Physicians caring for physicians: the perspective of the primary care physician.

OBJECTIVES: How physicians provide longitudinal primary care to physician-patients (ie, physicians as patients) has not been well studied. The potential challenges of providing care to physician-patients include maintaining professional boundaries and adhering to practice guidelines. The objective was to explore the differences in identifying how physicians perceive caring for physicians-patients in the longitudinal setting versus caring for other patients in the general population. METHODS: The study consisted of focus groups, followed by quantitative survey. Participants were primary care physicians (internal medicine and family medicine) at an academic multispecialty group practice. Thematic analysis of focus groups informed the development of the survey. RESULTS: In focus groups, participants identified several benefits, challenges, and differences in caring for physician-patients versus the general population. When these findings were explored further by quantitative survey, participants noted differences in care regarding chart documentation protocols, communication of results, and accommodation of schedules. They agreed that there were benefits to providing care to physician-patients, such as believing their work was valued and discussing complex issues with greater ease. There also were challenges, including anxiety or self-doubt. Participants also agreed on the following strategies when caring for this population: make recommendations based on evidence-based medicine, follow routine assessment and examination protocols, follow routine scheduling and communication protocols, recommend the same follow-up visit schedule, and define boundaries of the relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceive caring for physician-patients as different and rewarding, although some find that it provokes anxiety. Many are willing to make concessions regarding scheduling and testing. With increasing experience, the anxiety decreased as did the need to follow protocols and maintain boundaries. Further investigation is needed to determine the impact of physician experience and training on the quality of care for physician-patients.

Conflict of credentialing: accolade or unfair trade.

The newly appointed chief of surgery at an open-staff hospital received an application for vascular privileges from a senior general surgeon who took a period of additional fellowship in vascular surgery at a nonacademic regional medical center. The fellowship does not make him board eligible in vascular surgery, but he has maintained his general surgery board certification and the pertinent bylaws do not specifically state which certification is required, only that the surgeon must be board certified and have additional training in vascular surgery. He is a member of a large politically powerful group practice that apparently wants to refer their substantial number of vascular cases internally. The chief of surgery finished vascular surgery training locally 3 years ago. The applicant has a checkered past, with multiple lawsuits and in-house investigations of cases with poor outcomes. The credentialing procedure is that the chief of service makes a recommendation to the chief of staff who makes a recommendation to the board of directors for approval. The chief of staff, who will make the final recommendation to the hospital board of directors, is a member of the applicant's group practice. What recommendation should the chief of vascular surgery make to the chief of staff?

The ties that bind. What you should know about the operational, ethical issues of restrictive covenants.

Restrictive covenants--also called noncompete clauses--in physician contracts can be a contentious issue, sometimes inspiring litigation. They pose many questions for medical practice administrators. Are restrictive covenants really necessary to protect a medical group? Are they ethical? Does their use deny medical care to patients? And how do they apply to medical practice administrators? This article reviews restrictive covenants from all these perspectives and provides a worksheet to figure your practice's protectable interests.

Gaps, conflicts, and consensus in the ethics statements of professional associations, medical groups, and health plans.

BACKGROUND: Patients today interact with physicians, physician groups, and health plans, each of which may follow distinct ethical guidelines. METHOD: We systematically compared physician codes of ethics with ethics policies at physician group practices and health plans, using the 1998-99 policies of 38 organisations-18 medical associations (associations), nine physician group practices (groups), and 12 health plans (plans)-selected using random and stratified purposive sampling. A clinician and a social scientist independently abstracted each document, using a 397-item health care ethics taxonomy; a reconciled abstraction form was used for analysis. This study focuses on ethics policies regarding professional obligation towards patients, resource allocation, and care for the vulnerable in society. RESULTS: A majority in all three groups mention "fiduciary obligations" of one sort or another, but associations generally address physician/patient relations but not health plan obligations, while plans rarely endorse physicians' obligations of advocacy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Except for occasional mentions of cost effectiveness or efficiency, ethical considerations in resource allocation rarely arise in the ethics policies of all three organisational types. Very few associations, groups, or plans specifically endorse obligations to vulnerable populations. CONCLUSIONS: With some important exceptions, we found that the ethics policies of associations, groups, and plans are narrowly focused and often ignore important ethical concerns for society, such as resource allocation and care for vulnerable populations. More collaborative work is needed to build integrated sets of ethical standards that address the aims and responsibilities of the major stakeholders in health care delivery.

Begone with you. Dismissing problem patients from your practice.

Every group practice administrator eventually deals with the question of whether and how to dismiss a problem patient from the practice. A written policy can help ensure that each situation is handled appropriately, with strict adherence to medical, legal and ethical guidelines.