2019 TOKYO DECLARATION

As the Congress explored the nature of burnout among doctors and health professionals in differing settings and in different nations it is clear that burnout is a global phenomenon. An organizational paradigm changes to a person- and people-centered system that incorporates complexity, is adaptive and integrative is essential. Such a change will enable continuing medical education be effective and the current unaffordable and unnecessary waste of human resources that the Congress identified reduced. The Congress reviewed a range of features precipitating burnout including a dysfunctional work–life balance and a variety of relatively simple individually protective factors. It is because of this variety that person- and people-centered initiatives rather than narrowly based top-down management solutions will prove effective Individual-level actions can be taken to reduce stress and poor health symptoms through effective coping and promoting healthy behavior. But there needs to be a much better alignment between the health system and the individual physician so that there are shared professional values within a clear medical ethical framework [23] that encourages professional development and adaptation to the health service environment and health system.

Barriers and Facilitators to Seek Help for Substance Use Disorder among Dutch Physicians: A Qualitative Study

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Substance use disorders (SUDs) among physicians affect their health, quality of life, but potentially also their quality of care. Despite the availability of effective specific Physician Health Programs (PHPs), physicians with SUD often experience barriers when seeking professional help. Therefore, we studied barriers and facilitators when seeking help for SUD among physicians from a multiple perspective approach. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A qualitative design was adopted for 2 sub-studies. First, answers of 2 open-ended questions (about anticipated barriers and facilitators) of an existing questionnaire were analyzed. This questionnaire was filled out by 1,685 general physicians (response rate = 47%). The answers of these open-ended questions were coded inductively. Second, 21 semi-structured interviews (about experienced barriers and facilitators) were performed with physician SUD-patients, significant others, and PHP employees. Themes identified in the first sub-study were used to deductively code the interview transcripts. Results were reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Barriers were found at the level of the individual physician (negative feelings and lack of disease awareness), whereas facilitators were found at the level of social relationships (confrontation with SUD and social support) and health services (supportive approach, good accessibility, and positive image of services). The interviews emphasized the importance of nonjudgmental confrontation by social relationships in the process of seeking help for SUD. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Physicians with SUD face barriers when seeking help for SUD mostly at the level of the individual physician. Health services and people around physicians with SUD could facilitate the help-seeking process by offering confidential and nonpunitive support. Future studies should explore whether the barriers and facilitators identified in this study also hold for other mental health issues.

Physician outreach during a pandemic: shared or collective responsibility?

In ‘Ethics of sharing medical knowledge with the community: is the physician responsible for medical outreach during a pandemic?’ Strous and Karni note that the revised physician’s pledge in the World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva obligates individual physicians to share medical knowledge, which they interpret to mean a requirement to share knowledge publicly and through outreach. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Strous and Karni defend a form of medical paternalism insofar as the individual physician must reach out to communities who may not want, or know to seek out, medical advice, for reasons of public health and health equity. Strous and Karni offer a novel defence of why physicians ought to intervene even in insular communities, and they offer suggestions for how this could be done in culturally sensitive ways. Yet their view rests on an unfounded interpretation of the Geneva Declaration language. More problematically, their paper confuses shared and collective responsibility, misattributing the scope of individual physician obligations in potentially harmful ways. In response, this reply delineates between shared and collective responsibility, and suggests that to defend the obligation of medical outreach Strous and Karni propose, it is better conceptualised as a collective responsibility of the medical profession, rather than a shared responsibility of individual physicians. This interpretation rejects paternalism on the part of individual providers in favour of a more sensitive and collaborative practice of knowledge sharing between physicians and communities, and in the service of collective responsibility.

Utilization of serum D-dimer assays prior to computed tomography pulmonary angiography scans in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism among emergency department physicians: a retrospective observational study

Background A variety of evidence-based algorithms and decision rules using D-Dimer testing have been proposed as instruments to allow physicians to safely rule out a pulmonary embolism (PE) in low-risk patients. Objective To describe the prevalence of D-Dimer utilization among emergency department (ED) physicians and its impact on positive yields and utilization rates of Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA). Methods Data was collected on all CTPA studies ordered by ED physicians at three sites during a 2-year period. Using a chi-square test, we compared the diagnostic yield for those patients who had a D-Dimer prior to their CTPA and those who did not. Secondary analysis was done to examine the impact of D-Dimer testing prior to CTPA on individual physician diagnostic yield or utilization rate. Results A total of 2811 CTPAs were included in the analysis. Of these, 964 CTPAs (34.3%) were ordered without a D-Dimer, and 343 (18.7%) underwent a CTPA despite a negative D-Dimer. Those CTPAs preceded by a D-Dimer showed no significant difference in positive yields when compared to those ordered without a D-Dimer (9.9% versus 11.3%, p = 0.26). At the individual physician level, no statistically significant relationship was found between D-Dimer utilization and CTPA utilization rate or diagnostic yield. Conclusion This study provides evidence of suboptimal adherence to guidelines in terms of D-Dimer screening prior to CTPA, and forgoing CTPAs in patients with negative D-Dimers. However, the lack of a positive impact of D-Dimer testing on either CTPA diagnostic yield or utilization rate is indicative of issues relating to the high false-positive rates associated with D-Dimer screening.

Framework for Just Culture: Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline

ABSTRACT The Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline (BMLD) is the regulatory body for physicians in Rhode Island, granting licenses and imposing disciplinary actions. The BMLD created a framework in the context of Just Culture to evaluate allegations of misconduct regarding physicians. This framework incorporates core concepts from Just Culture, in order to help determine if a physician is blameless or blameworthy regarding the underlying allegations and to help determine accountability to the individual physician or attribute to systems issues.

Are physicians on the same page about do-not-resuscitate? To examine individual physicians’ influence on do-not-resuscitate decision-making: a retrospective and observational study

Background Individual physicians and physician-associated factors may influence patients’/surrogates’ autonomous decision-making, thus influencing the practice of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. The objective of this study was to examine the influence of individual attending physicians on signing a DNR order. Methods This study was conducted in closed model, surgical intensive care units in a university-affiliated teaching hospital located in Northern Taiwan. The medical records of patients, admitted to the surgical intensive care units for the first time between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 were reviewed and data collected. We used Kaplan–Meier survival curves with log-rank test and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to compare the time from surgical intensive care unit admission to do-not-resuscitate orders written for patients for each individual physician. The outcome variable was the time from surgical ICU admission to signing a DNR order. Results We found that each individual attending physician’s likelihood of signing do-not-resuscitate orders for their patients was significantly different from each other. Some attending physicians were more likely to write do-not-resuscitate orders for their patients, and other attending physicians were less likely to do so. Conclusion Our study reported that individual attending physicians had influence on patients’/surrogates’ do-not-resuscitate decision-making. Future studies may be focused on examining the reasons associated with the difference of each individual physician in the likelihood of signing a do-not-resuscitate order.