On Patient Empowerment and Autonomy

Yesterday a Tweet crossed my screen that got me thinking. The source of was Gilles Frydman, founder of ACOR (Association of Cancer Online Resources) and a pioneer in the e-patient community:

@gfry: Participatory Medicine evangelists say “Engaged, empowered patients are better, healthier patients.” Where is the evidence?

What makes this question so ripe, in my oncologist-patient-teacher-blogger’s way of thinking, is that we may never, even if formal studies do provide data on this issue 10 years ahead, reach an objective conclusion on this matter.

The problem is this: To prove that empowered patients are “better and healthier,” how would we design a trial? If we were to compare those engaged – who almost by definition are more educated or at least have Internet access, or who are one way or another are linked to people who can help them find needed information – they’d likely do better than the disconnected patients. But the outcome might be a function of confounding variables: their education, economic status, on-line connectivity, etc.

I think the answer is inherent in the goal of being engaged, and this has to do with the concept of patient autonomy – what’s essentially the capacity of a person to live and make decisions according to one’s own set of knowledge, goals and values.

Autonomy in medicine, which borders on the empowerment idea, can be an aim in itself, and therefore valuable regardless of any measured outcome. For autonomy, or patient empowerment, to be meaningful and maybe even “better” in the strictly medical sense, as measured by outcomes like survival or quality of life, there needs be stronger public education in the U.S. and everywhere.

You can read all you want on stem cells, gene therapy or rare forms of chronic leukemia that are driven by a turned-on oncogene, but if you don’t know the basics of science and math, or don’t have sufficient language skills to read and absorb new knowledge or at least ask pertinent questions, it’s easy to get lost in that information, overwhelmed or – worse – suckered by those who’d try to persuade you of something that’s not true, cloaked in pseudoscience, that’s abundant and available on-line and, occasionally, in some doctors’ offices.

This is why public education matters, so much.


Related Posts:

Cooking With Universal Precautions

A half-billion or so eggs were speedily pulled off semi-cooled supermarket shelves this week. The concern is that bacteria-laced eggs can cause serious and even deadly illness. The companies that produced and disseminated those marked eggs fear more lawsuits. Some people who usually enjoy their eggs in the morning, sunny-side up, are thinking twice.

The greatest egg recall ever set off alarms on CNN (Paging Dr. Gupta), on the front page of my newspaper’s business section, on some health blogs and in some homes. I’m concerned and saddened by this, about the cost of all this – the frank wastefulness of it. Our food supply is not infinite.

But I’m not particularly worried about getting sick from eating eggs at this time. Rather, I’ve been aware of this potential problem at least since 1984, when I took classes in microbiology. That raw or undercooked, runny eggs can effectively deliver salmonella to the digestive tract is something doctors learn in medical school. (And, maybe, the rest of the population should be taught in what used to be called home economics?)

In my home we don’t eat a lot of eggs, mainly because of my personal aversion and fear of cholesterol-lowering drugs. We go through perhaps a dozen eggs in most months. But when I do cook with eggs, whether that’s in baking a quiche, vegetable soufflé or cake, or rarely, for breakfast in omelet or scrambled form, I cook them thoroughly, applying heat through-and-through, and keep any utensils that have touched raw egg apart from anything else in the sink or on the kitchen counter.

Shifting gears, just a bit – this story reminds me of a gradual change in how we practiced medicine in the years after the start of the AIDS epidemic. In 1983, when I entered medical school, few doctors wore gloves except when they were performing surgery. At Bellevue Hospital in 1985 and 1986, my classmates and I helped to deliver babies with our bare hands.

Gradually, and as fear caught on, some doctors started to discriminate – they’d wear gloves while drawing blood from a patient with obvious risk factors for HIV, such as a promiscuous homosexual man or an intravenous drug user. But I always thought to myself, you never know who’s got what virus, we should be careful more often.

A few years later, when I was a resident physician and pregnant fellow, the concept of universal precautions came into widespread practice.  Doctors and nurses learned – had to be instructed – to don gloves whenever they drew blood or potentially came into contact with any patient’s body fluids because, the idea emerged, anyone might have HIV. Better to be careful in general, without prejudice.

These practices annoyed some at first. For doctors, they cost us time and the value of touch. Among other problems, it became suddenly more difficult to insert an IV catheter in one shot because feeling a patient’s vein is a lot harder when there’s a layer of material between your fingers and the patient’s skin. I suspect, also, that some hospital administrators must have resisted, too, because of all the money needed to buy all those gloves and new-fangled needle-dispenser boxes.

Some food-minded folks and editorialists suggest that risk might be reduced by buying less-travelled eggs from local producers. But regardless of where you live and shop for food, local farmers vary in their practices and habits. As for organic farms, there’s no real evidence that those are cleaner than other agricultural sources. (Some may be, but which? It could go either way.)

This situation bears some analogy to the reason why doctors implemented universal precautions in medicine. Some of us harbor prejudice (and maybe even some anger or resentment…) against efficient, industrial-sized food-growers and may be, accordingly, biased and even lenient in attitudes on standards and regulations for local farmers’ markets. And so the danger is, we may be less careful with eggs from a small-scale farm down the road. Those eggs seem OK, or at least we feel better about their purchase.

My point is, it’s generally better to behave without bias.

I think it would be smart for cooks to use universal precautions when handling eggs. There’s always some risk of contamination by salmonella and other disease-causing bacteria. I cook eggs well, regardless of their source or what’s picked up in today’s news.

Related Posts:

Another Take On An Ordinary Day

A few weeks ago, on August 1, I threw out the concept of living life every day as if it’s Shark Week. The line, delivered by 30 Rock‘s Tracy Morgan in that show’s first season, has stuck with and puzzled me for years.

Then I came upon a striking post called Live Each Day Like There’s a Lot of Them Left, dated August 2. Jen Singer, a blogger with two sons and a history of lymphoma, expresses the considered notion that maybe the best thing to do after cancer is to live, essentially, as you would do otherwise, except with a bit of added balance.

She writes:

… I — the one who has been so close to the end of life – am supposed to tell you to treat each day as though it’s your last. Except, if it were my last, I certainly wouldn’t be tanking up my mini-van for the rest of the week’s carpools…

Rather, I suggest that you treat every day as though you’ve got a whole lot of them left, precisely because you don’t really know if you do. Go about the everyday, do the drop-offs, get out the knots. Clean the house. Go ahead and get through the stuff that fills your To-Do list…Slog, if you must, because that’s perfectly okay…

Still, every now and then, don’t forget to turn up the radio and listen…

Her point, I think, is that we all have to move on with our lives if we can. It’s the nitty-gritty, mundane activities that keep families on track may also keep us sane, safe and sound. Cancer can be liberating, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we should exploit that as license to escape from responsibilities.

The pressure to “treasure each moment” can be counterproductive. To live life as usual is a challenge of another sort, important for the normal development of our kids and ourselves.

I like this perspective.

Like Jen, I take pleasure in the ordinary stuff – cooking, helping my family and yes, checking off items on the list of things I’ve been meaning to do for years. It’s a long list, and I’ve lots to take care of.

Related Posts:

Eye Care

On Friday I had a slightly, subtly dehumanizing experience at the eye doctor. It’s no big deal, really, almost not worth mentioning –

It was an entirely ordinary set of events that triggered this near-rant from this determinately positive blogger. But maybe the commonality of it – the blandness of what happened when I visited the doctor the other day – typifies what’s as a tragedy in modern health care: the loss of caring.

eyeglasses on a table (Wikimedia Commons)

How it went was like this:

That morning I raced (or, rather, walked quickly – but dangerously quickly for a woman with poor balance and limited gait) to catch the bus to take the train to reach the optometrist’s office on time. And I did.

The office was crowded but not full. A receptionist sat behind a partly glass-enclosed counter with desks, fax machines and filing cabinets and other workers.

“Name, please” she asked me.

I told the woman my name.

She nodded. “Take a seat, someone will be right with you.”

I waited just over half an hour, during which time I had the opportunity to look around and listen.  A man, who said he’d undergone Lasik surgery the day prior was “seeing great” as he chatted enthusiastically with a couple to my left, one half of which was contemplating the procedure.

“It’s a miracle,” he said. “I’m having each done separately, one at a time.”

After a while I returned to the receptionist’s window and noticed a sign having to do with Botox injections and information on a doctor who might provide those.

My mind wandered… I never knew that eye doctors do Botox. Then again, maybe they don’t…Perhaps this office maintains a reciprocal relationship with an office that provides those, where the staff posts notices about Lasik surgery. Either way, the sign is nothing more than a business strategy, which is fair enough if you believe that health care can or should be run as a money-making enterprise. (I don’t.)

Back to my optometrist, who was running late (OK, usually forgivable, human):

How I first met this capable woman was through the long-ago care of my semi-retired ophthalmologist, a medical doctor (MD) who provided start-to-finish eye examinations and might, if you ever needed it, perform eye surgery. I trusted him and always felt good about visiting his office.

Some time ago he expanded his practice, taking in some less-established doctors and optometrists. The idea, I imagine, was to have a doctor of optometry (DO) carefully perform the initial eye exams, patiently fit vision-impaired people with just the right prescriptions for their lenses and, finally, refer any questions or concerns to the ophthalmologist in the same office. In this sort of setting, he could spend more of his time helping, and doing procedures, for patients with serious eye problems like glaucoma.

I was happy with the system for most of 10 years. I genuinely liked the optometrist, and still do – she did a terrific job evaluating my vision and optimizing my lenses. Around the time I had breast cancer, bald and walking with a needed cane, she looked into my eyes with extra care. She was sympathetic and spent an unusual amount of time making sure that my glasses would be all right, if nothing else.

The problem – what I’d diagnose as a change in the practice’s character – manifest a few years ago after the group moved to a new office space where there seems to be a lot more traffic. The carpeting on the floors, once fresh-appearing, is no longer. The waiting area, formerly quiet, has a TV broadcasting CNN. But I don’t care much about the floors or media selection.

What bugs me is that the office has expanded and become so systematized that when I go there I don’t feel like I’m visiting a doctor, the kind of professional who sincerely cares about my health. Instead I feel like a commodity, which I suppose I am.

Back to the visit:

As has happened before, a technician called my name  and asked me to come with him, so I did. He was young and unfamiliar. He told me his first name and, without further explanation, indicated where I should sit while he used a machine to take pictures of each retina, the light-receiving membranous surface at the back of the eyes. Next, he asked me to follow him into a small room where he proceeded to open my chart and question me, sketchily, about my recent medical history.

I wasn’t thrilled about sharing, but went along up until a point. Then, when he began to perform my eye evaluation – the exact sort of work that the optometrist used to spend her time with me doing, I asked him what was going on. Where was she?

“She doesn’t do this part any more. It’s been like that for a while. Now please, can you read the letters in the first row…”

So now the optometrist, who had for years assisted the ophthalmologist, has an assistant who would evaluate my vision instead. This saddened me, first and selfishly because I’d spent the better part of my morning going to see her so that she could check my eyes and write another ideal prescription I could rely on, and now I couldn’t count on that small part of my health care going smoothly ever again.

What’s more – and the bigger picture – is that she no longer has time for me and my eye glasses. I see this simultaneously as good and bad:

Good – I suppose, because we don’t really need people with MDs, and probably not even with DOs, for routine examinations and procedures that could be handled by someone with less training and who is, therefore, less valuable in our limited health care system.

Bad – It happens that the particular technician who started to check my eyesight did a poor job until I stopped him at that. The machine he used to project letters into a mirror shook so much that the small blurry letters in the lowest row wobbled clearly.

More generally – it’s bad because the time I once valued with my optometrist, as previously with the ophthalmologist, is gone. I guess it wasn’t sufficiently worthwhile for them to keep the relationship going as it was. No more annual, while they’re flipping the glass circles, questions like “how are your kids?” or “how’s your summer going” or a generous, once-credible “how are you feeling?”

My visit was almost reduced to a series of standard interactions with a technician of unknown credentials who I don’t expect to ever see again. I intercepted that, this time, but this scenario will surely recur, overwhelmingly, as health care delivery becomes more checklist-based and efficiency-minded.


Some definitions – for those of you who aren’t completely confident in your knowledge of the distinctions among eye care specialists:

An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor (MD) who specializes in eye diseases and might perform eye surgery.

An optometrist is a professional who’s earned a doctor of optometry (DO). Usually this requires four years of post-graduate education that covers eye diseases, pharmacology, anatomy and more. Optometrists are trained, extensively, to examine the eyes, give prescriptions and perform certain procedures.

An optician is someone, typically a licensed professional, who helps people get the eye care they need and may prescribe eye glasses or contact lenses.

Related Posts:

New NY State Law on Information for Women Undergoing Mastectomy

A few days ago, NY State Governor Paterson quietly signed a new public health law* on information and access to breast reconstructive surgery. From the details provided on my state’s Open Legislation website, it seems this took place on August 13.

The purpose of the new law is to assure that all women undergoing mastectomy in NY are told about reconstructive surgery options and that insurance will cover those additional procedures.

What’s curious are two things – first, why so little coverage of this event? It is end-of-summer, I suppose.

But maybe editors and people like me who are educated in medicine and read newspapers are out-of-touch with the fact that many women who have breast cancer – over 200,000 each year in the U.S. – still don’t really know about breast reconstruction during or after cancer treatment. In my community, people read books and ask multiple doctors in second and third opinion before deciding whether to undergo a trans-flap or have implants inserted and then, once electing for implants, attempt a careful review the not-so-current literature on silicone vs. saline…

The reality is that many women, particularly poor women without newspapers or internet access in their homes, don’t know about any of this. They don’t know their insurance covers pretty much all of these options, by law. Now they will, or should as of Jan 1, 2011. Good.

The other curiosity is that a Montefiore Medical Center-affiliated plastic and reconstructive surgeon is said to have authored this bill, which was sponsored by State Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson. The doctor’s intentions were surely good; he advocated its passage based on the sad case of a single mom who, after undergoing mastectomy and seeing several physicians, still wasn’t aware that she might undergo breast reconstruction. Nonetheless, it’s not surprising that a plastic surgeon in the Bronx cares about this legislation.

There is a dark side to this, unfortunately. Even among the women with good insurance and purportedly top docs, the results of reconstructive breast surgery are sometimes devastating to the women who undergo these procedures. These are no boob-jobs, and there’s widespread misconception about that. So I hope the law, also, might eventually protect women from botched attempts at reconstruction, an under-reported problem that might also be newsworthy.

*addendum – first link above adjusted because the previous url, http://www.cnbc.com/id/38743477 is no longer available, ES 2/14/11

Related Posts:

First Take On the Big C

Laura Linney as Cathy in The Big C

Last night I stayed up to watch the first episode of Laura Linney portraying a middle-aged woman in a new series called The Big C. The story is that she’s got a teenage son and a recently estranged, overweight husband who loves her. She lives in a suburban house that could use some work.  She teaches in a high school. She has a brother who’s deliberately homeless.

Her name’s Cathy – how ordinary can you get? Well, Cathy recently found out she has a terminal case of melanoma. In a change of pace, she expresses herself freely and does pretty much whatever she feels like doing.

For me, this TV situation has some big draws:

Laura Linney‘s a fine, not uninteresting actress. A few years ago she played a charming Abigail Adams in a history-minded miniseries. But I couldn’t bear to watch her miscast counterpart, Paul Giamatti, pretending to be President John Adams, so I didn’t. As in the storyline of the Big C, here’s an opportunity for Linney to shine.

Gabourey Sidibe, a young obese woman who stars in the movie Precious, may or may not be a fantastic figure on film or TV. She’s yet to be established beyond her debut and after watching last night’s episode I’m concerned already that she’s being “used” as an object for the protagonist’s preterminal beneficence. Still, she’s a definite plus.

The Big C‘s plot includes at least two “atypical” and potentially complex features. First, Cathy chooses not to take chemotherapy or other treatment. This intrigues me, and may be the show’s most essential component – that she doesn’t just follow her doctor’s advice. Second, she doesn’t go ahead and inform her husband, brother or son about the condition, at least not so far.

We’ve seen this non-communication before in movies (Susan Sarandon in Stepmom, for instance) and in real life, for most of human history. It’s too-easy for a blogger-patient-oncologist to forget that not long before our Facebook era, most people didn’t talk much about having cancer and even today, many patients prefer not to do so. Norms change.

If the point of the Big C is to broaden the dialog on cancer and talking about cancer, that’s worth a lot, still.

What’s wrong with the program? I think the doctor has some brushing-up to do about his image. He’s 31 and Cathy’s his first “case” – all of which is credible, but with the exception of an x-ray briefly revealed on the wall-mounted light-box, it’s not clear if he’s an oncologist or a dermatologist somehow offering her chemotherapy and pamphlets. His white coat is too short, in the style of a medical student’s. He uses few polysyllabic words. He looks well-rested and neat. In one strange scene, the patient and doctor meet for lunch at a pleasant outdoor restaurant. That’s not how oncology’s practiced, at least as I know it.

But I’m learning, too. And I’m wondering about the informational content of the doctor’s slick handouts, about which the protagonist, Cathy, has a vision.


Related Posts:

The Physical Exam’s Value is Not Just Emotional

Lately there’s been some talk about the value of the physical examination. It’s my sense that this discussion was sparked by a lovely piece by Danielle Ofri published two weeks ago in the New York Times. In that, Dr. Ofri describes a patient’s visit in which, toward the end and almost as an afterthought, she pulled out her stethoscope and performed a physical exam in a perhaps cursory but essential, thoughtful manner.

Or is it so cursory? There’s little scientific evidence to support the physical exam in practicing medicine but, as she writes:

…Touch is inherently humanizing, and for a doctor-patient relationship to have meaning beyond that of a business interaction, there needs to be trust — on both ends. As has been proved in newborn nurseries, and intuited by most doctors, nurses and patients, one of the most basic ways to establish trust is to touch…

KevinMD picked up on the story, essentially echoing the idea in a post called “Touch Humanizes the Doctor-Patient Relationship.” In that, he considers that some doctors (including him, previously) dismiss the physical exam obsolete – “like staying with a horse and buggy when cars are rapidly becoming available.”

It happens I know something about physical exams. Early in my years as a junior faculty member at Cornell’s medical school, around 1994, I was assigned to teach physical examination to second-year students during each of two consecutive spring semesters. To prepare for teaching, I carefully reread my copy of Bates’ Guide to Physical Examination.

my old copy of Bates’ Guide to Physical Examination, on my desk now

Together, my students and I listened to normal and abnormal heart sounds. We looked in each others eyes with ophthalmoscopes. We visited some of my patients with lymphadenopathy (swollen glands), big livers and palpable spleens who were willing to let us learn from their pathological physical findings. We listened and described course and fine rales on some pneumatics’ lung exams, and checked arthritic joints for swan-like deformities characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis. We examined patients’ petechiae, purpura, ecchymoses and more, and discussed the differences among those findings and what they might signify. All of this we did without CT scans or echos.

I know also, as a patient, that physical examination can be life-saving. Once, when I was in the hospital as a child and had unexplained fevers after surgery, it seemed for a while that no one could figure out what was wrong. I was terrified. The surgical team consulted with an infectious disease specialist, who as I recall ordered a whole bunch of unpleasant tests, and then my dad – a physician – noticed that one of my legs was more swollen than the other. He realized, based on my physical exam, that I might have a blood clot. It turned out that he was right.

So I agree that the physical exam is humanizing. So much so that, later in my career when I routinely donned space suit-like gowns and masks on rounds for the leukemia and bone marrow transplant services, I became frustrated by those barriers, and by the very lack of touch which, I think, can help patients heal.

But what’s also true, in a practical and bottom-line sort of way, is that a good physical exam can help doctors figure out what’s wrong with patients. If physicians were more confident – better trained, and practiced – in their capacity to make diagnoses by physical exam, we could skip the costs and toxicity of countless x-rays, CT scans and other tests.

Recently I wrote a piece on medical education and going back to basics. The physical exam should be included, for sure.

Related Posts:

Today’s Calls

This is an easy post with a simple message. Maybe it’ll even help some people.

Earlier today, in the midst of a deep water exercise class, I remembered that I needed to  call my eye doctor before the weekend. You see, I’ve been meaning to get a new pair of glasses and it doesn’t make sense to get those without a current prescription. Then I realized that I hadn’t been to see her in two years. Time flies –

Like many people, I’ve been carrying around a mental stack of offices I’ve been meaning to call. So instead of taking care of some serious writing for a book proposal, that I really need to do, I ran the list:

  • internist
  • ophthalmologist
  • dermatologist
  • physical therapist
  • gynecologist
  • oncologist
  • orthopedist
  • other appointments (for your kids, spouse?, partner, whoever depends on you …)


It turns out that late summer is a great time to call medical offices for routine appointments. (Sorry secretaries, I know the doctor’s vacation is when you tidy up, even electronic paperwork and filing.) But seriously, someone answered the phone promptly or readily returned my call today. What’s more, I beat the post-Labor Day rush for adult doctors’ visits.

Calling is, unfortunately, too often an obstacle. But it’s no excuse.

(Not having insurance is another story, of course.)

Just do it!

Related Posts:

Shutting Off Nurse Jackie

A few months ago I wrote that I’d take another look at Nurse Jackie, a ShowTime series about a drug-addicted ER nurse and mother. The posters, featuring Edie Falco as the program’s heroine, caught my eye; she’d charmed me in her previous role, as Carmela Soprano. Besides, this story’s set in NYC. The hospital is vaguely-modeled upon St. Vincent’s Medical Center, a recently-shuttered Catholic Hospital in Greenwich Village.

Out of some sense of compulsion, wanting to provide careful follow-up to my readers, I forced myself to watch each episode before completing this review. Unfortunately I found the series so unpleasant, besides uninteresting, that it took me months to plod through my assignment.

Jackie is supposed to be a crackerjack nurse who has some serious problems including drug addiction. That premise might be fair enough, in a House-like way, if her life-saving skills had unique value. But they don’t: the underlying problem with this show is that Jackie has no exceptional or redeeming qualities as a nurse. Sure, she cares about some of her patients, but that’s nothing extraordinary. Rather, she stands out by lying, making up results and, not infrequently, cutting out when and where she’s needed.

The emergency department where Jackie works is supervised by a not-quite indifferent administrator portrayed disappointingly by Anna Deavere Smith, whose real talents reach far beyond the realm of the petty disputes and not-unusual life issues that plague this TV hospital’s staff.

As a physician-blogger who’s trying to understand the potential value of Twitter in health care, I thought perhaps I might learn from the show’s ER doc Cooper’s social media skills: he tweets while working, nominally as a physician. But he’s presented as such a vain, stupid twit that he’s just not credible as a doctor of any kind. Even his Tourette’s tics are adolescent – he grabs women’s breasts when stressed, a curious behavior that seems, if anything, to suit the show’s shallow drama more than any real patient’s disease.

Plenty of TV shows have offered insights on health care delivery by quirky, self-absorbed and sometimes-deluded workers with interpersonal issues and stress (think M*A*S*H, for starters). But this series doesn’t make that grade. There’s no adult humor, no attempt at medical mystery-solving or even a good, old-fashioned medical ethics quandary. Unlike the Sopranos‘ story, here most of the characters bear little depth. Jackie’s multiple psychopathologies are a vile, exaggerated example of a woman juggling too many things, badly.

So I was surprised to find out that Jackie’s contract was renewed. Even more, I wish that the real St. Vincent’s Hospital, which once provided care to me and, over the years, helped countless other real New Yorkers, were still open.

I won’t revisit this show. But I’m looking forward to The Big C, which starts on Monday. Hopefully that will deliver better entertainment, or at least some fresh ideas.

Related Posts:

Doctors Not Using Email Like It’s 2010

There’s been a recent barrage of med-blog posts on the unhappy relationship between doctors and electronic communications. The first, a mainly reasonable rant by Dr. Wes* dated August 7, When The Doctor’s Always In, considers email in the context of unbounded pressure on physicians to avail themselves to their patients 24/7. That piece triggered at least two prompt reactions: Distractible Dr. Rob’s** essay on Why I Don’t Accept eMail From Patients and 33 Charts‘ Dr. V on The Boundaries of Physicians Availability.

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of these three guys’ essays is that, in 2010, there’s still a question about whether doctors should use email to communicate with patients. It’s hard for me to imagine physicians – including bloggers – so disconnected. But many are.

Last year, I had the opportunity to speak with Professor Nathan Ensmenger, a historian of technology at the University of Pennsylvania who’s studied physicians’ use of the Internet and email. Physicians aren’t luddites,” he told me. “On the whole, they’re a computer-savvy group, among the first to use the Internet in research and for professional development.”

Ensmenger contrasted doctors’ hesitation to take on email with patients with their early espousal of the telephone, which facilitated their practices and care in the early 20th Century. Doctors might want to work on-line, he suggests, even out of self-interest: the asynchronous nature of email, by contrast to telephone calls, affords more flexibility and workload control. Published studies, including an early 2004 report in the British Medical Journal, cite evidence  that an overwhelming majority of patients would welcome the chance to communicate with doctors by email. Nonetheless, many medical providers refuse to email patients.

Here’s a partial list of reasons why some doctors are reluctant to get on board with this (1990s) program:

1. Physicians don’t get compensated for time spent emailing patients.

2. Any written communication with a patient, or about a patient, is a potential liability that might be used in a malpractice suit against them.

3. There might be a breach of patient’s privacy if the email is not sufficiently secure, encrypted, or is accidentally sent to the wrong person.

4. Email is a time sink, dragging physicians further down the slippery slope of doing more, undervalued work.

Each of these points has some merit, I admit. I am most persuaded by Dr. Wes:

…This is not a new trend. We saw a similar situation years ago with the advent of the digital beeper. Even the most basic of private bodily functions in the bathroom could be interrupted at a moment’s notice. The expectation that phone calls should be returned instantly grew from this – personal context be damned. Doctors were accepting of these intrusions, however; the feeling of being omni-present, omni-available, and omni-beneficent fit nicely with the Marcus Welby, MD psyche of the time…

So the problem is that doctors are human, i.e. we have limits. Which of course isn’t a problem, but a good thing. I don’t particularly care for robotic physicians.

I’m not sure how to resolve this, but here are my thoughts:

1. About the compensation issue – I think physicians should be salaried rather than paid per unit of work. Communication is an essential part of what physicians do, and so this type of task should be included in their designated workload – whether that’s part-time or full-time.

2. About liability – we need medical malpractice reform, sufficient such that physicians aren’t afraid to write messages to people who are their patients.

3. About privacy – this seems a relatively bogus excuse. Compared to faxing, email is far superior in regard to privacy. And, as many others considering this issue have pointed out, we’ve learned to trust internet-based communications for other critical matters such as bank accounts, credit cards, etc.

4. About physicians’ time – this is a critical issue that hits close to home. Unless the health care system evolves so that mature doctors can carry out expert, interesting and careful work with reasonable hours, few bright young people will choose careers in medicine, and more seasoned physicians will have to stop practicing to protect their own health and well-being. And then we’ll all lose out.

So I don’t think that physicians shouldn’t use email – they should. But the system needs adapt to the 21st Century.

*Westby G. Fisher, M.D. is a cardiologist who blogs as Dr. Wes;

**Robert Lamberts, M.D. is a primary care physician who blogs on Musings of a Distractible Mind;

***Bryan Vartabedian, M.D. is a pediatric gastroenterologist who supplies 33 Charts.

Related Posts:

newsletter software
Get Adobe Flash player