Practice Management

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

While many anticipated the fall of Roe v Wade after the leaked Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case, few may have fully comprehended the myriad of ways this ruling would create a national health care crisis overnight. Since the ruling, abortion has been banned, or a 6-week gestational age limit has been implemented, in a total of 13 states, all within the South and Midwest regions of the country.¹ Many additional states will almost assuredly enact bans on access to reproductive health care in the near future. While the specific case of the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio and her gynecologic care by Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana ObGyn, has garnered national attention, most of the devastating effects have not yet been realized.² Recent published data highlights the substantially negative impact these legislative changes already have had regarding the treatment of early spontaneous abortions and premature rupture of membranes.^3,4 Physicians could face legal consequences for treating emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies, in some states.⁵

The 2022 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting, held shortly after the leaked SCOTUS opinion, was unlike most others. ACOG staff appropriately recognized the vastly different ways this ruling would affect patients and providers alike, simply based on the states in which they reside. ACOG staff organized the large group of attendees according to self-identified status (ie, whether they worked in states with protected, restricted, or threatened access to abortion care). Since this is such a vast topic, attendees also were asked to identify an area upon which to focus, such as the provision of health care, advocacy, or education. As a clinician practicing in Massachusetts, Dr. Bradley found herself meeting with an ACOG leader from California as they brainstormed how to best help our own communities. In conversing with attendees from other parts of the country, it became apparent the challenges others would be facing elsewhere were far more substantive than those we would be facing in “blue states.” After the Dobbs ruling, those predictions became harsh realities.

As we begin to see and hear reports of the devastating consequences of this ruling in “red states,” those of us in protected states have been struggling to try and ascertain how to help. Many of us have worked with our own legislatures to further enshrine protections for our patients and clinicians. New York and Massachusetts exemplify these efforts.^6,7 These legislative efforts have included liability protections for patients and their clinicians who care for those who travel from restricted to protected states. Others involve codifying the principles of Roe and clarifying existing law to improve access. An online fundraiser organized by physicians to assist Dr. Bernard with her legal costs as she faces politically motivated investigation by Indiana state authorities has raised more than $260,000.⁸ Many expressed the potential legal and medical peril for examiners and examinees if the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology held in-person oral examinations in Texas as previously scheduled.⁹ An online petition to change the format to virtual had 728 signatories, and the format was changed back to virtual.¹⁰

The implications on medical schools, residencies, and fellowships cannot be overstated. The Dobbs ruling almost immediately affected nearly half of the training programs, which is particularly problematic given the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement that all ObGyn residents have access to abortion training.¹¹ Other programs already are starting to try to meet this vast training need. The University of California San Francisco started offering training to physicians from Texas who were affected by the strict restrictions that predated Dobbs in the SB8 legislation, which turned ordinary citizens into vigilantes.¹²

ACOG has created an online resource (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential) with a number of different sections regarding clinical care, education and training, advocacy at the state level, and how to use effective language when talking about abortion in our communities. Planned Parenthood also suggests a myriad of ways those directly and indirectly affected could get involved:

1. Donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds. This fund (https://secure.actblue.com/donate/fundabortionnow) facilitates care for those without the financial means to obtain it, supporting travel, lodging, and child care.
2. Share #AbortionAccess posts on social media. These stories are a powerful reminder of the incredibly harmful impact this legislation can have on our patients.
3. Donate to the If When How’s Legal Repro Defense Fund (https:/www.ifwhenhow.org/), which helps cover legal costs for those facing state persecution related to reproductive health care.
4. Volunteer to help protect abortion health care at the state level.
5. Engage with members of Congress in their home districts. (https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)
6. Contact the Planned Parenthood Local Engagement Team to facilitate your group, business, or organization’s involvement.
7. Partner. Facilitate your organization and other companies to partner with Planned Parenthood and sign up for Bans off our Bodies (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdrmxwMcwNXJ8I NE8S2gYjDDXuT76ws_Fr7CLm3 qbtR8dcZHw/viewform).
8. Record your perspective about abortion (https://www.together.plannedparenthood.org/articles/6-share-abortion-story), whether it’s having had one, supported someone who had one, or advocated for others to have access to the procedure.¹³

ACOG also outlines several ways those of us in protected states could help shape the landscape in other communities in addition to advocating for state medical society resolutions, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, and utilizing ACOG’s social media graphics.¹⁴ In recognition of the often sensitive, polarizing nature of these discussions, ACOG is offering a workshop entitled “Building Evidence-Based Skills for Effective Conversations about Abortion.”¹⁵

Abortion traditionally was a policy issue other medical organizations shied away from developing official policy on and speaking out in support of, but recognizing the devastating scope of the public health crisis, 75 medical professional organizations recently released a strongly worded joint statement noting, “As leading medical and health care organizations dedicated to patient care and public health, we condemn this and all interference in the patient–clinician relationship.”¹⁶ Clinicians could work to expand this list to include all aspects of organized medicine. Initiatives to get out the vote may be helpful in vulnerable states, as well.

Clinicians in protected states are not necessarily directly affected in our daily interactions with patients, but we stand in solidarity with those who are. We must remain united as a profession as different state legislatures seek to divide us. We must support those who are struggling every day. Our colleagues and fellow citizens deserve nothing less. ●

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

While many anticipated the fall of Roe v Wade after the leaked Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case, few may have fully comprehended the myriad of ways this ruling would create a national health care crisis overnight. Since the ruling, abortion has been banned, or a 6-week gestational age limit has been implemented, in a total of 13 states, all within the South and Midwest regions of the country.¹ Many additional states will almost assuredly enact bans on access to reproductive health care in the near future. While the specific case of the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio and her gynecologic care by Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana ObGyn, has garnered national attention, most of the devastating effects have not yet been realized.² Recent published data highlights the substantially negative impact these legislative changes already have had regarding the treatment of early spontaneous abortions and premature rupture of membranes.^3,4 Physicians could face legal consequences for treating emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies, in some states.⁵

The 2022 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting, held shortly after the leaked SCOTUS opinion, was unlike most others. ACOG staff appropriately recognized the vastly different ways this ruling would affect patients and providers alike, simply based on the states in which they reside. ACOG staff organized the large group of attendees according to self-identified status (ie, whether they worked in states with protected, restricted, or threatened access to abortion care). Since this is such a vast topic, attendees also were asked to identify an area upon which to focus, such as the provision of health care, advocacy, or education. As a clinician practicing in Massachusetts, Dr. Bradley found herself meeting with an ACOG leader from California as they brainstormed how to best help our own communities. In conversing with attendees from other parts of the country, it became apparent the challenges others would be facing elsewhere were far more substantive than those we would be facing in “blue states.” After the Dobbs ruling, those predictions became harsh realities.

As we begin to see and hear reports of the devastating consequences of this ruling in “red states,” those of us in protected states have been struggling to try and ascertain how to help. Many of us have worked with our own legislatures to further enshrine protections for our patients and clinicians. New York and Massachusetts exemplify these efforts.^6,7 These legislative efforts have included liability protections for patients and their clinicians who care for those who travel from restricted to protected states. Others involve codifying the principles of Roe and clarifying existing law to improve access. An online fundraiser organized by physicians to assist Dr. Bernard with her legal costs as she faces politically motivated investigation by Indiana state authorities has raised more than $260,000.⁸ Many expressed the potential legal and medical peril for examiners and examinees if the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology held in-person oral examinations in Texas as previously scheduled.⁹ An online petition to change the format to virtual had 728 signatories, and the format was changed back to virtual.¹⁰

The implications on medical schools, residencies, and fellowships cannot be overstated. The Dobbs ruling almost immediately affected nearly half of the training programs, which is particularly problematic given the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement that all ObGyn residents have access to abortion training.¹¹ Other programs already are starting to try to meet this vast training need. The University of California San Francisco started offering training to physicians from Texas who were affected by the strict restrictions that predated Dobbs in the SB8 legislation, which turned ordinary citizens into vigilantes.¹²

ACOG has created an online resource (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential) with a number of different sections regarding clinical care, education and training, advocacy at the state level, and how to use effective language when talking about abortion in our communities. Planned Parenthood also suggests a myriad of ways those directly and indirectly affected could get involved:

1. Donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds. This fund (https://secure.actblue.com/donate/fundabortionnow) facilitates care for those without the financial means to obtain it, supporting travel, lodging, and child care.
2. Share #AbortionAccess posts on social media. These stories are a powerful reminder of the incredibly harmful impact this legislation can have on our patients.
3. Donate to the If When How’s Legal Repro Defense Fund (https:/www.ifwhenhow.org/), which helps cover legal costs for those facing state persecution related to reproductive health care.
4. Volunteer to help protect abortion health care at the state level.
5. Engage with members of Congress in their home districts. (https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)
6. Contact the Planned Parenthood Local Engagement Team to facilitate your group, business, or organization’s involvement.
7. Partner. Facilitate your organization and other companies to partner with Planned Parenthood and sign up for Bans off our Bodies (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdrmxwMcwNXJ8I NE8S2gYjDDXuT76ws_Fr7CLm3 qbtR8dcZHw/viewform).
8. Record your perspective about abortion (https://www.together.plannedparenthood.org/articles/6-share-abortion-story), whether it’s having had one, supported someone who had one, or advocated for others to have access to the procedure.¹³

ACOG also outlines several ways those of us in protected states could help shape the landscape in other communities in addition to advocating for state medical society resolutions, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, and utilizing ACOG’s social media graphics.¹⁴ In recognition of the often sensitive, polarizing nature of these discussions, ACOG is offering a workshop entitled “Building Evidence-Based Skills for Effective Conversations about Abortion.”¹⁵

Abortion traditionally was a policy issue other medical organizations shied away from developing official policy on and speaking out in support of, but recognizing the devastating scope of the public health crisis, 75 medical professional organizations recently released a strongly worded joint statement noting, “As leading medical and health care organizations dedicated to patient care and public health, we condemn this and all interference in the patient–clinician relationship.”¹⁶ Clinicians could work to expand this list to include all aspects of organized medicine. Initiatives to get out the vote may be helpful in vulnerable states, as well.

Clinicians in protected states are not necessarily directly affected in our daily interactions with patients, but we stand in solidarity with those who are. We must remain united as a profession as different state legislatures seek to divide us. We must support those who are struggling every day. Our colleagues and fellow citizens deserve nothing less. ●

ILLUSTRATION: PAUL ZWOLAK

While many anticipated the fall of Roe v Wade after the leaked Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case, few may have fully comprehended the myriad of ways this ruling would create a national health care crisis overnight. Since the ruling, abortion has been banned, or a 6-week gestational age limit has been implemented, in a total of 13 states, all within the South and Midwest regions of the country.¹ Many additional states will almost assuredly enact bans on access to reproductive health care in the near future. While the specific case of the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio and her gynecologic care by Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana ObGyn, has garnered national attention, most of the devastating effects have not yet been realized.² Recent published data highlights the substantially negative impact these legislative changes already have had regarding the treatment of early spontaneous abortions and premature rupture of membranes.^3,4 Physicians could face legal consequences for treating emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies, in some states.⁵

The 2022 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting, held shortly after the leaked SCOTUS opinion, was unlike most others. ACOG staff appropriately recognized the vastly different ways this ruling would affect patients and providers alike, simply based on the states in which they reside. ACOG staff organized the large group of attendees according to self-identified status (ie, whether they worked in states with protected, restricted, or threatened access to abortion care). Since this is such a vast topic, attendees also were asked to identify an area upon which to focus, such as the provision of health care, advocacy, or education. As a clinician practicing in Massachusetts, Dr. Bradley found herself meeting with an ACOG leader from California as they brainstormed how to best help our own communities. In conversing with attendees from other parts of the country, it became apparent the challenges others would be facing elsewhere were far more substantive than those we would be facing in “blue states.” After the Dobbs ruling, those predictions became harsh realities.

As we begin to see and hear reports of the devastating consequences of this ruling in “red states,” those of us in protected states have been struggling to try and ascertain how to help. Many of us have worked with our own legislatures to further enshrine protections for our patients and clinicians. New York and Massachusetts exemplify these efforts.^6,7 These legislative efforts have included liability protections for patients and their clinicians who care for those who travel from restricted to protected states. Others involve codifying the principles of Roe and clarifying existing law to improve access. An online fundraiser organized by physicians to assist Dr. Bernard with her legal costs as she faces politically motivated investigation by Indiana state authorities has raised more than $260,000.⁸ Many expressed the potential legal and medical peril for examiners and examinees if the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology held in-person oral examinations in Texas as previously scheduled.⁹ An online petition to change the format to virtual had 728 signatories, and the format was changed back to virtual.¹⁰

The implications on medical schools, residencies, and fellowships cannot be overstated. The Dobbs ruling almost immediately affected nearly half of the training programs, which is particularly problematic given the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement that all ObGyn residents have access to abortion training.¹¹ Other programs already are starting to try to meet this vast training need. The University of California San Francisco started offering training to physicians from Texas who were affected by the strict restrictions that predated Dobbs in the SB8 legislation, which turned ordinary citizens into vigilantes.¹²

ACOG has created an online resource (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential) with a number of different sections regarding clinical care, education and training, advocacy at the state level, and how to use effective language when talking about abortion in our communities. Planned Parenthood also suggests a myriad of ways those directly and indirectly affected could get involved:

1. Donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds. This fund (https://secure.actblue.com/donate/fundabortionnow) facilitates care for those without the financial means to obtain it, supporting travel, lodging, and child care.
2. Share #AbortionAccess posts on social media. These stories are a powerful reminder of the incredibly harmful impact this legislation can have on our patients.
3. Donate to the If When How’s Legal Repro Defense Fund (https:/www.ifwhenhow.org/), which helps cover legal costs for those facing state persecution related to reproductive health care.
4. Volunteer to help protect abortion health care at the state level.
5. Engage with members of Congress in their home districts. (https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)
6. Contact the Planned Parenthood Local Engagement Team to facilitate your group, business, or organization’s involvement.
7. Partner. Facilitate your organization and other companies to partner with Planned Parenthood and sign up for Bans off our Bodies (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdrmxwMcwNXJ8I NE8S2gYjDDXuT76ws_Fr7CLm3 qbtR8dcZHw/viewform).
8. Record your perspective about abortion (https://www.together.plannedparenthood.org/articles/6-share-abortion-story), whether it’s having had one, supported someone who had one, or advocated for others to have access to the procedure.¹³

ACOG also outlines several ways those of us in protected states could help shape the landscape in other communities in addition to advocating for state medical society resolutions, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, and utilizing ACOG’s social media graphics.¹⁴ In recognition of the often sensitive, polarizing nature of these discussions, ACOG is offering a workshop entitled “Building Evidence-Based Skills for Effective Conversations about Abortion.”¹⁵

Abortion traditionally was a policy issue other medical organizations shied away from developing official policy on and speaking out in support of, but recognizing the devastating scope of the public health crisis, 75 medical professional organizations recently released a strongly worded joint statement noting, “As leading medical and health care organizations dedicated to patient care and public health, we condemn this and all interference in the patient–clinician relationship.”¹⁶ Clinicians could work to expand this list to include all aspects of organized medicine. Initiatives to get out the vote may be helpful in vulnerable states, as well.

Clinicians in protected states are not necessarily directly affected in our daily interactions with patients, but we stand in solidarity with those who are. We must remain united as a profession as different state legislatures seek to divide us. We must support those who are struggling every day. Our colleagues and fellow citizens deserve nothing less. ●

A dermatology resident has more education and experience than a medical student or intern but less than a fellow or attending physician. Because of this position, residents have a unique opportunity to provide feedback and education to those with less knowledge and experience as a teacher and also to provide feedback to their more senior colleagues about their teaching effectiveness while simultaneously learning from them. The reciprocal exchange of information—from patients and colleagues in clinic, co-residents or attendings in lectures, or in other environments such as pathology at the microscope or skills during simulation training sessions—is the cornerstone of medical education. Being able to give effective feedback while also learning to accept it is one of the most vital skills a resident can learn to thrive in medical education.

The importance of feedback cannot be understated. The art of medicine involves the scientific knowledge needed to treat disease, as well as the social ability to educate, comfort, and heal those afflicted. Mastering this art takes a lifetime. The direct imparting of knowledge from those more experienced to those learning occurs via feedback. In addition, the desire to better oneself leads to more satisfaction with work and improved performance.¹ The ability to give and receive feedback is vital for the field of dermatology and medicine in general.

Types and Implementation of Feedback

Feedback comes in many forms and can be classified via different characteristics such as formal vs informal, written vs spoken, real time vs delayed, and single observer vs pooled data. Each style of feedback has positive and negative aspects, and a feedback provider will need to weigh the pros and cons when deciding the most appropriate one. Although there is no one correct way to provide feedback, the literature shows that some forms of feedback may be more effective and better received than others. This can depend on the context of what is being evaluated.

Many dermatology residencies employ formal scheduled feedback as part of their curricula, ensuring that residents will receive feedback at preset time intervals and providing residency directors with information to assess improvement and areas where more growth is needed. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education provides a reference for programs on how to give this formal standardized feedback in The Milestones Guidebook.² This feedback is a minimum required amount, with a survey of residents showing preference for frequent informal feedback sessions in addition to standardized formal feedback.³ Another study showed that residents want feedback that is confidential, in person, shortly after experiences, and specific to their actions.⁴ Medical students also voiced a need for frequent, transparent, and actionable feedback during protected, predetermined, and communicated times.⁵ Clearly, learners appreciate spoken intentional feedback as opposed to the traditional formal model of feedback.

Finally, a study was performed analyzing how prior generations of physician educators view millennial trainees.⁶ Because most current dermatology residents were born between 1981 and 1996, this study seemed to pinpoint thoughts toward teaching current residents. The study found that although negative judgments such as millennial entitlement (P<.001), impoliteness (P<.001), oversensitivity (P<.001), and inferior work ethic (P<.001) reached significance, millennial ideals of social justice (P<.001) and savviness with technology (P<.001) also were notable. Overall, millennials were thought to be good colleagues (P<.001), were equally competent to more experienced clinicians (P<.001), and would lead medicine to a good future (P=.039).⁶

Identifying and Maximizing the Impact of Feedback

In addition to how and when to provide feedback, there are discrepancies between attending and resident perception of what is considered feedback. This disconnect can be seen in a study of 122 respondents (67 residents and 55 attendings) that showed 31% of attendings reported giving feedback daily, as opposed to only 9% of residents who reported receiving daily feedback.⁴ When feedback is to be performed, it may be important to specifically announce the process so that it can be properly acknowledged.⁷

Beach⁸ provided a systematic breakdown of clinical teaching to those who may be unfamiliar with the process. This method is divided into preclinic, in-clinic, and postclinic strategies to maximize learning. The author recommended establishing the objectives of the rotation from the teacher’s perspective and inquiring about the objectives of the learner. Both perspectives should inform the lessons to be learned; for example, if a medical student expresses specific interest in psoriasis (a well-established part of a medical student curriculum), all efforts should be placed on arranging for that student to see those specific patients. Beach⁸ also recommended providing resources and creating a positive supportive learning environment to better utilize precious clinic time and create investment in all learning parties. The author recommended matching trainees during clinic to competence-specific challenges in clinical practice where appropriate technical skill is needed. Appropriate autonomy also is promoted, as it requires higher levels of learning and knowledge consolidation. Group discussions can be facilitated by asking questions of increasing levels of difficulty as experience increases. Finally, postclinic feedback should be timely and constructive.⁸

One technique discussed by Beach⁸ is the “1-minute preceptor plus” approach. In this approach, the teacher wants to establish 5 “micro-skills” by first getting a commitment, then checking for supportive evidence of this initial plan, teaching a general principle, reinforcing what was properly performed, and correcting errors. The “plus” comes from trying to take that lesson and apply it to a broader concept. Although this concept is meant to be used in a time-limited setting, it can be expanded to larger conversations. A common example could be made when residents teach rotating medical students through direct observation and supervision during clinic. In this hypothetical situation, the resident and medical student see a patient with erythematous silver-scaled plaques on the elbows and knees. During the patient encounter, the student then inquires about any personal history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. After leaving the examination room, the medical student asserts the diagnosis is plaque psoriasis because of the physical examination findings and distribution of lesions. A discussion about the relationship between psoriasis and metabolic syndrome commences, emphasizing the pathophysiology of type 1 helper T-cell–mediated and type 17 helper T-cell–mediated inflammation with vascular damage and growth from inflammatory cytokines.⁹ The student subsequently is praised on inquiring about relevant comorbidities, and a relevant journal article is retrieved for the student’s future studies. Teaching points regarding the Koebner phenomenon, such as that it is not an instantaneous process and comes with a differential diagnosis, are then provided.

Situation-Behavior-Impact is another teaching method developed by the Center for Creative Leadership. In this technique, one will identify what specifically happened, how the learner responded, and what occurred because of the response.¹⁰ This technique is exemplified in the following mock conversation between an attending and their resident following a challenging patient situation: “When you walked into the room and asked the patient coming in for a follow-up appointment ‘What brings you in today?,’ they immediately tensed up and responded that you should already know and check your electronic medical record. This tension could be ameliorated by reviewing the patient’s medical record and addressing what they initially presented for, followed by inquiring if there are other skin problems they want to discuss afterwards.” By identifying the cause-and-effect relationship, helpful and unhelpful responses can be identified and ways to mitigate or continue behaviors can be brainstormed.

The Learning Process

Brodell et all¹¹ outlined techniques to augment the education process that are specific to dermatology. They recommended learning general applicable concepts instead of contextless memorization, mnemonic devices to assist memory for associations and lists, and repetition and practice of learned material. For teaching, they divided techniques into Aristotelian or Socratic; Aristotelian teaching is the formal lecture style, whereas Socratic is conversation based. Both have a place in teaching—as fundamental knowledge grows via Aristotelian teaching, critical thinking can be enhanced via the Socratic method. The authors then outlined tips to create the most conducive learning environment for students.¹¹

Feedback is a reciprocal process with information being given and received by both the teacher and the learner. This is paramount because perfecting the art of teaching is a career-long process and can only be achieved via correction of oversights and mistakes. A questionnaire-based study found that when critiquing the teacher, a combination of self-assessment with assessment from learners was effective in stimulating the greatest level of change in the teacher.¹² This finding likely is because the educator was able to see the juxtaposition of how they think they performed with how students interpreted the same situation. Another survey-based study showed that of 68 attending physicians, 28 attendings saw utility in specialized feedback training; an additional 11 attendings agreed with online modules to improve their feedback skills. A recommendation that trainees receive training on the acceptance feedback also was proposed.¹³ Specialized training to give and receive feedback could be initiated for both attending and resident physicians to fully create an environment emphasizing improvement and teamwork.

Final Thoughts

The art of giving and receiving feedback is a deliberate process that develops with experience and training. Because residents are early in their medical career, being familiar with techniques such as those outlined in this article can enhance teaching and the reception of feedback. Residents are in a unique position, as residency itself is a time of dramatic learning and teaching. Providing feedback gives us a way to advance medicine and better ourselves by solidifying good habits and knowledge.

Acknowledgment—I thank Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and reviewing this article.

A dermatology resident has more education and experience than a medical student or intern but less than a fellow or attending physician. Because of this position, residents have a unique opportunity to provide feedback and education to those with less knowledge and experience as a teacher and also to provide feedback to their more senior colleagues about their teaching effectiveness while simultaneously learning from them. The reciprocal exchange of information—from patients and colleagues in clinic, co-residents or attendings in lectures, or in other environments such as pathology at the microscope or skills during simulation training sessions—is the cornerstone of medical education. Being able to give effective feedback while also learning to accept it is one of the most vital skills a resident can learn to thrive in medical education.

The importance of feedback cannot be understated. The art of medicine involves the scientific knowledge needed to treat disease, as well as the social ability to educate, comfort, and heal those afflicted. Mastering this art takes a lifetime. The direct imparting of knowledge from those more experienced to those learning occurs via feedback. In addition, the desire to better oneself leads to more satisfaction with work and improved performance.¹ The ability to give and receive feedback is vital for the field of dermatology and medicine in general.

Types and Implementation of Feedback

Feedback comes in many forms and can be classified via different characteristics such as formal vs informal, written vs spoken, real time vs delayed, and single observer vs pooled data. Each style of feedback has positive and negative aspects, and a feedback provider will need to weigh the pros and cons when deciding the most appropriate one. Although there is no one correct way to provide feedback, the literature shows that some forms of feedback may be more effective and better received than others. This can depend on the context of what is being evaluated.

Many dermatology residencies employ formal scheduled feedback as part of their curricula, ensuring that residents will receive feedback at preset time intervals and providing residency directors with information to assess improvement and areas where more growth is needed. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education provides a reference for programs on how to give this formal standardized feedback in The Milestones Guidebook.² This feedback is a minimum required amount, with a survey of residents showing preference for frequent informal feedback sessions in addition to standardized formal feedback.³ Another study showed that residents want feedback that is confidential, in person, shortly after experiences, and specific to their actions.⁴ Medical students also voiced a need for frequent, transparent, and actionable feedback during protected, predetermined, and communicated times.⁵ Clearly, learners appreciate spoken intentional feedback as opposed to the traditional formal model of feedback.

Finally, a study was performed analyzing how prior generations of physician educators view millennial trainees.⁶ Because most current dermatology residents were born between 1981 and 1996, this study seemed to pinpoint thoughts toward teaching current residents. The study found that although negative judgments such as millennial entitlement (P<.001), impoliteness (P<.001), oversensitivity (P<.001), and inferior work ethic (P<.001) reached significance, millennial ideals of social justice (P<.001) and savviness with technology (P<.001) also were notable. Overall, millennials were thought to be good colleagues (P<.001), were equally competent to more experienced clinicians (P<.001), and would lead medicine to a good future (P=.039).⁶

Identifying and Maximizing the Impact of Feedback

In addition to how and when to provide feedback, there are discrepancies between attending and resident perception of what is considered feedback. This disconnect can be seen in a study of 122 respondents (67 residents and 55 attendings) that showed 31% of attendings reported giving feedback daily, as opposed to only 9% of residents who reported receiving daily feedback.⁴ When feedback is to be performed, it may be important to specifically announce the process so that it can be properly acknowledged.⁷

Beach⁸ provided a systematic breakdown of clinical teaching to those who may be unfamiliar with the process. This method is divided into preclinic, in-clinic, and postclinic strategies to maximize learning. The author recommended establishing the objectives of the rotation from the teacher’s perspective and inquiring about the objectives of the learner. Both perspectives should inform the lessons to be learned; for example, if a medical student expresses specific interest in psoriasis (a well-established part of a medical student curriculum), all efforts should be placed on arranging for that student to see those specific patients. Beach⁸ also recommended providing resources and creating a positive supportive learning environment to better utilize precious clinic time and create investment in all learning parties. The author recommended matching trainees during clinic to competence-specific challenges in clinical practice where appropriate technical skill is needed. Appropriate autonomy also is promoted, as it requires higher levels of learning and knowledge consolidation. Group discussions can be facilitated by asking questions of increasing levels of difficulty as experience increases. Finally, postclinic feedback should be timely and constructive.⁸

One technique discussed by Beach⁸ is the “1-minute preceptor plus” approach. In this approach, the teacher wants to establish 5 “micro-skills” by first getting a commitment, then checking for supportive evidence of this initial plan, teaching a general principle, reinforcing what was properly performed, and correcting errors. The “plus” comes from trying to take that lesson and apply it to a broader concept. Although this concept is meant to be used in a time-limited setting, it can be expanded to larger conversations. A common example could be made when residents teach rotating medical students through direct observation and supervision during clinic. In this hypothetical situation, the resident and medical student see a patient with erythematous silver-scaled plaques on the elbows and knees. During the patient encounter, the student then inquires about any personal history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. After leaving the examination room, the medical student asserts the diagnosis is plaque psoriasis because of the physical examination findings and distribution of lesions. A discussion about the relationship between psoriasis and metabolic syndrome commences, emphasizing the pathophysiology of type 1 helper T-cell–mediated and type 17 helper T-cell–mediated inflammation with vascular damage and growth from inflammatory cytokines.⁹ The student subsequently is praised on inquiring about relevant comorbidities, and a relevant journal article is retrieved for the student’s future studies. Teaching points regarding the Koebner phenomenon, such as that it is not an instantaneous process and comes with a differential diagnosis, are then provided.

Situation-Behavior-Impact is another teaching method developed by the Center for Creative Leadership. In this technique, one will identify what specifically happened, how the learner responded, and what occurred because of the response.¹⁰ This technique is exemplified in the following mock conversation between an attending and their resident following a challenging patient situation: “When you walked into the room and asked the patient coming in for a follow-up appointment ‘What brings you in today?,’ they immediately tensed up and responded that you should already know and check your electronic medical record. This tension could be ameliorated by reviewing the patient’s medical record and addressing what they initially presented for, followed by inquiring if there are other skin problems they want to discuss afterwards.” By identifying the cause-and-effect relationship, helpful and unhelpful responses can be identified and ways to mitigate or continue behaviors can be brainstormed.

The Learning Process

Brodell et all¹¹ outlined techniques to augment the education process that are specific to dermatology. They recommended learning general applicable concepts instead of contextless memorization, mnemonic devices to assist memory for associations and lists, and repetition and practice of learned material. For teaching, they divided techniques into Aristotelian or Socratic; Aristotelian teaching is the formal lecture style, whereas Socratic is conversation based. Both have a place in teaching—as fundamental knowledge grows via Aristotelian teaching, critical thinking can be enhanced via the Socratic method. The authors then outlined tips to create the most conducive learning environment for students.¹¹

Feedback is a reciprocal process with information being given and received by both the teacher and the learner. This is paramount because perfecting the art of teaching is a career-long process and can only be achieved via correction of oversights and mistakes. A questionnaire-based study found that when critiquing the teacher, a combination of self-assessment with assessment from learners was effective in stimulating the greatest level of change in the teacher.¹² This finding likely is because the educator was able to see the juxtaposition of how they think they performed with how students interpreted the same situation. Another survey-based study showed that of 68 attending physicians, 28 attendings saw utility in specialized feedback training; an additional 11 attendings agreed with online modules to improve their feedback skills. A recommendation that trainees receive training on the acceptance feedback also was proposed.¹³ Specialized training to give and receive feedback could be initiated for both attending and resident physicians to fully create an environment emphasizing improvement and teamwork.

Final Thoughts

The art of giving and receiving feedback is a deliberate process that develops with experience and training. Because residents are early in their medical career, being familiar with techniques such as those outlined in this article can enhance teaching and the reception of feedback. Residents are in a unique position, as residency itself is a time of dramatic learning and teaching. Providing feedback gives us a way to advance medicine and better ourselves by solidifying good habits and knowledge.

Acknowledgment—I thank Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and reviewing this article.

A dermatology resident has more education and experience than a medical student or intern but less than a fellow or attending physician. Because of this position, residents have a unique opportunity to provide feedback and education to those with less knowledge and experience as a teacher and also to provide feedback to their more senior colleagues about their teaching effectiveness while simultaneously learning from them. The reciprocal exchange of information—from patients and colleagues in clinic, co-residents or attendings in lectures, or in other environments such as pathology at the microscope or skills during simulation training sessions—is the cornerstone of medical education. Being able to give effective feedback while also learning to accept it is one of the most vital skills a resident can learn to thrive in medical education.

The importance of feedback cannot be understated. The art of medicine involves the scientific knowledge needed to treat disease, as well as the social ability to educate, comfort, and heal those afflicted. Mastering this art takes a lifetime. The direct imparting of knowledge from those more experienced to those learning occurs via feedback. In addition, the desire to better oneself leads to more satisfaction with work and improved performance.¹ The ability to give and receive feedback is vital for the field of dermatology and medicine in general.

Types and Implementation of Feedback

Feedback comes in many forms and can be classified via different characteristics such as formal vs informal, written vs spoken, real time vs delayed, and single observer vs pooled data. Each style of feedback has positive and negative aspects, and a feedback provider will need to weigh the pros and cons when deciding the most appropriate one. Although there is no one correct way to provide feedback, the literature shows that some forms of feedback may be more effective and better received than others. This can depend on the context of what is being evaluated.

Many dermatology residencies employ formal scheduled feedback as part of their curricula, ensuring that residents will receive feedback at preset time intervals and providing residency directors with information to assess improvement and areas where more growth is needed. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education provides a reference for programs on how to give this formal standardized feedback in The Milestones Guidebook.² This feedback is a minimum required amount, with a survey of residents showing preference for frequent informal feedback sessions in addition to standardized formal feedback.³ Another study showed that residents want feedback that is confidential, in person, shortly after experiences, and specific to their actions.⁴ Medical students also voiced a need for frequent, transparent, and actionable feedback during protected, predetermined, and communicated times.⁵ Clearly, learners appreciate spoken intentional feedback as opposed to the traditional formal model of feedback.

Finally, a study was performed analyzing how prior generations of physician educators view millennial trainees.⁶ Because most current dermatology residents were born between 1981 and 1996, this study seemed to pinpoint thoughts toward teaching current residents. The study found that although negative judgments such as millennial entitlement (P<.001), impoliteness (P<.001), oversensitivity (P<.001), and inferior work ethic (P<.001) reached significance, millennial ideals of social justice (P<.001) and savviness with technology (P<.001) also were notable. Overall, millennials were thought to be good colleagues (P<.001), were equally competent to more experienced clinicians (P<.001), and would lead medicine to a good future (P=.039).⁶

Identifying and Maximizing the Impact of Feedback

In addition to how and when to provide feedback, there are discrepancies between attending and resident perception of what is considered feedback. This disconnect can be seen in a study of 122 respondents (67 residents and 55 attendings) that showed 31% of attendings reported giving feedback daily, as opposed to only 9% of residents who reported receiving daily feedback.⁴ When feedback is to be performed, it may be important to specifically announce the process so that it can be properly acknowledged.⁷

Beach⁸ provided a systematic breakdown of clinical teaching to those who may be unfamiliar with the process. This method is divided into preclinic, in-clinic, and postclinic strategies to maximize learning. The author recommended establishing the objectives of the rotation from the teacher’s perspective and inquiring about the objectives of the learner. Both perspectives should inform the lessons to be learned; for example, if a medical student expresses specific interest in psoriasis (a well-established part of a medical student curriculum), all efforts should be placed on arranging for that student to see those specific patients. Beach⁸ also recommended providing resources and creating a positive supportive learning environment to better utilize precious clinic time and create investment in all learning parties. The author recommended matching trainees during clinic to competence-specific challenges in clinical practice where appropriate technical skill is needed. Appropriate autonomy also is promoted, as it requires higher levels of learning and knowledge consolidation. Group discussions can be facilitated by asking questions of increasing levels of difficulty as experience increases. Finally, postclinic feedback should be timely and constructive.⁸

One technique discussed by Beach⁸ is the “1-minute preceptor plus” approach. In this approach, the teacher wants to establish 5 “micro-skills” by first getting a commitment, then checking for supportive evidence of this initial plan, teaching a general principle, reinforcing what was properly performed, and correcting errors. The “plus” comes from trying to take that lesson and apply it to a broader concept. Although this concept is meant to be used in a time-limited setting, it can be expanded to larger conversations. A common example could be made when residents teach rotating medical students through direct observation and supervision during clinic. In this hypothetical situation, the resident and medical student see a patient with erythematous silver-scaled plaques on the elbows and knees. During the patient encounter, the student then inquires about any personal history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. After leaving the examination room, the medical student asserts the diagnosis is plaque psoriasis because of the physical examination findings and distribution of lesions. A discussion about the relationship between psoriasis and metabolic syndrome commences, emphasizing the pathophysiology of type 1 helper T-cell–mediated and type 17 helper T-cell–mediated inflammation with vascular damage and growth from inflammatory cytokines.⁹ The student subsequently is praised on inquiring about relevant comorbidities, and a relevant journal article is retrieved for the student’s future studies. Teaching points regarding the Koebner phenomenon, such as that it is not an instantaneous process and comes with a differential diagnosis, are then provided.

Situation-Behavior-Impact is another teaching method developed by the Center for Creative Leadership. In this technique, one will identify what specifically happened, how the learner responded, and what occurred because of the response.¹⁰ This technique is exemplified in the following mock conversation between an attending and their resident following a challenging patient situation: “When you walked into the room and asked the patient coming in for a follow-up appointment ‘What brings you in today?,’ they immediately tensed up and responded that you should already know and check your electronic medical record. This tension could be ameliorated by reviewing the patient’s medical record and addressing what they initially presented for, followed by inquiring if there are other skin problems they want to discuss afterwards.” By identifying the cause-and-effect relationship, helpful and unhelpful responses can be identified and ways to mitigate or continue behaviors can be brainstormed.

The Learning Process

Brodell et all¹¹ outlined techniques to augment the education process that are specific to dermatology. They recommended learning general applicable concepts instead of contextless memorization, mnemonic devices to assist memory for associations and lists, and repetition and practice of learned material. For teaching, they divided techniques into Aristotelian or Socratic; Aristotelian teaching is the formal lecture style, whereas Socratic is conversation based. Both have a place in teaching—as fundamental knowledge grows via Aristotelian teaching, critical thinking can be enhanced via the Socratic method. The authors then outlined tips to create the most conducive learning environment for students.¹¹

Feedback is a reciprocal process with information being given and received by both the teacher and the learner. This is paramount because perfecting the art of teaching is a career-long process and can only be achieved via correction of oversights and mistakes. A questionnaire-based study found that when critiquing the teacher, a combination of self-assessment with assessment from learners was effective in stimulating the greatest level of change in the teacher.¹² This finding likely is because the educator was able to see the juxtaposition of how they think they performed with how students interpreted the same situation. Another survey-based study showed that of 68 attending physicians, 28 attendings saw utility in specialized feedback training; an additional 11 attendings agreed with online modules to improve their feedback skills. A recommendation that trainees receive training on the acceptance feedback also was proposed.¹³ Specialized training to give and receive feedback could be initiated for both attending and resident physicians to fully create an environment emphasizing improvement and teamwork.

Final Thoughts

The art of giving and receiving feedback is a deliberate process that develops with experience and training. Because residents are early in their medical career, being familiar with techniques such as those outlined in this article can enhance teaching and the reception of feedback. Residents are in a unique position, as residency itself is a time of dramatic learning and teaching. Providing feedback gives us a way to advance medicine and better ourselves by solidifying good habits and knowledge.

Acknowledgment—I thank Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and reviewing this article.

Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.

The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.

The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.

Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.

These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as Congress has not included inflation-based payment adjustments in Medicare’s physician payment rule, the AMA said.

“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.

While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.

“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
 

New health care policies in omnibus

Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:

• Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
• Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
• Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
• Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
• Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
• Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.

FDA’s accelerated approval

The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.

The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.

Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.

Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:

• Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
• Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
• Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.

Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.

The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.

Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.

“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.

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

Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.

The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.

The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.

Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.

These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as Congress has not included inflation-based payment adjustments in Medicare’s physician payment rule, the AMA said.

“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.

While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.

“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
 

New health care policies in omnibus

Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:

• Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
• Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
• Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
• Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
• Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
• Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.

FDA’s accelerated approval

The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.

The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.

Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.

Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:

• Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
• Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
• Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.

Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.

The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.

Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.

“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.

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

Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.

The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.

The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.

Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.

These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as Congress has not included inflation-based payment adjustments in Medicare’s physician payment rule, the AMA said.

“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.

While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.

“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
 

New health care policies in omnibus

Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:

• Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
• Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
• Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
• Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
• Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
• Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.

FDA’s accelerated approval

The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.

The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.

Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.

Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:

• Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
• Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
• Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.

Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.

The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.

Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.

“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.

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

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

 

 

The charges in this case

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

 

 

The charges in this case

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

 

 

The charges in this case

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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