NY Times hating on new residents

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Wha --? Journalists attempting to create a sensationalistic article based on misconceptions? That's so crazy it just might work! Next week: new attendings fresh out of residency, unused to working without supervision ...taking care of YOUR MOTHER! AIIIIIIIEEEEE!!!
 
at work the other day i heard this tech guy assclown make some sort of comment like "i hope she gets a doc with experience, not a young resident". mind you this is a lab full of MDs, med students, and premeds. stupid tech automaton.
 
Articles like these are journalistic tragedy.

Although, it is a good idea to keep in mind that July and these late sumer months involve a new crop of interns/residents who are just learning the ropes of their new positions. So, no need to pass judgment but its nice to be cognizant of these facts. Plus, if you're hobnobbing with some upper-class non-med people, tell them about this 'July Syndrome' and you'll sound really smart and advice-laden, and they'll be in your debt since you seem to care so much about their well being.
 
Its the NY Times, how are we to be sure that anything they write about is true anyway?

This was in the Bergen Record, North Jersey's newspaper the other day about UMDNJ-NJMS


Actors test doctors-in-waiting on real-world skills

Tuesday, June 29, 2004
By LINDY WASHBURN
STAFF WRITER


The man waiting for the doctor was weary.

The time had come. He wanted his wife to be allowed to die.

She was only 25 when their world ended in a car wreck. Now she was 31, unconscious, curled on her bed. Her limbs were red and swollen. She was missing several teeth. She drooled. Her hands were so contorted, her fingernails dug into her wrists. This wasn't the woman he married.

Steven Hewitt had prayed for a miracle. But he knew no miracle was coming.

He'd talked with her family.

Now it was time to talk with the doctor.

One by one, the doctors walked into the exam room and heard Hewitt's story. One young physician asked if he understood that the decision meant starving her to death - did he know what that looked like? Another suggested that Hewitt should get psychological counseling. A third agreed with his decision and said he'd do the same thing. A fourth said he wasn't sure how such requests were handled, but that he'd refer it to the hospital ethics committee.

Welcome to exam day at the New Jersey Medical School, where doctors in training in the physical medicine and rehabilitation department are tested on real-world skills. The OSCEs (pronounced os-keys) - for Objective Structured Clinical Examination - are not your typical, paper-and-pencil exams.

Steven Hewitt was played by an actor - a professional who's had roles on "Law & Order" and Broadway. The students each spent 15 minutes with him before moving on to five other examination rooms where similarly trained "standardized patients'' portrayed everything from multiple sclerosis to carpal-tunnel syndrome.

This exam's goal is to find out how well the students have mastered the art, as well as the science, of medicine. Call it a test of bedside manner - and more.

"You can't teach humanity,'' says Joel A. DeLisa, professor and chairman of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. "But you can change the things they do, their ways of saying things, how they act, how they move."

Can they listen without interrupting and ask the right questions? Do they know how to manipulate the limbs and joints to isolate and identify a problem? Can they take a good patient history and come up with an appropriate diagnosis?

The answers matter. Good communication can lead to a more accurate diagnosis, better patient compliance with treatment, and fewer malpractice suits, experts say.

Howard Pinhasik, the actor playing Hewitt, didn't hold back as he reacted to the doctors in ways most patients wouldn't dare.

"There was a certain lack of empathy,'' he told the young man who'd asked if he was ready to see his wife starve. "You made me feel like a horrible person for bringing it up. It made me feel uncomfortable and really sort of upset.''

During a break he reflected, "Doctors need to learn this stuff. It's incredibly good for them.''

The work is challenging but deeply satisfying, says Pinhasik, who, like the other actors, is paid $20 an hour for his work here. In five years as a "standardized patient,'' he's mastered 15 scenarios.

His favorite is the role of a father who learns that his daughter has been paralyzed from the neck down in a car accident. Pain, shock, self-pity, anger - he dramatizes the whole range of emotions. It's cathartic to do that 12 times in one day, he says, and good training for the theater. The young doctors sometimes are overwhelmed.

At a time when more and more Americans complain that physicians don't have time to listen, this test is a powerful statement to just-minted professionals about the importance this university places on the doctor-patient relationship.

These residents, specializing in physical and rehabilitation medicine, take this exam three times during their four-year residency. The Newark medical school also requires residents in pediatrics and internal medicine to take a similar test. Requirements at residency programs elsewhere and in other specialties vary.

Just this June, however, the national physician licensing board imposed a requirement on all students graduating from American medical schools. They must pass a 10-station clinical exam like this one before being licensed as a physician and moving on to their specialty residencies. The first tests are being offered in Philadelphia, at a cost to the residents of $975.

A similar requirement has been in place since 1998 for all graduates of foreign medical schools entering American residency programs.

This is "tremendous feedback to give a young trainee," says DeLisa, who developed the physical-medicine exam at the New Jersey Medical School in Newark. "Sometimes, the individual doesn't realize they come across as gruff, or that their physical exam is too abrupt.''

After each of these encounters, however, the patients evaluate the doctor - unlike in real life. They tell the resident whether he or she did enough to respect patient modesty, develop rapport, and prepare them for the hands-on manipulations of the physical exam.

The key question each patient answers? "Would you return to this physician for your care?''

Pinhasik had his doubts about a couple of the residents. No student has ever "failed" the exam, DeLisa said, but the feedback has been used to tell them where they need to improve. More important, it has led to changes in the curriculum so that weak skills are improved.

Faculty members also grade the students on whether they've covered all the necessary questions, performed the physical assessments correctly, and come to the right conclusions.

In Room 1, for example, a "standardized patient'' portrayed a 42-year-old woman with weakness in her right side. As the resident went through a predictable checklist of questions, the faculty evaluator watching on the computer monitor grew more and more frustrated.

"Have you fallen?'' the young doctor asked.

"Not lately,'' said the patient.

The next question should have been, "when did you fall?" Then the doctor might have heard about her fall two years ago. But the doctor didn't follow up.

Later, he asked if the patient had any problems with incontinence.

"Not now,'' she said. Again, he missed an opportunity to home in on a classic symptom of multiple sclerosis.

When the proctor, Dr. Denise Campagnolo, rushed in at the end of the session, she praised the resident for coming to the correct conclusion: The next step would be tests to confirm or rule out multiple sclerosis. But she chided him for not asking the right follow-up questions. "You're not picking up on critical pieces of information,'' she told him.

The patient, who in real life is Mary Cooney, a real estate agent, applauded the warmth and kindness of his demeanor, however. Other residents had been more coldly clinical, she said.

Cooney is a beloved member of the "standardized patient'' cast, able to master complicated descriptive scenarios where the clues are buried in the patient's history. She finds the work so rewarding, she is considering becoming a patient instructor in gynecology, for medical students learning to do pelvic and breast exams. "I feel like I'm directly affecting them as doctors,'' she says.

The $2 million, state-of-the-art center on the Newark campus of UMDNJ opened in October 2001. Each room replicates a doctor's examination room, except for the one-way window through which observers can watch, hidden microphones, and the hidden camera. Most of the encounters are videotaped so the doctors can watch themselves.

The residents are nervous before the exam, as they gather around a table in white lab coats. DeLisa explains that they will not draw any blood during their physical exams, and if they feel they need to check nerve responses with a pin-prick, they should use the Q-tips provided, instead.

"If you decide you need to do a breast, pelvic, or rectal exam - tell them, and they will tell you the findings,'' he explained. The standard patients, ranging in age from 18 to mid-70s, are physically fit enough to withstand hours of poking and prodding, but they're not required to submit to invasive tests.

Then he sends them out to their stations.

"You may begin,'' the voice on the loudspeaker intones, starting the 15-minute allotment.

"At the beginning, you're definitely a wreck,'' said Dr. Rae Davis, a second-year resident from Lyndhurst. "You know the cameras are on, that people are watching you.''

When you enter each room, he says, "You have to command the whole situation.'' The evaluators notice whether the residents wash their hands and address the patient by name.

When it's over, though, said Davis, "the feedback is great."

"You actually see yourself getting better at dealing with patients,'' said Elaine Aufiero, taking the test for her third and final time. "I feel much more confident,'' compared with previous years, she said. "It's nice to realize that you make progress."
 
Did you actually read the article? It was written by an MD and it concluded that there was really no "July effect," except in psychiatry, which seems plausible. I don't find anything offensive in it.
 
principessa said:
Did you actually read the article? It was written by an MD and it concluded that there was really no "July effect," except in psychiatry, which seems plausible. I don't find anything offensive in it.

Indeed. You guys should read the whole article, not just the first paragraph or two.

As for the NYT being truthful comment...uh huh, they're soooooo untruthful 😉 (maybe when you're on the other side of the facts).
 
principessa said:
Did you actually read the article? It was written by an MD and it concluded that there was really no "July effect," except in psychiatry, which seems plausible. I don't find anything offensive in it.

"I can't prove it, but I am willing to bet that the July phenomenon is mostly a myth, and the reason is simple. Whatever the new residents lack in medical experience is more than made up for by the vigilant supervision they receive from their attending physicians. Like many of my colleagues, I'll be watching over my residents like a hawk this summer."
 
"Several studies in the past few years have searched in vain for the phenomenon. One of the largest , published in The Journal of General Internal Medicine in 2003, compared hospital deaths and lengths of stay from July to September to the rates for other months in teaching and nonteaching hospitals. The researchers, Drs. William A. Barry and Gary E. Rosenthal of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City, reviewed the records of more than 48,000 patients admitted to intensive care units in 28 hospitals in Ohio from 1991 to 1997. They found no significant difference in mortality rates or lengths of stay in the July-through-September period."
 
I didn't read the article because it required a log-in. Nevertheless, let's play this game. My questions:

What is the purpose of this article appearing in a layperson publication, when most laypeople don't even know of the "July phenomenon"? Would this article not be better served in (minimally) something like JAMA? That being the case, I suspect that this is sensationalistic journalism. The Times may perhaps debunk the issue, but it wasn't an issue until the Times brought it up. Does that make you wonder?

The Times and most people know that people generally read the byline and the first few paragraphs of a story -- that's just human behavior. I'm not saying EVERYONE stops reading, but that's why the first few paragraphs of a story are the "hook" and contain the meat of the story. You may find more detail about the main points later, but the points themselves are to be found in summary at the beginning (almost like an abstract). That being the case, I ask: was the debunking in the first one or two paragraphs, or was it buried in page 10, as it were?
 
TRUE said:
Indeed. You guys should read the whole article, not just the first paragraph or two.

As for the NYT being truthful comment...uh huh, they're soooooo untruthful 😉 (maybe when you're on the other side of the facts).

Uh, when their own journalists admits to making up stories and the top editors are fired for it, goes to credability not whether or not someone agrees with the NYT or not.

This is NOT a political issue. But a credibility issue.
 
kinetic said:
I didn't read the article because it required a log-in. Nevertheless, let's play this game. My questions:

What is the purpose of this article appearing in a layperson publication, when most laypeople don't even know of the "July phenomenon"? Would this article not be better served in (minimally) something like JAMA? That being the case, I suspect that this is sensationalistic journalism. The Times may perhaps debunk the issue, but it wasn't an issue until the Times brought it up. Does that make you wonder?

The Times and most people know that people generally read the byline and the first few paragraphs of a story -- that's just human behavior. I'm not saying EVERYONE stops reading, but that's why the first few paragraphs of a story are the "hook" and contain the meat of the story. You may find more detail about the main points later, but the points themselves are to be found in summary at the beginning (almost like an abstract). That being the case, I ask: was the debunking in the first one or two paragraphs, or was it buried in page 10, as it were?

I don't know. Most people who read the NYT generally read the majority of the story because they know the stories are rather indepth. I do agree that the first paragraph or two contain the juicy senstationalist material, but the times does a good job of drawing on many sources to explain the article.

As for this article in question, it's rather short by NYT standards, and the debunking is discussed in paragraph 4 or 5 (where the other paragraphs are rather short, actually). If you want to read subscription-based newspapers, check out www.bugmenot.com. They do not have pay newspapers, of course. Only the newspapers that insist you register just so they ahve your e-mail address.
 
EMT2ER-DOC said:
Uh, when their own journalists admits to making up stories and the top editors are fired for it, goes to credability not whether or not someone agrees with the NYT or not.

This is NOT a political issue. But a credibility issue.

Absolutely. However, that happened with one writer, I believe. Separately, they had their own internal firestorm over the Iraq coverage (they didn't question the gov't intelligence and admitted to that). All in all, however, the NYT is probably one of the most credible newspapers in the US. If you don't trust the NYT, I find it hard to believe you trust any news source out there.

Finally, it's a little on the absurd side that most posters on here have already criticized this article without reading it or reading it completely. The writer is an MD who presents the topic well and covers all sides of the topic, including scientific studies on both sides of the issue. read the article before commenting on whether or not the NYT is sensationalizing the issue.
 
TRUE said:
Absolutely. However, that happened with one writer, I believe. Separately, they had their own internal firestorm over the Iraq coverage (they didn't question the gov't intelligence and admitted to that). All in all, however, the NYT is probably one of the most credible newspapers in the US. If you don't trust the NYT, I find it hard to believe you trust any news source out there.

Finally, it's a little on the absurd side that most posters on here have already criticized this article without reading it or reading it completely. The writer is an MD who presents the topic well and covers all sides of the topic, including scientific studies on both sides of the issue. read the article before commenting on whether or not the NYT is sensationalizing the issue.

I did not criticize the article. I am not a fan of the NY Times
 
this is sloppy journalism because the author's attitude during the first part of the piece is a 180 shift from the last part of it. Thats irresponsible.

Its designed as a sensationalist ploy to draw readers. It purposely uses inflammatory material to aid this cause. Therefore, its a crap piece of writing.
 
If I wrote a piece entitled "Are Terrorists Going to Attack New York City?" write the first 2 paragraphs of inflammatory material, and then post evidence that NYC is safer than otherwise thought, it would be just as bad as what this idiot doctor wannabe journalist has done.
 
MacGyver said:
If I wrote a piece entitled "Are Terrorists Going to Attack New York City?" write the first 2 paragraphs of inflammatory material, and then post evidence that NYC is safer than otherwise thought, it would be just as bad as what this idiot doctor wannabe journalist has done.

Idiot doctor, huh? It's funny how you think everyone around you is an idiot. Meanwhile, when people point out the facts to you in your own postings, you choose not to reply rather than admit you are wrong. The author of this article stuck to the facts throughout his article and cited scientific studies that readers could understand. You should think of doing some of the same, rather than just making up sensationalist claims yourself about things you don't agree with.

You can start by recanting your "facts" that Miami-FAU is a completely seperate program (when in fact, it is a 2 year program that feeds straight into UM). You can also stop jumping to ridiculous conclusions about the "ridiculous growth" of the size of medical schools like Florida State on which you have been proven wrong.

If you want people to take you seriously, maybe you should start sticking to the facts.

As for the NYT article, what part of the first few paragraphs are sensationalist? He never says: "First year residents suck". He never says: "People who go into the ER in July are more likely to die". He simply says that "pouplar belief" would have one think july is dangerous because of new residents and then goes on to give an example of someone who thinks that. Then he talks about how studies prove that wrong. How is this "sensationalist"?
 
Good grief. The New York Times has to be the best newspaper in the U.S. They feature topics that most "layperson publications" don't because their target audience is highly educated and curious about what's going on in these areas. And the writer of the article is a physician in charge of supervising residents. That suggests that he knows what he's talking about. He was probably trying to debunk the myth of the "July effect." Besides, it's no secret that people fresh out of medical school are green. Perri Klass wrote something like, "When you graduate from medical school, there are only two people who really believe you are a doctor - you and your mom." And for those of you who haven't yet registered for NYT online access, I highly recommend that you do it. It's easy, it's free, and you will gain much more from it than you will from the hours you spend on SDN.
 
Apparently only 4 people on this site actually read this article... but like 50 people have something bad to say about it. It tries to debunk the myth that July is more dangerous than any other month, NOT say that it is

This continues throughout the article, and there is no "180 degree shift." See... this is what incomplete reading can do. If you read 5 sentences then yeah it is saying "we shouldn't go to the hospital in July" or if you get bored after reading the first paragraph, then you may think that "yeah he's saying that July is dangerous".
The author's "attitude" at the beginning of the article is not his own... He is presenting the attitude of someone else as something he will use facts later on to debunk. He does nothing to say that interns present a greater danger to patients except to say that they get little respect and are scared due to their lack of experience.

Maybe the doctor is a bad writer because he expected people to actually read the entire article!!!

The NYT's is a newspaper... written by people.... hence it will have biases. Ton's of papers have similar problems that the NYT's had, with journalists plagiarizing stories and even making them up. The reason why this got so much recognition is because the New York Times is considered the best newspaper in the country and people feel they should be above that sort of thing. It is the most widely circulated paper, nationally and internationally, and the mistakes in this paper are read by more people. Such mistakes by a group of journalists does not discredit this newspaper.
 
Top