Exploring clinical specialists' perspectives on the future role of AI: evaluating replacement perceptions, benefits, and drawbacks.

BACKGROUND OF STUDY: Over the past few decades, the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has surged in popularity, and its application in the medical field is witnessing a global increase. Nevertheless, the implementation of AI-based healthcare solutions has been slow in developing nations like Pakistan. This unique study aims to assess the opinion of clinical specialists on the future replacement of AI, its associated benefits, and its drawbacks in form southern region of Pakistan. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional selective study was conducted from 140 clinical specialists (Surgery = 24, Pathology = 31, Radiology = 35, Gynecology = 35, Pediatric = 17) from the neglected southern Punjab region of Pakistan. The study was analyzed using χ2 - the test of association and the nexus between different factors was examined by multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Out of 140 respondents, 34 (24.3%) believed hospitals were ready for AI, while 81 (57.9%) disagreed. Additionally, 42(30.0%) were concerned about privacy violations, and 70(50%) feared AI could lead to unemployment. Specialists with less than 6 years of experience are more likely to embrace AI (p = 0.0327, OR = 3.184, 95% C.I; 0.262, 3.556) and those who firmly believe that AI knowledge will not replace their future tasks exhibit a lower likelihood of accepting AI (p = 0.015, OR = 0.235, 95% C.I: (0.073, 0.758). Clinical specialists who perceive AI as a technology that encompasses both drawbacks and benefits demonstrated a higher likelihood of accepting its adoption (p = 0.084, OR = 2.969, 95% C.I; 0.865, 5.187). CONCLUSION: Clinical specialists have embraced AI as the future of the medical field while acknowledging concerns about privacy and unemployment.

Lifelong development in medicine: a thematic analysis of coaching goals throughout medical careers.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare grapples with staff shortages and rising burnout rates for medical students, residents and specialists. To prioritise both their well-being and the delivery of high-quality patient care, it becomes imperative to deepen our understanding of physicians' developmental aims and needs. Our first aim is, therefore, to gain comprehensive insights into the specific developmental aims physicians prioritise by examining the coaching goals they set at the beginning of coaching. Since physicians face distinct roles as they advance in their careers, our second aim is to highlight similarities and differences in developmental aims and needs among individuals at various medical career stages. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative analysis of 2571 coaching goals. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to code one-half of coaching goals and a codebook thematic analysis for the other half. Our interpretation of the findings was grounded in a critical realist approach. SETTING: Sixteen hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 341 medical clerkship students, 336 medical residents, 122 early-career specialists, 82 mid-career specialists and 57 late-career specialists provided their coaching goals at the start of coaching. RESULTS: The findings revealed that coachees commonly set goals about their career and future, current job and tasks, interpersonal work relations, self-insight and development, health and well-being, nonwork aspects and the coaching process. Furthermore, the findings illustrate how the diversity of coaching goals increases as physicians advance in their careers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the significance of recognising distinct challenges at various career stages and the necessity for tailoring holistic support for physicians. This insight holds great relevance for healthcare organisations, enabling them to better align system interventions with physicians' needs and enhance support. Moreover, our classification of coaching goals serves as a valuable foundation for future research, facilitating a deeper exploration of how these goals influence coaching outcomes.

Why should Medical Societies increasingly attend to their Specialist Title exams and why should medical professionals obtain it?

Medical societies must maintain high standards of competence and quality when awarding specialist titles, defining the certification criteria, taking into account the needs and realities of the health system and medical practice.

Accountable care organization initiatives to improve the cost and outcomes of specialty care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess initiatives to manage the cost and outcomes of specialty care in organizations that participate in Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2023 ACO survey data. METHODS: Analysis of responses to a 12-question web-based survey from 101 respondents representing 174 ACOs participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program or the Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health ACO model in 2023. RESULTS: Improving specialist alignment was a high priority for 62% of the 101 respondents and a medium priority for 34%. Only 11% reported that employed specialists were highly aligned and 7% reported that contracted specialists were highly aligned. A subset of ACOs reported major efforts to engage specialists in quality improvement projects (38%) and to convene specialists to develop evidence-based care pathways (30%). They also reported supporting primary care physicians through providing specialist directories (44%), specialist e-consults (23%), and sharing specialist cost data (20%). The most common challenges reported were the influence of fee-for-service payment on specialist behavior (58%), lack of data to evaluate specialist performance (53%), and insufficient bandwidth or ACO resources to address specialist alignment (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Engaging specialists in accountable care is an emerging area for ACOs but one with numerous challenges. Making better data on specialist costs and outcomes available to Medicare ACOs is essential for accelerating progress.

Physicians and Specialties in the Veterans Health Administration's Community Care Network.

This cross-sectional study of data from the US Veterans Health Administration examines the availability of services provided through community care networks by specialty and clinical characteristics.

[Exploration and contemplation of homogenized education of specialists in pulmonary and critical care medicine at member hospitals of a hospital consortium].

Talent construction is the cornerstone to the establishment of a high-quality, homogeneous healthcare system in a healthcare consortium. Pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) as the first pilot specialty, the standardized training of PCCM specialists has started and achieved remarkable results. The consortium member hospitals' physician specialist education is an important complement to PCCM training. The establishment of the consortium provides a new form of the education of physicians in PCCM, with the advantages of high quality teaching, wide coverage of staff and throughout the career development process. This article summarized the current status of physician specialty education in the member hospitals of the consortium, and further proposes the goal of homogenized specialty education for physicians in the member hospitals. And it analyzed in depth the problems that existed in the practice of training for hospital consortium member hospitals specialists, such as non-uniform level of instruction, non-systematic content of training, limited sources of teaching cases, and lack of teaching materials and equipment. For the medical consortium member hospital physician specialty education of in-depth thinking, we put forward the corresponding countermeasures. The aim of this study is to explore the homogenization of the specialty education system of pulmonary and critical care medicine in the member hospitals, in order to comprehensively improve the medical level of respiratory specialists in the member hospitals of the medical consortium.

Generalist, specialist, or expert in palliative care? A cross-sectional open survey on healthcare professionals' self-description.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided by generalist healthcare professionals (HCPs) if possible and by palliative care specialists if necessary. However, it still needs to be clarified what specialist expertise entails, what specialized care consists of, and which training or work experience is needed to become a palliative care specialist. In addition to generalists and specialists, 'experts' in palliative care are recognized within the nursing and medical professions, but it is unclear how these three roles relate. This study aims to explore how HCPs working in palliative care describe themselves in terms of generalist, specialist, and expert and how this self-description is related to their work experience and education. METHODS: A cross-sectional open online survey with both pre-structured and open-ended questions among HCPs who provide palliative care. Analyses were done using descriptive statistics and by deductive thematic coding of open-ended questions. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-four HCPs filled out the survey; 74% received additional training, and 79% had more than five years of working experience in palliative care. Based on working experience, 17% describe themselves as a generalist, 34% as a specialist, and 44% as an expert. Almost three out of four HCPs attributed their level of expertise on both their education and their working experience. Self-described specialists/experts had more working experience in palliative care, often had additional training, attended to more patients with palliative care needs, and were more often physicians as compared to generalists. A deductive analysis of the open questions revealed the similarities and distinctions between the roles of a specialist and an expert. Seventy-six percent of the respondents mentioned the importance of having both specialists and experts and wished more clarity about what defines a specialist or an expert, how to become one, and when you need them. In practice, both roles were used interchangeably. Competencies for the specialist/expert role consist of consulting, leadership, and understanding the importance of collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Although the grounds on which HCPs describe themselves as generalist, specialist, or experts differ, HCPs who describe themselves as specialists or experts mostly do so based on both their post-graduate education and their work experience. HCPs find it important to have specialists and experts in palliative care in addition to generalists and indicate more clarity about (the requirements for) these three roles is needed.

Professional Standards for Specialist Medical Administrators: Over-the-top Downunder?

In Australia, there are only two publicly reported disciplinary cases against specialist medical administrators. In the most recent decision of Medical Board of Australia v Gruner, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirmed that specialist medical administrators owe patients and the public the same professional obligations as medical practitioners with direct patient contact. More controversially, the Tribunal also held that medical administrators have a professional obligation only to accept roles with clear position descriptions that afford them sufficient time and resources to ensure the safe delivery of health services. We argue that this imposes unrealistic expectations on medical administrators engaged by rural, regional, or private health services that already struggle to attract and retain specialist medical expertise. This may exacerbate existing health inequalities by disincentivising specialist medical administrators from seeking fractional appointments that assist under-funded areas of workforce shortage.

Specialties preference by gender among medical students at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, South Africa.

BACKGROUND:  To determine the speciality preferences and the gender differences in the choice of speciality among medical students at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, South Africa. METHODS:  This cross-sectional study was conducted among fourth- to sixth-year medical students. A structured self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using STATA version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, United States). RESULTS:  A total of 174 students participated (response rate of 74%). Their median age was 23 years with interquartile range of 2 years. More than half (57%) were females. About 83% had no previous qualifications. Most (89%) have shown interest in pursuing specialist training. Surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology and internal medicine were the most selected specialities, while family medicine, ophthalmology, forensic medicine, public health medicine, ear, nose and throat, and accident and emergency medicine were the least preferred. Males were more likely interested in surgery and internal medicine, while females preferred obstetrics and gynaecology. CONCLUSION:  The majority of the medical students intends to pursue their postgraduate medical training. Even though the results were not statistically significant, there are gender differences in speciality preferences. There is a need to develop and implement career guidance and recruitment plans to deal with specialities with poor recruitment and gender imbalance.Contribution: To deal with specialties with poor and gender imbalance, career guidance and recruitment plans must be developed and implemented.

The effects of gender discrimination on medical students' choice of specialty for their (junior) residency - a survey among medical students in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Gender discrimination is known to affect societies in many different settings. Medical education is no exception. This study focusses on the consequences, gender discrimination can have on medical students and their choice of (junior) residency specialty. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed and distributed among the 40 medical faculties in Germany. The study population contained medical students in their fifth and sixth academic year. RESULTS: The survey's participants consisted of 759 students from 31 universities. Female medical students experienced significantly more gender discrimination compared to their male colleagues (f = 487, 87.9% vs. m = 76, 45.8%, p < 0.0001). The specialties with the most reported gender discrimination were family medicine (f = 180, 42.9% vs. m = 15, 23.8%, p < 0.05), followed by surgery (f = 369, 87.4% vs. m = 44, 69.8%, p < 0.05), internal medicine (f = 282, 67.3% vs. m = 37, 58.7%, ns), orthopaedics/casualty surgery (f = 270, 65.1% vs. m = 32, 50.8%, p < 0.05), and gynaecology (women (f = 142, 34.1% vs. m = 34, 54.0%, p < 0.05). Gynaecology was the only specialty, men experienced more discrimination compared to women. Among the students that ever changed their specialty of choice (f = 346 (73.3%) m = 95 (72%)), significantly more women than men claimed gender discrimination to be one of the main three reasons for their specialty choice (f = 42, 12.1% vs. m = 1, 1.1%, p < 0.05). In addition, 53 students (f = 50 (10.6%) m = 3 (2.3%)) stated to rule out a specialty from the beginning due to gender discrimination. CONCLUSION: Gender discrimination is frequently experienced by medical students in Germany. It influences their choice of medical specialty directly. Our data suggest a fundamental problem that proposes and implicates certain specialties to be attractive for only one gender.

Factors affecting the choice of medical specialties in Turkiye: an analysis based on cross-sectional survey of medical graduates.

BACKGROUND: Modern healthcare systems require the right mix of medical specialties for effective provision of high-quality services. Despite increased availability of general physicians and specialists, Türkiye lags behind high-income countries in terms of availability of specialists. The purpose of the study is to identify several specific factors that affect the choice of medical specialization. METHODS: All 350 medical school graduates in a specialty examination preparation bootcamp were requested to participate in the survey and 333 completed the self-administered questionnaire. The survey asked questions about factors affecting choice of medical specialty by medical graduates. RESULTS: The empirical results indicate that surgical specialties, compared to other broad medical specializations, are selected because of its higher income-earning potential and social prestige. The likelihood of selecting surgical specialties is negatively affected by rigorousness of the training program, high work-load, risk of malpractice lawsuits and risk of workplace violence. Male participants were 2.8 times more likely to select surgery specialty compared to basic medical science. Basic medical science areas were selected at a higher rate by female graduates and graduates with high level of academic performance in medical schools. CONCLUSIONS: It is critically important to improve trust and inter-personal communications between the patients and physicians in all specialties to lower the likelihood of malpractice lawsuits and workplace violence. Policy-makers may adopt policies to affect income earning potential and social prestige of targeted specializations to improve their supply.