own work. Some of these charlatans are from Beijing, where Dr. OConnor is based.

Australian bloggers found an error that had somehow been missed during "rigorous review by experts" regarding the number needed to treat in a New England Journal of Medicine paper on targeted vs. universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. They contacted the papers corresponding author who acknowledged the mistake within 11 days. It took five months for a correction to appear online in the journal.

Whether Dr. OConnor likes it or not, the future will involve more immediate feedback about research papers. For example, PubMed and PubPeer already allow comments, and the BMJ also has a section for online rapid responses.

Blogger Marc Bellemare, an associate professor of economics at the University of Minnesota, cites David McKenzie, an economist/blogger at the World Bank who thinks that blogs play an important role in disseminating information to the public and "raise the profile of bloggers and their institution."

But Bellemare feels blogging might not be for every academic He quotes Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, who when asked why dont more economists blog replied, "I believe it is because they can’t, at least not without embarrassing themselves rather quickly, even if they are smart and very good economists. It’s simply a different set of skills."

Maybe Dr. OConnor doesnt have the skill set to blog. I say, "Those who can, blog. Those who cant, insult those who can."

Read More..

Reaction to post on academia and social media

"Should social media accomplishments be recognized by academia?" a post of mine from October 4th, generated some lively discussion on Twitter.

Here are a few of the more interesting responses:

@ashishkjha Important question from @Skepticscalpel Should academia value impact on social media? Yes. And its coming. Slowly.

@MartinSGaynor Science comes 1st, 2nd, 3rd.. MT @ashishkjha Important Q: @Skepticscalpel Shld academia value impact on social media?

@ashishkjha agree how to measure impact a key question. Eye balls cant be enough. But too important a question to ignore.

?@DoctorTennyson Yes-I think social media has a role for #publichealth, #education, and fosters collaboration. More than obscure journals

@NirajGusani still you add value to your dept -how do/should they measure it?

?@gorskon Heck, at @ScienceBasedMed, we get 1M page views a month, but I get no credit.

@gorskon I agree though. For the most part, social media harms, not helps, academic career.

@gorskon Cranks complaining to my chair & cancer center director dont help.

@gorskon If I ever want to change jobs, Google searches will likely harm, not help, prospects

@Nadia_EMPharmD We actually asked this very question in a study we published this past year:

?@JBMatthews Academic tracks have been modernized in many places including ours; beyond # of publcns.

@JBMatthews As a journal editor and department chair, I believe its starting to "count"

?@nataliestavas We should study what has more meaningful impact, # of twitter followers or an article in the @NEJM

Most agreed that social media activity should count for something, but quantifying that something may be difficult. A certain number of followers or page views would not necessarily signify value.

Via email, Dr. Jeffrey B. Matthews, Dallas B. Phemister Professor and Chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University of Chicago, said his school of medicine created a new track for faculty that does not require traditional scholarship for academic promotion. It is non-tenure (tenure still requires traditional discovery and traditional measures of impact and importance), but there is otherwise no distinction of title.

To advance to professor requires evidence that the faculty member is outstanding. The chair and faculty committee must define what "outstanding" means, whether it is distinction in clinical practice like a high-volume, high-complexity specialty or a national draw of patients, in educational leadership such as a program director with leadership roles at APDS, ABS, RRC, or "other."

He added, "I would have ZERO trouble convincing our promotions committee that a high visibility blog with high traffic views that had evidence of thought leadership in the public domain would qualify as high impact and outstanding. And that is at the University of Chicago."

What do you think of the University of Chicagos progressive stance?

Have any other schools taken such steps?

Read More..

The solo general surgeon is a dying breed What is next

This is a guest post by Dr. Paul A. Ruggieri, a general surgeon in Fall River, MA and author of a new book “The Cost of Cutting: A Surgeon Reveals the Truth Behind a Multibillion-Dollar Industry.”

A potential casualty of employment in a hospital system may be the ability to openly disagree with the organization. Will surgeons, as highly paid employees, be confident enough to speak up against hospital policies affecting patient care without worrying about corporate retaliation? Will employed surgeons be able to speak out against hospital cost-cutting measures that infringe on patient care without being labeled whistleblowers or troublemakers? Can they voice their displeasure without worrying about the security of their job? If you are branded “not a team player,” referrals may dry up. Or, you may suddenly be “asked” to take more emergency room call. You may also be asked to travel farther to see patients and generate surgical business in another town. You may be replaced. You could end up as a surgeon without a practice. If let go, you may discover that the clause in your contract prohibiting you from practicing within the area drives you out of town.

Will employed surgeons be able to openly highlight waste and fraud without fear of losing their jobs? As highly paid employees, surgeons risk much if they criticize the organization that employs them, even when the intent is improved patient care. Knowing the economic stakes of speaking against the corporate team, I suspect many may choose to be silent.

Now that more surgeons are giving up their independence and joining the ranks of the employed, will they have the ability to unionize? Historically, surgeons have been an extremely independent breed of physician, perhaps too independent for their own good. For whatever reasons—ego, stubbornness, a view of themselves as well above the average working stiff, money, competitive juices—surgeons have never been able to use their local muscle to influence hospital behavior. Instead of being able to unionize freely decades ago, surgeons may now be forced to in order to survive.

Will unionized surgeons be given collective bargaining rights when negotiating with their employers? Will surgeons be able to strike if they feel the hospital systems they work for are not negotiating salaries or working conditions in good faith? Can you see it now, a Teamster walking the picket line in solidarity with a white-coated surgeon over improving health benefits? Will there be appeal boards to contest unfair firings? As employees, will surgeons be able to negotiate for vacations, sick time, or family leave?

The writing is on the wall for all surgeons, including me. The era of the independent surgeon is drawing to a close. More and more patients will be cared for by surgeons whose economic and surgical lives are directly influenced by the corporate entities that employ them. What, if any, impact will this dramatic shift in the surgeon’s professional world have on the access and quality of surgery practiced in the future? It remains to be seen, but there is a reason the American Medical Association (AMA) specifically addressed this shift in 2012 with new guidelines for physicians selling their practices. Tellingly, the AMA stated that “patients should be told whenever a hospital provides financial incentives that encourage, discourage, or restrict referrals or treatment options.” The AMA statement continued: “Physicians should always make treatment and referral decisions based on the interests of their patients.” Isn’t this how physicians and surgeons already practice, and have for hundreds of years? Or is it?

As a patient, should you know who your surgeon works for before agreeing to an operation? If you’re interested in a dinosaur’s perspective, the answer is “Yes!”

What do you think about Dr. Ruggieris view of the future?

Read More..

OR tech How do I deal with an abusive surgeon

Have you ever come across problems with rage and temperament issues in the OR. I have been an operating room tech for many years and have been in a variety of surgical settings.

A certain surgeon brings in a lot of money to the hospital, but he is terrible. I have been called things no one has ever called me. He throws instruments on my table and mayo stand, screams, and implies that I and my colleagues have no idea what we are doing. I have reported him to my manager and the OR director, but nothing ever comes of it.

Other surgeons have witnessed his behavior and have said something, but nothing was ever done. I understand the OR is a beast of its own, but the culture has to change with these newer guys coming out of residency. The mindset of the surgeon being our customer, which is being rolled out to us now, is not reason for us to put up with abuse. What have you encountered on a peer-to-peer level on how to handle such demeaning behavior? I trained and worked at a level 1 trauma center with emotions that constantly ran high, and still it was less stressful than this particular surgeon. Thank you for your advice. 

A recent paper in the American Journal of Surgery addressed this topic. The authors interviewed 19 OR personnel including nurses, medical students, surgical residents, anesthesiologists, and 2 scrub technicians. Dr. Amalia Cochran, the papers lead author, told me the reason there werent more scrub techs was that they were reluctant to participate.

This figure, modified slightly from the paper, describes the harm that disruptive surgeons can do and suggests some coping strategies.

Italicized items are discussed in the paper

I suggest you read the entire paper. Your hospitals medical librarian should be able to obtain a copy for you without difficulty.

Its a tough situation. When I was a surgical chairman, I had some experience with surgeons behaving badly. I always had trouble getting the nurses and techs to go on the record with their complaints.

If your immediate boss cant help, maybe you could try your hospitals risk management department. A surgeon who bullies the staff is a patient safety risk. Some hospitals have anonymous hotlines where complaints can be lodged.

The only other thing I can suggest is to get several other staff to join in the complaints. Administration can ignore one or two people but not eight or ten.

Can anyone else comment?

Read More..

In what specialties can a surgeon be autonomous

I am a medical student who is trying to decide on a field. I am not chasing money but rather autonomy; thus I would prefer to work for myself rather than a hospital. So my question is, which fields of surgery are more amenable to private practice, and which fields tend to require the resources of a hospital or dont work as well without a hospital?

The way things are going; future use of the words “autonomous” and “physician” in the same sentence will be rare, if not unheard of.

Here are some figures from a July 2015 American Medical Association report.

• Younger physicians were more likely than older physicians to be employed. About 59% of physicians under the age of 40 were employed, versus 46.0% of physicians aged 40-54 and 33.3% of physicians 55 and above.
• Nearly one-third of physicians are in practices with more than 10 physicians, including 13.5 percent in practices with 50 or more physicians.
• Multi-specialty practice physicians were more likely than single-specialty practice physicians to report that their practices were hospital owned—44.6% compared to 23.0%.

Who knows what the percentage of employed physicians will be by 2020, but it surely will be higher.

I can think of only two surgical specialties that can be mostly independent of hospitals, otolaryngology and plastic surgery. I am not including ophthalmology because it isn’t really a classic surgical specialty.

The only way otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons can be autonomous is by concentrating solely on cosmetic surgery or working only in an ambulatory surgery center.

Otherwise, you would need a complete operating room—staffed by a nurse, an operating room technician and for some cases, an anesthesiologist—in your office.

Very few surgeons are able to limit their practices to cosmetic surgery directly out of residency or fellowship. Unless you join an established cosmetic surgeon in practice, which would of course limit your autonomy, you will need to be on call for trauma and be available for consults involving problems like pressure sores in hospitals to pay the bills.

My observation as a surgical chairman in community hospitals was that it takes years before the average plastic surgeon is able to develop a reputation and focus solely on cosmetic surgery.

You should also be aware that both of those specialties are highly competitive. In this years match, only 1 of 299 ENT positions went unfilled, and 364 US seniors had ranked ENT as their preferred choice. For plastics, there are two ways to obtain a position. The NRMP handles an integrated match which filled 144 of 148 positions. There were 162 US seniors who listed Integrated plastics as their preferred choice. The other match is independent of the NRMP and takes residents who have done varying years of general surgery. For that 2015 match, which placed applicants in positions starting in July 2016, 85 applicants submitted rank lists, and 68 of 70 positions were filled. That left 17 candidates unmatched.

Additional reading: A post on KevinMD entitled “So doctor, who’s your boss?”

Read More..

Should I become a general surgeon

One of the rewarding things about blogging is receiving many emails from high school, college, and medical students asking about general surgery as a career.

I try to answer every one of their specific questions and direct them to posts that Ive written on the subject.

A recent inquiry stimulated me to review all of my posts and put most of the questions about becoming a general surgeon in one place. They are about 500 words each. I hope you enjoy them. Here they are.

Is the solo general surgeon a dying breed?

What is the future of open surgery?

In what specialties can a surgeon be autonomous?

An applicant worries about the future of general surgery

Will automation affect surgeons skills?

Going to medical school and becoming a surgeon when you are older

A medical student from the UK discovers surgery and has questions

Is it possible to live a full life as a surgeon?

Choosing a medical specialty is difficult

Read More..

Can Google Glass make you a better surgeon

Advocates of Google Glass in surgery are apparently desperate to find some use for the device.

An article headlined "Google Glass makes doctors better surgeons, Stanford study shows" concluded that the study offered "compelling preliminary evidence that the head-mounted display can be used in a clinical setting to enhance situational awareness and patient safety."

Using an app capable of displaying vital signs on Google Glass in real time, 7 surgical residents recognized critical desaturation in simulated patients having procedures under conscious sedation 8.8 seconds faster than a control group of 7 residents relying on standard monitors. Glass-wearing residents also became aware of hypotension 10.5 seconds before the control group.

Not mentioned in the article but present in a linked abstract of the paper not yet submitted for peer review was this pearl—neither difference was statistically significant.

This evidence is not that convincing. Even if the difference had been statistically significant, it is surely not clinically important.

How seeing vital signs on Google Glass is better than relying on the simple alarms that are built in to every monitor is not clear. Either way, you must stop the operation and look up to see the vital signs.

In a brief video accompanying the article, a surgeon can be seen rather clumsily activating and resetting the app on his Google Glass. The time required to perform these maneuvers apparently was not discussed.

The article, probably written directly from a press release, took a comedic turn with this sentence, "One test demanded that the resident perform a bronchoscopy, in which the surgeon makes an incision in the patient’s throat to access a blocked airway." But bronchoscopy does not involve making an incision in the throat or anywhere else.

If you would like to hear a different side of the Google Glass story, check out this video review from GeekBeatTV entitled "Google Glass is the worst product of all time." You can forward to the 3:45 mark to get past the woes of wearing prescription glasses with Google Glass and hear about the poor battery life, the balky commands, the system crashes, and more.

Read More..