skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Thursday, February 13 until 2:00 AM ET on Friday, February 14 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Barriers to Discipline: Cultural and Organizational Constraints
Medical boards are responsible for disciplining physicians who inflict egregious harm on their patients, yet they often fail to do so. This Article develops a cultural and organizational framework for explaining why boards so often fail to discipline physicians. The framework highlights three types of barriers that impede board action: 1) input barriers that prevent hospitals and clinics from reporting harm to boards; 2) processing barriers that prevent boards from taking sufficient action against physicians who do harm; and 3) output barriers that prevent boards from sharing information about physicians who do harm with other disciplinary agencies like other medical boards and law enforcement. The Article demonstrates how the interplay between these barriers reduces the likelihood that boards will discipline physicians who harm patients and also shows how boards behave like other kinds of organizations in similar situations. The Article concludes with a set of solutions to overcoming each type of barrier and explains why an organizational and cultural perspective is essential for identifying gaps between boards’ stated goals and their actions as well as for developing effective solutions.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1753308
PAR ID:
10320037
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Annual Health Law Symposium, Saint Louis University School of Law
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Background

    Physicians who communicate their prognostic beliefs to patients must balance candor against other competing goals, such as preserving hope, acknowledging the uncertainty of medicine, or motivating patients to follow their treatment regimes.

    Objective

    To explore possible differences between the beliefs physicians report as their own and those they express to patients and colleagues.

    Design

    An online panel of 398 specialists in internal medicine who completed their medical degrees and practiced in the United States provided their estimated diagnostic accuracy and prognostic assessments for a randomly assigned case. In addition, they reported the diagnostic and prognostic assessments they would report to patients and colleagues more generally. Physicians answered questions about how and why their own beliefs differed from their expressed beliefs to patients and colleagues in the specific case and more generally in their practice.

    Results

    When discussing beliefs about prognoses to patients and colleagues, most physicians expressed beliefs that differed from their own beliefs. Physicians were more likely to express greater optimism when talking to patients about poor prognoses than good prognoses. Physicians were also more likely to express greater uncertainty to patients when prognoses were poor than when they were good. The most common reasons for the differences between physicians’ own beliefs and their expressed beliefs were preserving hope and acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of medicine.

    Conclusion

    To balance candor against other communicative goals, physicians tended to express beliefs that were more optimistic and contained greater uncertainty than the beliefs they said were their own, especially in discussions with patients whose prognoses were poor.

     
    more » « less
  2. Abstract

    This article examines the consequences and causes of low enrollment of Black patients in clinical trials. We develop a simple model of similarity-based extrapolation that predicts that evidence is more relevant for decision-making by physicians and patients when it is more representative of the group being treated. This generates the key result that the perceived benefit of a medicine for a group depends not only on the average benefit from a trial but also on the share of patients from that group who were enrolled in the trial. In survey experiments, we find that physicians who care for Black patients are more willing to prescribe drugs tested in representative samples, an effect substantial enough to close observed gaps in the prescribing rates of new medicines. Black patients update more on drug efficacy when the sample that the drug is tested on is more representative, reducing Black-white patient gaps in beliefs about whether the drug will work as described. Despite these benefits of representative data, our framework and evidence suggest that those who have benefited more from past medical breakthroughs are less costly to enroll in the present, leading to persistence in who is represented in the evidence base.

     
    more » « less
  3. The primary goal of drug safety researchers and regulators is to promptly identify adverse drug reactions. Doing so may in turn prevent or reduce the harm to patients and ultimately improve public health. Evaluating and monitoring drug safety (i.e., pharmacovigilance) involves analyzing an ever growing collection of spontaneous reports from health professionals, physicians, and pharmacists, and information voluntarily submitted by patients. In this scenario, facilitating analysis of such reports via automation has the potential to rapidly identify safety signals. Unfortunately, public resources for developing natural language models for this task are scant. We present PHEE, a novel dataset for pharmacovigilance comprising over 5000 annotated events from medical case reports and biomedical literature, making it the largest such public dataset to date. We describe the hierarchical event schema designed to provide coarse and fine-grained information about patients’ demographics, treatments and (side) effects. Along with the discussion of the dataset, we present a thorough experimental evaluation of current state-of-the-art approaches for biomedical event extraction, point out their limitations, and highlight open challenges to foster future research in this area. 
    more » « less
  4. Background

    Health care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians’ work is educating their patients, people’s concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people’s perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient’s disease.

    Design

    We recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient’s ability to manage their disease, and the patient’s trust in doctors.

    Results

    Participants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient’s diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3).

    Conclusions

    Participants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients’ concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education.

    Highlights

    Understanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians. People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively. Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care.

     
    more » « less
  5. Empathy in medical care has been one of the focal points in the debate over the bright and dark sides of empathy. Whereas physician empathy is sometimes considered necessary for better physician–patient interactions, and is often desired by patients, it also has been described as a potential risk for exhaustion among physicians who must cope with their professional demands of confronting acute and chronic suffering. The present study compared physicians against demographically matched non‐physicians on a novel behavioural assessment of empathy, in which they choose between empathizing or remaining detached from suffering targets over a series of trials. Results revealed no statistical differences between physicians and non‐physicians in their empathy avoidance, though physicians were descriptively more likely to choose empathy. Additionally, both groups were likely to perceive empathy as cognitively challenging, and perceived cognitive costs of empathy associated with empathy avoidance. Across groups, there were also no statistically significant differences in self‐reported trait empathy measures and empathy‐related motivations and beliefs. Overall, these results suggest that physicians and non‐physicians were more similar than different in terms of their empathic choices and in their assessments of the costs and benefits of empathy for others.

     
    more » « less