Is There Any Truth To This ???!!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yes there are now work hour restrictions.. i didnt read past the 1st page.. Why dont you summarize it for us.. BTW the article is from 2003... A bit old..
 
i read page 2.. most of it is true.. i dont know about the corporal punishment.. if someone hit me they would likely end up in the hospital since I have a right to protect myself... But workloads are def different and not always for a good reason..
 
it's nine pages long , so this can be considered a summary ;


Hospital administrators engage in abusive discipline because they can. The perpetrators must account to no one and nothing in the typical contract signed by a doctor joining a medical residency places limits on her or his superiors' disciplinary prerogatives. Yet such practices take place under a veil of secrecy. Those who perpetrate them depend on the intimidated silence of the victims who, after years of expensive medical school training, are afraid to risk reprisal by complaining. Abusive discipline thus thrives not only on the arrogance of the powerful but on the shame and fear of the powerless.



In the shadowy disciplinary armamentarium of medical education, the dirtiest secret is disciplinary psychiatry. It exemplifies the medical community turning on its own. Disciplinary psychiatry can be defined as coerced subjection to psychiatric intervention as a condition of remaining in training. Medical educators use it not only against doctors in residency but also against medical students in the process of earning a medical degree.



The term disciplinary psychiatry refers not to a situation in which a person with an established diagnosis of mental illness is enrolled for medical training but to one in which the medical education administrators seek to establish a diagnosis of mental illness in a trainee by forcing him or her to see a mental therapist of the institution's own choosing.



Disciplinary psychiatry, instead, requires a resident to undergo mental evaluation or therapy--while the resident is nevertheless allowed to remain actively engaged in patient care duties. This is what makes the practice disciplinary rather than, say, precautionary, because in such an instance there can be no pretense that the institution is intervening as a precaution on behalf of anyone's well-being. Indeed, it's possible to maintain that, in the past, the practice has been used because the trainee is of the "wrong" race, gender, or political philosophy.



The tactic of disciplinary psychiatry confronts the trainee with a catch-22. The medical education administrators don't summarily terminate the resident but they stipulate that renewal of her or his contract for the next year's training is subject to a special condition. In sum, they offer the trainee a choice of either being fired when the contract expires or submitting to evaluation or treatment by a mental health professional administrators have chosen. If the trainee accedes to this, the trainee is eventually removed from the training program anyway on the grounds that seeing a psychiatrist comprises facial evidence of his or her unfitness to ever practice medicine. But if the student refuses therapy, she or he is removed from the training program on the ground of disobedience.



Either way, a resident so removed from a training program has very little chance of ever working again as a physician. Any future residency or licensing body to which this person might apply will inquire as to the circumstances for having left a prior training program without finishing. Upon inquiry from such parties, the medical administrators will respond saying that the director of the program had instructed the trainee to undergo psychiatric intervention. The inference will be made that, if such an authoritative figure saw fit to so direct the trainee, then the trainee must, by logical inference, be mentally ill. This is the defamatory aspect of disciplinary psychiatry.
 
The article is written in 2003.. they were likely somewhere were they were unhappy. Just because you work there doesnt mean you give up your basic rights..I hope that this is clear enough.
 
Okay, i couldnt force myself to read all of that that but I got the gist of it. In no way is all disciplinary action OK, think about how ******ed that is, medicine is not able to work outside the law.

Also, the author sounds disgruntled and has a serious case of bitchitis. Crying about not being able to take sick leave b/c of Strep throat=probably a whiner anyways. Not being a prick, but you know the type, also i had severe strep throat one time during college but couldnt make it to the dr. b/c i was working 16 days consecutively, finally made it in by getting the day off (only missed day in five years) got the pills and was back to work. I had no idea strep could be that bad, but needing to take sick leave and crying about it online is another thing.
 
Plastikos said:
Okay, i couldnt force myself to read all of that that but I got the gist of it. In no way is all disciplinary action OK, think about how ******ed that is, medicine is not able to work outside the law.

Also, the author sounds disgruntled and has a serious case of bitchitis. Crying about not being able to take sick leave b/c of Strep throat=probably a whiner anyways. Not being a prick, but you know the type, also i had severe strep throat one time during college but couldnt make it to the dr. b/c i was working 16 days consecutively, finally made it in by getting the day off (only missed day in five years) got the pills and was back to work. I had no idea strep could be that bad, but needing to take sick leave and crying about it online is another thing.

At my former institution, one of the residents had an emergency appy, and was ordered back to work on POD 1. Don't tell me this is about strep throat bitchiness. This is a real problem. That particular hospital threatened to fire over half a dozen residents, and did fire or attempt to fire 3 a year.

And you are stupid for not getting treated right away. Strep is nothing to mess around with since your body will clear the strep infection but now, since you waited so long those same antibodies can attack the surface of your heart valves and you are now at elevated risk for both rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic heart disease.

One resident was fired because he asked if working 110 hours a week was in compliance with ACGME rules. People are told to lie on the work rules summations. If they have to work more than 80 hours then they're being "inefficient and will have to be put on probation and remediated." This stuff happens. Another because he suggested after being on for 40+ hours that he would be happier in anesthesia. Another after he reported illegal charging for procedures, another for "sexual harrassment" even though both parties agreed there was no sexual harrassment. As the synopsis reports, some programs will fire a resident simply because they can and to make sure that the remaining residents do what they're told and keep their mouths shut lest they be out on the street selling pencils after spending 4 years in med school. If you guys have any doubt about the seriousness of this problem, check out some of the sister web sites around.

A program director told one resident "If I have anything to say about it, you'll never get another job in medicine again. Your career is over." I know this guy and he did nothing to deserve this. He's bankrupt, nearly homeless, and cannot find another job. He was fired in the last quarter of his 3rd year of residency. The program director changed the appeals process every time he looked like he was going to prevail. He had the support of the faculty, but the PD had decided to can him and that was that. No reason, just didn't like him. The rest of us saw this and just kept our heads down and our mouths shut, since the same could happen to us.

Don't tell me this stuff doesn't happen or its just disgruntled residents "bitching." PDs have darn near absolute authority and power to end any resident's career. Their power is nearly unchecked and the ACGME will not do anything to stop it. If your program director is malignant, writes a less than glowing LOR, you are finished. You might as well take your MD degree, hide it in a box so your fellow burger flippers don't know.

Take a look at the Semmelweis Society web site. www.semmelweis.org They have many examples, including a med student who got into trouble for describing bad medical practices at a rotation hospital.

Someone else described a bad program on this site see Graduating DO warning thread, and mysteriously his posting was later removed. My guess is that poor barstid got a broom handle in his backside, if they didn't actually fire him a month short of his residency completion too. Gotta go, but I think this is a problem. How big I don't know but I think we need to find out. Congress was about to pass laws before the ACGME crackdown on the 80 hour week,
 
On the other hand many programs live in fear of RRC. I understand that Hopkin's medicine program was slapped around by the RRC a few years back and that's all it took to put them in line.

Here at Duke, on every rotation I have been on the faculty move heaven and earth to get us out on time post-call and to keep our hours under the maximum.
 
3dtp said:
At my former institution, one of the residents had an emergency appy, and was ordered back to work on POD 1. Don't tell me this is about strep throat bitchiness. This is a real problem. That particular hospital threatened to fire over half a dozen residents, and did fire or attempt to fire 3 a year.

And you are stupid for not getting treated right away. Strep is nothing to mess around with since your body will clear the strep infection but now, since you waited so long those same antibodies can attack the surface of your heart valves and you are now at elevated risk for both rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic heart disease.

One resident was fired because he asked if working 110 hours a week was in compliance with ACGME rules. People are told to lie on the work rules summations. If they have to work more than 80 hours then they're being "inefficient and will have to be put on probation and remediated." This stuff happens. Another because he suggested after being on for 40+ hours that he would be happier in anesthesia. Another after he reported illegal charging for procedures, another for "sexual harrassment" even though both parties agreed there was no sexual harrassment. As the synopsis reports, some programs will fire a resident simply because they can and to make sure that the remaining residents do what they're told and keep their mouths shut lest they be out on the street selling pencils after spending 4 years in med school. If you guys have any doubt about the seriousness of this problem, check out some of the sister web sites around.

A program director told one resident "If I have anything to say about it, you'll never get another job in medicine again. Your career is over." I know this guy and he did nothing to deserve this. He's bankrupt, nearly homeless, and cannot find another job. He was fired in the last quarter of his 3rd year of residency. The program director changed the appeals process every time he looked like he was going to prevail. He had the support of the faculty, but the PD had decided to can him and that was that. No reason, just didn't like him. The rest of us saw this and just kept our heads down and our mouths shut, since the same could happen to us.

Don't tell me this stuff doesn't happen or its just disgruntled residents "bitching." PDs have darn near absolute authority and power to end any resident's career. Their power is nearly unchecked and the ACGME will not do anything to stop it. If your program director is malignant, writes a less than glowing LOR, you are finished. You might as well take your MD degree, hide it in a box so your fellow burger flippers don't know.

Take a look at the Semmelweis Society web site. www.semmelweis.org They have many examples, including a med student who got into trouble for describing bad medical practices at a rotation hospital.

Someone else described a bad program on this site see Graduating DO warning thread, and mysteriously his posting was later removed. My guess is that poor barstid got a broom handle in his backside, if they didn't actually fire him a month short of his residency completion too. Gotta go, but I think this is a problem. How big I don't know but I think we need to find out. Congress was about to pass laws before the ACGME crackdown on the 80 hour week,

Sounds like another case of sever bitchiness--

I kind of have to doubt all these people got fired on some program director's random whim. Firing somebody is a huge pain in the rump and it's not really in anyone's best interest unless the resident is truly severely incompetent and endangering patients. Unless that is the case, there are many reasons PD's shy away from firing residents unless absolutely necessary:
1. Fear of litigation
2. The scheduling havoc caused by having one less resident (much less 3--We had one guy quit in my program halfway through my intern year in a program with 18 interns/year, and it caused all kinds of problems--3 would have been a complete nightmare.)
3. The detrimental effect it would have on the future of the program--If bad stuff happens to residents you know they will get the word out to future applicants one way or another, which means the program will only attract crummier applicants. What's this vindictive PD going to do then, fire everyone in one fell swoop?

Also, you make it sound like the end of the world if someone gets fired from residency. Its definitely not, I've had the unfortunate experience of working with residents who had to leave other programs (likely for good reasons-lazy, incompetent) and they were able to find spots elsewhere. More difficult if you are in a specialty thats hard to get into in the first place, but if you are in a primary field you can find a spot SOMEWHERE.

If you really get fired "for no reason," you can take legal action and the PD would have to show evidence for why you were canned.

It sounds to me like you have a problem with your PD. I'm sure there are some bad ones out there and it sucks if you have run into one, but I'm just not buying the "PD's are out to get residents" theme you have going.
 
odieoh said:
Sounds like another case of sever bitchiness--

I kind of have to doubt all these people got fired on some program director's random whim. Firing somebody is a huge pain in the rump and it's not really in anyone's best interest unless the resident is truly severely incompetent and endangering patients. Unless that is the case, there are many reasons PD's shy away from firing residents unless absolutely necessary:
1. Fear of litigation
2. The scheduling havoc caused by having one less resident (much less 3--We had one guy quit in my program halfway through my intern year in a program with 18 interns/year, and it caused all kinds of problems--3 would have been a complete nightmare.)
3. The detrimental effect it would have on the future of the program--If bad stuff happens to residents you know they will get the word out to future applicants one way or another, which means the program will only attract crummier applicants. What's this vindictive PD going to do then, fire everyone in one fell swoop?

Also, you make it sound like the end of the world if someone gets fired from residency. Its definitely not, I've had the unfortunate experience of working with residents who had to leave other programs (likely for good reasons-lazy, incompetent) and they were able to find spots elsewhere. More difficult if you are in a specialty thats hard to get into in the first place, but if you are in a primary field you can find a spot SOMEWHERE.

If you really get fired "for no reason," you can take legal action and the PD would have to show evidence for why you were canned.

It sounds to me like you have a problem with your PD. I'm sure there are some bad ones out there and it sucks if you have run into one, but I'm just not buying the "PD's are out to get residents" theme you have going.


I agree there is a problem with the PD. The ACGME did investigate the program and the program got a new GME director. Hopkins was made an example of because congress was watching. Hopkins told the ACGME to stick it with their work hour rules and did so quite publically, forcing the ACGME to put up or shut up.

Legal action takes years and years, and if someone does file suit, it is truely the kiss of death since no one will touch you after that, even if it's justified. Then theres the immunity issue. Hospitals can claim immunity which is granted in all the states, so litigation is a toothless threat. As one of the previous posts cited, program directors go to seminars on how to "punish" problem residents in some systems. These are not the actions of benign people.

They don't have to fire everyone in one fell swoop. Just make an example of one and the rest will quickly duck and fall into line. Don't get me wrong, program is a good one, and I don't think the personalities are such that it would happen here and there is an independent review board to make sure rules are followed, not only by residents but by program directors as well.

But it does happen. I personally know a chief who was involved in one of these. The former chief was very upset about the whole issue and only told me about it (and several others) after he was an attending elsewhere He told me that a resident at a community hospital was threatened with termination because the PD just didn't like him. Obviously there's more to this story than that, but the chief told me that the PD decided to terminate him and for months looked for a reason to get rid of him, but none credible was found. Good evals, good recs from attendings, good rapport with patients, good procedures. He was ordered to start asking specific nurses to complain about the resident, and when they got two complaints, they brought the resident to the PDs office, offered to let him resign with full credit for six months or if he refused, he'd be fired immediately, arrested and escorted from the hospital under armed guard. He did refuse, was told there was no appeal, was denied copies of his records, did appeal and finished up his residency, but it was very touch and go. Does anybody but me think this is wrong?
 
I know there are real cases of bad programs/PDs, especially in the past. I was speaking to the manner of the dude who wrote the article and his general vibe in the article.

Yale g-surg also got spanked a few years ago by the RRC. My med schools program has a malignant rep, if you didnt get along with certain faculty it was said you may never make it out of the lab to your chief years.

Do your research when choosing a program for sure, my program is supposed to be good, but im not expecting to get use of any sick days, or have my vacation land on christmas/new years. Those are simply pipe dreams.
 
yesmeena said:
it's nine pages long , so this can be considered a summary ;


Hospital administrators engage in abusive discipline because they can. The perpetrators must account to no one and nothing in the typical contract signed by a doctor joining a medical residency places limits on her or his superiors' disciplinary prerogatives. Yet such practices take place under a veil of secrecy. Those who perpetrate them depend on the intimidated silence of the victims who, after years of expensive medical school training, are afraid to risk reprisal by complaining. Abusive discipline thus thrives not only on the arrogance of the powerful but on the shame and fear of the powerless.




In the shadowy disciplinary armamentarium of medical education, the dirtiest secret is disciplinary psychiatry. It exemplifies the medical community turning on its own. Disciplinary psychiatry can be defined as coerced subjection to psychiatric intervention as a condition of remaining in training. Medical educators use it not only against doctors in residency but also against medical students in the process of earning a medical degree.



The term disciplinary psychiatry refers not to a situation in which a person with an established diagnosis of mental illness is enrolled for medical training but to one in which the medical education administrators seek to establish a diagnosis of mental illness in a trainee by forcing him or her to see a mental therapist of the institution's own choosing.



Disciplinary psychiatry, instead, requires a resident to undergo mental evaluation or therapy--while the resident is nevertheless allowed to remain actively engaged in patient care duties. This is what makes the practice disciplinary rather than, say, precautionary, because in such an instance there can be no pretense that the institution is intervening as a precaution on behalf of anyone's well-being. Indeed, it's possible to maintain that, in the past, the practice has been used because the trainee is of the "wrong" race, gender, or political philosophy.



The tactic of disciplinary psychiatry confronts the trainee with a catch-22. The medical education administrators don't summarily terminate the resident but they stipulate that renewal of her or his contract for the next year's training is subject to a special condition. In sum, they offer the trainee a choice of either being fired when the contract expires or submitting to evaluation or treatment by a mental health professional administrators have chosen. If the trainee accedes to this, the trainee is eventually removed from the training program anyway on the grounds that seeing a psychiatrist comprises facial evidence of his or her unfitness to ever practice medicine. But if the student refuses therapy, she or he is removed from the training program on the ground of disobedience.



Either way, a resident so removed from a training program has very little chance of ever working again as a physician. Any future residency or licensing body to which this person might apply will inquire as to the circumstances for having left a prior training program without finishing. Upon inquiry from such parties, the medical administrators will respond saying that the director of the program had instructed the trainee to undergo psychiatric intervention. The inference will be made that, if such an authoritative figure saw fit to so direct the trainee, then the trainee must, by logical inference, be mentally ill. This is the defamatory aspect of disciplinary psychiatry.


Yes, there is truth to this. What is described above is how medical schools/residency programs try to deal with residents or students who have been judged by superiors to have personality disorders. Basically this is how oppositional students and residents are dealt with. Here's how it goes from the faculty point of view. Employees who are oppositional are sent off for therapy and testing in the hope that this will facilitate the employee to develope enough insight to understand their problem and adjust their behavior. Most don't. By the very nature of personality disorders the problems are egosyntonic so, of course, it's always everybody else's fault. But sometimes the employee with get a clue and adjust. That's the goal. supposed to be not punitive. But it is designed to be correctional. In that sense I guess you could call it "disciplinary".
 
3dtp said:
One resident was fired because he asked if working 110 hours a week was in compliance with ACGME rules.

I'm not surprized that didn't go down well. Are you? And if the resident didn't understand that mouthing off to superiors like that, wasn't a good idea, then I'd bet any money it wasn't an isolated incident. Rather, it's probably a pretty good example of his/her style of interaction. A very dangerous one.


Bottom line is that you really aren't free to behave however you want in medicine. If your personality is generating friction and earning you regular communications to the PD/Dean then you have three choices. 1. Change your personality/behavior voluntarily (best policy). 2. Change your personality/behavior to avoid partaking in the process described in the artical (the goal of the process). Or 3. Get kicked out.

What is described in the article is a very accurate description of how medical schools and residency programs handle "difficult" subordinates. If that description applies to you then realize you can't win, eat a bunch of humble pie and get with the program.
 
asdfaa said:
I'm not surprized that didn't go down well. Are you? And if the resident didn't understand that mouthing off to superiors like that, wasn't a good idea, then I'd bet any money it wasn't an isolated incident. Rather, it's probably a pretty good example of his/her style of interaction. A very dangerous one.

I think most of us didn't consider it mouthing off to superiors. The guy was well respected. They were breaking the rules. It happened at a regular monthly administrative meeting and the issue was brought up in response to a solicitation by the program director. The question was solicited, he took them at their word, and asked the question. It was not confrontational, and the PD was very insecure. The rest of us learned. After that no one dared say anything no matter what the abuse. We just watched in shock as it got worse and worse. Another hospital in the city doing the same thing got hit with a huge fine by the state attorney general for violating the Bell Commission rules. They got caught and fined, and our hospital made our lives miserable because no one would speak up.

So, tell us, do you think that there are no abuses of power in our society? No abuse of process? Think it's ok for those in power to use it irresponsibly? And lie about it? And do you think this has never happened in medical education? Troy Madsen has a diary on this site that details his events at Hopkins.

Perhaps this is ok in Iraq or Afghanistan or Haiti, but I think the U.S.A. should be above this.
 
3dtp said:
So, tell us, do you think that there are no abuses of power in our society? No abuse of process? Think it's ok for those in power to use it irresponsibly? And lie about it? And do you think this has never happened in medical education?

Nope. What I'm saying is that it's incredibly common, if not ubiquitous. Especially in medicine where the stakes are high and the egos tend to be fragile. A little caution and reserve goes a long way.
 
3dtp said:
I think most of us didn't consider it mouthing off to superiors. The guy was well respected. They were breaking the rules. It happened at a regular monthly administrative meeting and the issue was brought up in response to a solicitation by the program director. The question was solicited, he took them at their word, and asked the question. It was not confrontational, and the PD was very insecure. The rest of us learned. After that no one dared say anything no matter what the abuse. We just watched in shock as it got worse and worse. Another hospital in the city doing the same thing got hit with a huge fine by the state attorney general for violating the Bell Commission rules. They got caught and fined, and our hospital made our lives miserable because no one would speak up.

So, tell us, do you think that there are no abuses of power in our society? No abuse of process? Think it's ok for those in power to use it irresponsibly? And lie about it? And do you think this has never happened in medical education? Troy Madsen has a diary on this site that details his events at Hopkins.

Perhaps this is ok in Iraq or Afghanistan or Haiti, but I think the U.S.A. should be above this.


I want to thank everyone for their input & insight . Much appreciated , kinda helped put things in perspective ....

3dtp , I just wanted to clarify this ;

Perhaps this is ok in Iraq or Afghanistan or Haiti, but I think the U.S.A. should be above this.

You mean that these things would be expected to happen in these countries , but should not be tolerated in the States , right ?

I hope you didn't mean that it's accepted to happen there , obviously they are as much human as we are ?!

I apologize for the foul language in this link , but I think it's message is worth considering ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12999.htm
 
Rumor has it that the hopkins IM program is chomping at the bit to be able to apply to the acgme for a special exemption to allow work hours to be extended such that their interns/residents can do >80hrs without the program being upbraided by acgme.
 
yesmeena said:
I want to thank everyone for their input & insight . Much appreciated , kinda helped put things in perspective ....

3dtp , I just wanted to clarify this ;

Perhaps this is ok in Iraq or Afghanistan or Haiti, but I think the U.S.A. should be above this.

You mean that these things would be expected to happen in these countries , but should not be tolerated in the States , right ?

I hope you didn't mean that it's accepted to happen there , obviously they are as much human as we are ?!

I apologize for the foul language in this link , but I think it's message is worth considering ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12999.htm


Mea culpa! You are, of course correct, this behavior should not be ok anywhere. Please accept my apology.
 
inositide said:
Rumor has it that the hopkins IM program is chomping at the bit to be able to apply to the acgme for a special exemption to allow work hours to be extended such that their interns/residents can do >80hrs without the program being upbraided by acgme.

The RRC for internal medicine in its program requirements statement says that it will not consider any exceptions to the 80 hour work week. Given their track record with the ACGME, it's not likely they'll succeed. But what they can do is tell their residents to lie to the acgme or else and who's to stop them?

Troy Madsen went through this. Read his diary.
 
To be quite honest, I have not personally read the entirely of the acgme regulations regarding work hours.

I could be wrong, but I thought that some neurosurg programs have been given an exemption or some kind of officially sanctioned laxity to the 80hr rule?
 
inositide said:
To be quite honest, I have not personally read the entirely of the acgme regulations regarding work hours.

I could be wrong, but I thought that some neurosurg programs have been given an exemption or some kind of officially sanctioned laxity to the 80hr rule?

The ACGME Institutional requirements with the consent of the various RRCs will on a case by case basis permit a 10% overage, provided the program can justify the academic necessity.

The precise wording of the Internal Medicine RRC policy is

VI.F Duty Hour Exception

The RRC for Internal Medicine will not consider requests for exceptions to the limit to 80 hours averaged monthly.


Other RRCs, such as neurosurgery may.
 
Lots of places get a excemption for the surgical services, 10% increase is the most i have ever heard=88h/wk.
 
Top