Just to clarify a few things here--I do find it interesting that people at Hopkins still talk of the inappropriate efforts on my part to follow the "channels of communication." I know I was criticized extensively for this last year, and much of the retaliation was justified in residents' mind because of this argument. I know it's been over a year since this happened, but it's ironic that this statement still seems to circulate, despite various publications and reports that indicate the contrary.
It was my effort to follow the "appropriate channels" that led to Dr. Wiener's (the Hopkins IM program director) identification of me as the letter writer and the directed retaliation from the administration and residents. As I've mentioned numerous times, I spoke with my supervising residents, my attending physician, and my program director prior to submitting my signed letter to the ACGME, in which I reported the violations. In my efforts to follow the "appropriate channels," I was told that nothing could be done about the violations. All agreed, of course, that the program was in blatant violation of the regs. The story is outlined in the residentdiary.com link included in this thread, as well as in articles by the Associated Press, in The New Physician, in business journals, and in a piece I wrote for The New Physician.
Unfortunately, it is exactly this argument that individuals must follow the "appropriate channels" that will continue to lead to the violations NinetyNiner999 suggest currently exist in the Hopkins Department of Internal Medicine; anonymous reporting procedures do not exist for the ACGME work hours regs, and, due to the nature of the ACGME enforcement policies, residents and administration seem to feel justified in retaliating against those who report because of the damage that report may do to the program.
Troy Madsen
Ohio State EM, PGY-2