The Top 5 In-Demand Specialties for Physicians

Selecting a specialty is one of the most important career-related decisions a physician will have to make. These five are in high demand.

When becoming a physician, selecting a specialty is one of the most important decisions you will have to make. It will set the tone for your entire career, and it is often an indicator of how easy or how hard finding a job will be. If you are in the fence about which type of medicine to specialize in, here are the top five in-demand specialties, according to data from our job board, as well as their average salaries and the states with the highest demand, to help you make the right decision.

  1. Mental Health
    Average Salary: $200,741-$250,598
    States with the Most Demand: California, New York, Virginia
  2. Internal Medicine
    Average Salary: $194,166-$244,910
    States with the Most Demand: New York, Texas, California
  3. Surgery
    Average Salary: $326,660-$458,449
    States with the Most Demand: New York, Connecticut, California
  4. Urgent Care
    Average Salary: $146,000-$308,000
    States with the Most Demand: California, Washington, Minnesota
  5. Radiology
    Average Salary: $353,566-$470,465
    States with the Most Demand: California, Pennsylvania, Florida

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

The States with the Most Healthcare Job Openings

Some states prove to be a safer bet in terms of finding a job in healthcare, due to the sheer number available. Here are the states with the most right now.

Healthcare job growth has been strong in 2019, as expected—the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics has long projected the healthcare sector to see some of the fastest and most consistent growth through 2022. So, where are the jobs? Here are the five states with the most healthcare jobs available right now.

  1. California
    Jobs Available: 8,541
    Top Positions: Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, Speech Language Pathologists
  2. Texas
    Jobs Available: 4,702
    Top Positions: Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Physicians, Speech Language Pathologists
  3. New York
    Jobs Available: 2,647
    Top Positions: Registered Nurses, Nurse Practitioners, Physicians, Physical Therapists, Physician Assistants
  4. Illinois
    Jobs Available: 2,210
    Top Positions: Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Nurse Practitioners, Speech Language Pathologists
  5. Virginia
    Jobs Available: 2,125
    Top Positions: Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists, Physicians, Occupational Therapists

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

NPs Bite Back at Physicians’ Call for Public Advocacy Campaign

Physicians and Nurse Practitioners have been battling it out online in the form of open letters this past week, with both calling on the AMA to step in.

An open letter penned by the President of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Sophia L. Thomas, DNP, FNP, PNP, FAANP, was posted to the AANP website this week, and in it, calls for the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and its Resident Student Association to retract their own open letter, which they released last week, asking “Where is the Public Campaign Advocating for Physicians?”

The AANP’s letter stated that the AAEM’s letter, which was written by Haig Aintablian, MD, President of the AAEM/RSA, and David A. Farcy, MD FAAEM FCCM, President of the AAEM, “was riddled with blatant inaccuracies and self-serving statements that seek to undermine the NP profession and devalue the health care needs of patients nationwide.”

One of the inaccuracies pointed out in the AANP’s letter is where the AAEM’s said, “the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) has put forth a significant public campaign challenging physician education and compassion with slogans such as “brain of a doctor, heart of a nurse” going so far as airing commercials recommending patients actively choose a nurse practitioner over a physician for one’s health care.”

Thomas said in the NP letter, “AANP is proud of its public awareness campaign that highlights the role of the NP as well as the patients who choose them as their primary care providers. Our goal is to expand public awareness of the NP role and to encourage more patients to consider an NP.”

She went on to explain, “To be clear, AANP never conceived of nor sponsored “brain of a doctor, heart of a nurse” as a tagline in any advertising campaign or as content in any official social post issued from our organizational social accounts. In fact, we find the entire premise insulting, as 50 years of research clearly demonstrate, the “brains” of NPs drive health care outcomes equivalent to physicians, year in and year out.”

The AANP letter closes by saying, “It is time for the American Medical Association (AMA), AAEM and AAEM/RSA to put patients first and let them choose their own provider. Only then can we make patient-centered, accessible health care available to all. AANP stands ready to work with medicine to find reasonable solutions to the issues where we differ and promote high-quality health care together for all of our nation’s citizens.”

The AAEM/RSA letter can be found here, and the AANP’s reply can be found here

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

U.S. Medical Students Less Likely To Choose Primary Care Path

The primary care physician shortage has long been predicted, and as less and less American med students choose that path, it is sure to become a reality.

By Victoria Knight

Despite hospital systems and health officials calling out the need for more primary care doctors, graduates of U.S. medical schools are becoming less likely to choose to specialize in one of those fields.

A record-high number of primary care positions was offered in the 2019 National Resident Matching Program — known to doctors as “the Match.” It determines where a medical student will study in their chosen specialty after graduation. But this year, the percentage of primary care positions filled by fourth-year medical students was the lowest on record.

“I think part of it has to do with income,” said Mona Signer, the CEO of the Match. “Primary care specialties are not the highest paying.” She suggested that where a student gets a degree also influences the choice. “Many medical schools are part of academic medical centers where research and specialization is a priority,” she said.

The three key primary care fields are internal medicine, family medicine and pediatrics. According to the 2019 Match report, 8,116 internal medicine positions were offered, the highest number on record and the most positions offered within any specialty, but only 41.5% were filled by seniors pursuing their M.D.s from U.S. medical schools. Similar trends were seen this year in family medicine and pediatrics.

In their final year of medical school, students apply and interview for residency programs in their chosen specialty. The Match, a nonprofit group, then assigns them a residency program based on how the applicant and the program ranked each other.

Since 2011, the percentage of U.S.-trained allopathic, or M.D., physicians who have matched into primary care positions has been on the decline, according to an analysis of historical Match data by Kaiser Health News.

But, over the same period, the percentage of U.S.-trained osteopathic and foreign-trained physicians matching into primary care roles has increased. 2019 marks the first year in which the percentage of osteopathic and foreign-trained doctors surpassed the percentage of U.S. trained medical doctors matching into primary care positions.

Medical colleges granting M.D. degrees graduate nearly three-quarters of U.S. students moving on to become doctors. The rest graduate from osteopathic schools, granting D.O. degrees. The five medical schools with the highest percentage of graduates who chose primary care are all osteopathic institutions, according to the latest U.S. News & World Report survey.

Beyond the standard medical curriculum, osteopathic students receive training in manipulative medicine, a hands-on technique focused on muscles and joints that can be used to diagnose and treat conditions. They are licensed by states and work side by side with M.D.s in physician practices and health systems.

Although the osteopathic graduates have been able to join the main residency match or go through a separate osteopathic match through this year, in 2020 the two matches will be combined.

Physicians who are trained at foreign medical schools, including both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, also take unfilled primary care residency positions. In the 2019 match, 68.9% of foreign-trained physicians went into internal medicine, family medicine and pediatrics.

But, despite osteopathic graduates and foreign-trained medical doctors taking up these primary care spots, a looming primary care physician shortage is still expected.

The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts a shortage of between 21,100 and 55,200 primary care physicians by 2032. More doctors will be needed in the coming years to care for aging baby boomers, many of whom have multiple chronic conditions. The obesity rate is also increasing, which portends more people with chronic health problems.

Studies have shown that states with a higher ratio of primary care physicians have better health and lower rates of mortality. Patients who regularly see a primary care physician also have lower health costs than those without one.

But choosing a specialty other than primary care often means a higher paycheck.

According to a recently published survey of physicians conducted by Medscape, internal medicine doctors’ salaries average $243,000 annually. That’s a little over half of what the highest earners, orthopedic physicians, make with an average annual salary of $482,000. Family medicine and pediatrics earn even less than internal medicine, at $231,000 and $225,000 per year, respectively.

Dr. Eric Hsieh, the internal medicine residency program director at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, said another deterrent is the amount of time primary care doctors spend filling out patients’ electronic medical records.

“I don’t think people realize how involved electronic medical records are,” said Hsieh. “You have to synthesize everything and coordinate all of the care. And something that I see with the residents in our program is that the time spent on electronic medical records rather than caring for patients frustrates them.”

The Medscape survey confirms this. Internists appear to be more burdened with paperwork than other specialties, and 80% of internists report spending 10 or more hours a week on administrative tasks.

The result: Only 62% of internal medicine doctors said they would choose to go into their specialty again — the lowest percentage on record for all physician specialties surveyed.

Elsa Pearson, a health policy analyst at Boston University, said one way to keep and attract primary care doctors might be to shift some tasks to health care providers who aren’t doctors, such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants.

“The primary care that they provide compared to a physician is just as effective,” said Pearson. They wouldn’t replace physicians but could help lift the burden and free up doctors for more complicated care issues.

Pearson said more medical scribes, individuals who take notes for doctors while they are seeing patients, could also help to ease the doctors’ burden of electronic health record documentation.

Another solution is spreading the word about the loan forgiveness programs available to those who choose to pursue primary care, usually in an underserved area of the country, said Dr. Tyree Winters, the associate director of the pediatric residency program at Goryeb Children’s Hospital in New Jersey.

“The trend has been more so thinking about the amount of debt that a student has, compared to potential income in primary care,” said Winters. “But that’s not considering things like medical debt forgiveness through state or federal programs, which really can help individuals who want to choose primary care.”

KHN data correspondent Sydney Lupkin contributed to this report.


Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

AMA Lawsuit Puts Doctors In the Middle of Abortion Debate

The American Medical Association is suing over two abortion-related laws, because they force physicians to lie to patients, “to commit an ethical violation.”

Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News

The American Medical Association is suing North Dakota to block two abortion-related laws, the latest signal the doctors’ group is shifting to a more aggressive stance as the Trump administration and state conservatives ratchet up efforts to eliminate legal abortion.

The group, which represents all types of physicians, has tended to stay on the sidelines of many controversial political issues, and until recently has done so concerning abortion and contraception. Instead, it has focused on legislation that affects the practice and finances of large swaths of its membership.

But, said AMA President Patrice Harris in an interview, the organization felt it had to take a stand because new laws forced the small number of doctors who perform abortions to lie to patients, putting “physicians in a place where we are required by law to commit an ethical violation.”

One of the laws, set to take effect Aug. 1, requires physicians to tell patients that medication abortions — a procedure involving two drugs taken at different times — can be reversed. The AMA said that is “a patently false and unproven claim unsupported by scientific evidence.” North Dakota is one of several states to pass such a measure.

The AMA, along with the last remaining abortion clinic in the state, is also challenging an existing North Dakota law that requires doctors to tell pregnant women that an abortion terminates “the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” The AMA said that law “unconstitutionally forces physicians to act as the mouthpiece of the state.”

It’s the second time this year the AMA has taken legal action on an abortion-related issue. In March, the group filed a lawsuit in Oregon in response to the Trump administration’s new rules for the federal family planning program. Those rules would, among other things, ban doctors and other health professionals from referring pregnant patients for abortions.

“The Administration is putting physicians in an untenable situation, prohibiting us from having open, frank conversations with our patients about all their health care options — a violation of patients’ rights under the [AMA] Code of Medical Ethics,” wrote then-AMA President Barbara McAneny.

It’s an unusually assertive stance for a group that has taken multiple positions on abortion-related issues over the years.

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University who has written several books about abortion, said that the AMA’s history on abortion is complicated. In general, she said, the AMA “didn’t want to get into the [abortion] issue because of the political fallout and because historically there have been doctors in the AMA on both sides of the issue.”

In recent years, the AMA has taken mostly a back seat on abortion issues, even ones that directly addressed physician autonomy, leaving the policy lead to specialty groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has consistently defended doctors’ rights to practice medicine as they see fit when it comes to abortion issues.

Ziegler said it is not entirely clear why the AMA has suddenly become more outspoken on women’s reproductive issues. One reason could be that the organization’s membership is skewing younger and less conservative. Also, this year, for the first time, the AMA’s top elected officials are all women.

In its earliest days, the AMA led the fight to outlaw abortion in the late 1800s, as doctors wanted to assert their professionalism and clear the field of “untrained” practitioners like midwives.

Abortion was not an issue for the group in the first half of the 20th century. The AMA became best known for successful fights to fend off a national health insurance system.

Leading up to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, the AMA softened its opposition. In 1970, the AMA board called for abortion decisions to be between “a woman and her doctor.” But the organization declined to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the high court during its consideration of Roe.

In 1997, the AMA, in a surprise move, endorsed a GOP-backed measure to ban what opponents called “partial-birth abortions,” a little-used procedure that anti-abortion forces likened to infanticide. A year later, however, an audit of the AMA’s leadership found its trustees had “blundered” in endorsing the bill and had contradicted long-standing AMA policy.

One reason the organization may be moving on the issue now could be the shifting parameters of the abortion debate itself. In 1997, the abortion procedure ban that the AMA endorsed “polled well and allowed abortion opponents to paint the other side as extremist,” Ziegler said.

Exactly the opposite is true today, she said, as states pass abortion bans more sweeping than those seen at any time since Roe v. Wade. Yet most public opinion polls show a majority of Americans want abortion to remain legal in many or most cases.

“As abortion opponents take more extreme positions, the AMA is probably a little more comfortable intervening” Ziegler added.

Molly Duane, a lawyer from the Center for Reproductive Rights who is arguing the case for the AMA and North Dakota’s sole remaining abortion clinic, said the laws being challenged are “something all doctors should be alarmed by. … This is an unprecedented act of invading the physician-patient relationship and forcing words into the mouths of physicians.”

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

89% of Patients Consult “Dr. Google” First

Dr. Google is in. 89% of patients queue up Google and search for their symptoms before going to see a medical provider. But this isn’t exactly a good thing.

No matter what symptoms you Google, it seems as though the search engine ends up painting a bleak picture, returning worst-case-scenarios like that you are having a heart attack, or that you have cancer, or any number of complex diseases or conditions. Or maybe even worse, it downplays more serious conditions. Yet, for some reason, 89% of patients queue up Google and search for their symptoms before going to see a medical provider.

The reason? According to a recent survey conducted by eligibility.com, where the staggering number came from, it is because patients wanted to see just how serious their symptoms were before seeking a professional diagnosis and treatment.

This practice comes with its own problems, of course, since Dr. Google is not an actual doctor and neither are the people who are Googling their symptoms. For instance, Googling “nasal congestion,” which is the most popular symptom Googled in Texas, Georgia, and Florida, returns the following possibly related, mildly problematic health conditions: seasonal allergies, common cold, sinusitis, upper respiratory infection, and animal allergy. However, it can also be a symptom of something more serious that should not go ignored, such as thyroid disorders, the flu, or even pregnancy, and Google has absolutely no way of saying for certain. Meanwhile, on the other side of it, patients who Google their symptoms can be susceptible to “cyberchondria,” a sort of adjunct hypochondria, in which they experience unreasonably high anxiety regarding common symptoms due to their search behavior.

While Google may be a useful tool for a lot of things, one thing is for certain: it is no replacement for a living, breathing medical professional. And even Google will tell you that.

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

Surgeons’ Opioid-Prescribing Habits are Dangerous, Persistent

As the opioid crisis escalated into an epidemic across the U.S., thousands of surgeons continued to hand out far more pills than needed.

Julie Appleby, Kaiser Health News and Elizabeth Lucas, Kaiser Health News

As opioid addiction and deadly overdoses escalated into an epidemic across the U.S., thousands of surgeons continued to hand out far more pills than needed for postoperative pain relief, according to a KHN-Johns Hopkins analysis of Medicare data.

Many doctors wrote prescriptions for dozens of opioid tablets after surgeries — even for operations that cause most patients relatively little pain, according to the analysis, done in collaboration with researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It examined almost 350,000 prescriptions written for patients operated on by nearly 20,000 surgeons from 2011 to 2016 — the latest year for which data are available.

Some surgeons wrote prescriptions for more than 100 opioid pills in the week following the surgery. The total amounts often exceeded current guidelines from several academic medical centers, which call for zero to 10 pills for many of the procedures in the analysis, and up to 30 for coronary bypass surgery.

While hundreds of state and local lawsuits have been filed against opioid manufacturers, claiming they engaged in aggressive and misleading marketing of these addictive drugs, the role of physicians in contributing to a national tragedy has received less scrutiny. Research shows that a significant portion of people who become addicted to opioids started with a prescription after surgery.

In sheer numbers, opioid prescribing in the U.S. peaked in 2010, but it remains among the highest in the world, according to studies and other data.

In 2016, opioids of all kinds were linked to 42,249 deaths, up from the 33,091 reported in 2015. The opioid-related death rate jumped nearly 28% from the year before, according to the CDC.

Yet long-ingrained and freewheeling prescribing patterns changed little over the six years analyzed. KHN and Johns Hopkins examined the prescribing habits of all U.S. surgeons who frequently perform seven common surgical procedures and found that in the first week after surgery:

  • Coronary artery bypass patients operated on by the highest-prescribing 1% of surgeons filled prescriptions in 2016 exceeding an average of 105 opioid pills.
  • Patients undergoing a far less painful procedure — a lumpectomy to remove a breast tumor — were given an average of 26 pills in 2016 the week after surgery. The highest-prescribing 5% of surgeons prescribed 40 to 70 pills on average.
  • Some knee surgery patients took home more than 100 pills in the week following their surgery.

Those amounts — each “pill” in the analysis was the equivalent of 5 milligrams of oxycodone — are many times what is currently recommended by some physician groups to relieve acute pain, which occurs as a result of surgery, accident or injury. The analysis included only patients not prescribed opioids in the year before their operation.

“Prescribers should have known better” based on studies and other information available at the time, said Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University and director of the advocacy group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.

While the dataset included only prescriptions written for patients on Medicare, the findings may well understate the depth of the problem, since doctors are more hesitant to give older patients the powerful painkillers because of their sedating side effects.

Surgeons’ prescribing habits are significant because studies show that 6% of patients who are prescribed opioids after surgery will still be taking them three to six months later, having become dependent. The likelihood of persistent use rises with the number of pills and the length of time opioids are taken during recuperation.

Also, unused pills in medicine cabinets can make their way onto the street.

Dr. Marty Makary, a surgical oncologist at Johns Hopkins, admits that he too once handed out opioids liberally. Now he is marshaling a campaign to get surgeons to use these powerful painkillers more consciously and sparingly. “I think there’s an ‘aha’ moment that many of us in medicine have had or need to have,” he said.

But old habits are hard to kick.

KHN contacted dozens of the surgeons who topped the ranks of opioid prescribers in the 2016 database. They hailed from small, community hospitals as well as major academic medical centers. The majority declined to comment, some bristling when questioned.

Look Up Opioid Prescribers: Search KHN Database By Doctor, Hospital

Some of those surgeons were critical of the analysis, saying it didn’t take into account certain essential factors. For example, it was not possible to determine whether patients had complications or needed higher amounts of pain medication for another reason. And some surgeons had only a handful of patients who filled prescriptions, making for a small sample size.

But surgeons also indicated that the way they prescribe pain pills was less than intentional. It was sometimes an outgrowth of computer programs that default to preset amounts following procedures, or practice habits developed before the opioid crisis. Additionally, they blame efforts in the late 1990s and early 2000s that encouraged doctors and hospitals to consider pain as “the fifth vital sign.” A major hospital accrediting group required providers to ask patients how well their pain was treated. Pharmaceutical companies used the fifth vital sign campaign as a way to promote their opioid treatments.

Makary, who oversaw the analysis of the Medicare dataset, said that, while opioid prescribing is slowly dropping, to date many surgeons have not paid enough attention to the problem or responded with sufficient urgency.

Dr. Audrey Garrett, an oncologic surgeon in Oregon, said she was “surprised” to hear that she was among the top tier of prescribers. She said she planned to re-evaluate her clinic’s automated prescribing program, which is set to order specific amounts of opioids.

KHN will analyze data for 2017 and subsequent years when it becomes available to follow how prescribing is changing.

Prescribing Patterns Highlight What’s At Stake 

The analysis examined prescribing habits after seven common procedures: coronary artery bypass, minimally invasive gallbladder removal, lumpectomy, meniscectomy (which removes part of a torn meniscus in the knee), minimally invasive hysterectomy, open colectomy and prostatectomy.

Across the board, the analysis showed that physicians gave a large number of narcotics when fewer pills or alternative medications, including over-the-counter pain relief tablets, could be equally effective, according to recent guidelines from Makary and other academic researchers.

On average, from 2011 to 2016, Medicare patients in the analysis took home 48 pills in the week following coronary artery bypass; 31 following laparoscopic gallbladder removal; 28 after a lumpectomy; 41 after meniscectomy; 34 after minimally invasive hysterectomy; 34 after open colon surgery; and 33 after prostatectomy.

According to post-surgical guidelines spearheaded by Makary for his hospital last year, those surgeries should require at most 30 pills for bypass; 10 pills for minimally invasive gallbladder removal, lumpectomy, minimally invasive hysterectomy and prostatectomy; and eight pills for knee surgery. It has not yet published a guideline for open colon surgery.

The Johns Hopkins’ doctors developed their own standards because of a dearth of national guidelines for post-surgical opioids. They arrived at those figures after reaching a consensus among surgeons, nurses, patients and other medical staff on how many pills were needed after particular surgeries.

Hoping to reduce overprescribing, Makary is preparing to send letters next month to surgeons around the country who are among the highest opioid prescribers under a grant he received from the Arnold Foundation, a nonprofit group whose focus includes drug price issues. (Kaiser Health News also received funding from the Arnold Foundation.)

Even if the prescription numbers have fallen since 2016, the amounts given today are likely still excessive.

“When prescribing may have been five to 20 times too high, even a reduction that is quite meaningful still likely reflects overprescribing,” said Dr. Chad Brummett, an anesthesiologist and associate professor at the University of Michigan.

Brummett is also co-director of the Michigan Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, a collaboration of physicians that makes surgery-specific recommendations, many of them in the 10- to 20-pill range.

“Reducing unnecessary exposure is key to reducing the risk of new addiction,” said former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Scott Gottlieb. In August 2018, when Gottlieb was at the agency’s helm, it commissioned a report from the National Academy of Sciences on how best to set opioid prescribing guidelines for acute pain from specific conditions or surgical procedures. Its findings are expected later this year.

“There are still too many 30-tablet prescriptions being written,” said Gottlieb.

Healers Sowing Disease?

Naturally, surgeons rankle at the idea that they played a role in the opioid epidemic. But studies raise serious concerns.

Transplant surgeon Dr. Michael Engelsbe, director of the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, points to the study showing 6% of post-op patients who get opioids for pain develop long-term dependence. That means a surgeon who does 300 operations a year paves the way for 18 newly dependent people, he said.

Many patients do not need the amounts prescribed.

Intermountain Healthcare, a not-for-profit system of hospitals, clinics, and doctors in Utah, began surveying patients two years ago to find out how much of their prescribed supply of opioids they actually took following surgery.

“Globally, we were overprescribing by 50%,” said Dr. David Hasleton, senior medical director.

But Intermountain approached individual doctors carefully. “If you go to a prescriber to say, ‘You are overprescribing,’ it never goes well. A common reaction is, ‘Your data is wrong’ or ‘My patients are different than his,’” said Hasleton.

For the analysis, KHN attempted to contact more than 50 surgeons whose 2016 numbers ranked them among the top prescribers in each surgical category.

One who did agree to speak was Dr. Daniel J. Waters, who 13 years ago had his chest cut open to remove a tumor, an operation technically similar to what he does for a living: coronary artery bypass.

“So I have both the doctor perspective and the patient perspective,” said Waters, who practices in Mason City, Iowa.

In 2016, Waters’ Medicare bypass patients who filled their prescriptions took home an average of nearly 157 pills each, according to the KHN-Johns Hopkins analysis.

“When I went home from the hospital, 30 would not have been enough,” said Waters of the number recommended by the Hopkins team for that surgery.

But he said he has recently curbed his prescribing to 84 pills.

Nationally, the average prescription filled for a coronary artery bypass was 49 pills in 2016 and had changed little since 2011, the analysis shows.

Others who spoke with KHN said they had developed the habit of prescribing copiously — sometimes giving out multiple opioid prescriptions — because they didn’t want patients to get stuck far from the office or over a weekend with pain or because they were trying to avoid calls from dissatisfied, hurting patients.

In the KHN-Johns Hopkins data, the seven patients of Dr. Antonio Santillan-Gomez who filled opioid prescriptions after minimally invasive hysterectomies in 2016 received an average of 77 pills each.

A gynecologic oncologist, Santillan-Gomez said: “I’m in San Antonio, and some of my patients come from Laredo or Corpus Christi, so they would have to drive two to three hours for a prescription.”

Still, he said, since e-prescribing of opioids became more widespread in the past few years, he and other surgeons in his group have limited prescriptions to 20 to 30 pills and encouraged patients to take Tylenol or other over-the-counter medications if they run out. E-prescribing can not only help track patients getting opioids but also reduce the problem of patients having to drive back to the office to get a written prescription.

Dr. Janet Grange, a breast surgeon in Omaha, Neb., said that in her experience, opioid dependence had not been a problem.

“I can absolutely tell you I don’t have even 1% who become long-term opioid users,” said Grange.

The analysis showed that Grange had 12 opioid-naïve Medicare patients who had a lumpectomy in 2016. Eight of them filled prescriptions for an average of 47 pills per patient.

She called Johns Hopkins’ zero-to-10-pill pain-control recommendation following that procedure “miserly.”

The Pendulum Swings

Some of the higher-prescribing surgeons in the KHN-Johns Hopkins analysis reflected on their potential contribution to a national catastrophe and are changing their practice.

“That is a shocking number,” said oncologist Garrett, speaking of the finding that 6% of patients who go home with opioids will become dependent. “If it’s true, it’s something we need to educate physicians on much earlier in their medical careers.”

Garrett, in Eugene, Ore., said she has cut back on the number of pills she gives patients since 2016. The KHN-Johns Hopkins analysis showed that seven of her 13 opioid-naïve Medicare patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomies filled a prescription for opioids in 2016. Those patients took home an average of 76 pills each.

Johns Hopkins guidelines call for no more than 10 opioid pills following this procedure, while Brummett’s Michigan network recommends no more than 15.

Surgeon and researcher Dr. Richard Barth, once a heavy prescriber himself, said that his own experience convinced him that physicians’ preconceptions about how much pain relief is needed are often way off.

The analysis showed his lumpectomy patients in 2013 filled an average of 33 pills in the week after surgery. By 2016, that average had dropped to seven pills. Many patients, he said, can do just fine after lumpectomy with over-the-counter medications — and often no opioids at all.

The key, he said, is to set patients’ expectations upfront.

“I tell them it’s OK to have a little discomfort, that we’re not trying to get to zero pain,” said Barth, who is chief of general surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and has published extensively on opioid prescribing.

After lumpectomy, “what I recommend is Tylenol and ibuprofen for at least a few days and to use the opioids only if the discomfort isn’t relieved by those.”

Indeed, the data analysis showed that a significant number of patients given prescriptions for opioids never filled them because they don’t need that level of pain relief.

Between 2011 and 2016, for example, only 62% of lumpectomy patients in the analysis filled prescriptions, similar to hysterectomy patients.

In 2016, patients of Dr. Kimberli Cox, a surgeon in Peoria, Ariz., were prescribed about 59 pills in the week following lumpectomy, well above the recommendations from both Johns Hopkins and others.

But the KHN-Johns Hopkins analysis of that year’s data shows that half of her patients never filled a painkiller prescription — a fact she acknowledges has changed her thinking.

“I am now starting to prescribe less because many patients say, ‘You gave me too many’ or ‘I didn’t fill it,” she said.

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

Your Practice’s Online Presence Matters

The patients have spoken—an online presence and well thought out customer experience are critical components when it comes to choosing a physician or practice.

The patients have spoken—an online presence and well thought out customer experience are critical components of their choice in and retention of a practice and physician, or so says the recent Customer Experience Trends in Healthcare report from doctor.com.

The study, in which 1,718 U.S. adult patients participated, found that 80% of consumers used the internet to make a healthcare-related search in the past year, and that 81% of patients will read reviews about a provider, even after they have been referred to them. If your practice is not online—or worse, if you have a negative presence online—your practice could be suffering. 90% of survey respondents stated that will frequently or always change their mind about a referral due to the provider’s poor or weak online reputation (a rating of less than three out of five stars), and 60% stated they would not book with a provider with poor quality reviews. That rings true across all age groups, too, not just the tech-savvy millennial population—of those respondents over age 60, 76% said they have used the internet to make a healthcare related search in the last year, and 90% will change their mind about seeing a referred healthcare provider with a rating of less than 3 stars online.

It isn’t just about reputation, though. Patients are also seeking a seamless digital experience, as well. 45% of respondents stated they prefer to use digital methods, such as a patient portal, to request an appointment, and 42% will choose a provider exclusively for access to this. Another 71% said they prefer appointment reminders via text or email, really driving home the importance of integrating digital tools for a more complete customer experience.

If you have yet to take your online presence seriously, now is the time, for as technology evolves—and it does at a rapid rate—users of all ages are quick to adopt it, and they want to see it everywhere, even in their healthcare.

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

Do “Rude” Surgeons See Worse Patient Outcomes?

Not all surgeons are unprofessional. But when they are, do their patient outcomes suffer? It seems so, according to a new study published this week.

We can just get this out of the way, right up front: No, not all surgeons are jerks. Or unprofessional. Or think that they are God. But the stereotype persists. Surgeons, whether it is earned or not, do not have the strongest reputation for being warm, friendly paragons of professionalism. And, when this is true, when they are actually that way, it may mean worse outcomes for their patients, or so says a new study published in JAMA Surgery.

The study posed the following question: Do patients of surgeons with a higher number of coworker reports about unprofessional behavior experience a higher rate of postoperative complications than patients whose surgeons have no such reports?

The answer? It seems so.

For the study, researchers examined data on nearly 13,700 surgical patients and 202 surgeons from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, and analyzed post-op reports to identify any complication during the 30-day postoperative period, as well as whether or not the surgeons’ colleagues reported four kinds of unprofessional behavior: concerns about poor or unsafe care, unclear or disrespectful communication, lack of integrity, and an absence of professional responsibility.

The researchers found that when surgeons had one or more reports of unprofessional behavior during the previous 36 months, their patients were 12% to 14% more likely to experience surgical or medical complications during or following surgery.

The study concludes that, “It would seem that organizations interested in ensuring optimal patient outcomes should focus on addressing surgeons whose behavior toward other medical professionals may increase their patients’ risk for adverse outcomes.”

Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.

Never Say ‘Die’: Why So Many Doctors Won’t Break Bad News

The majority of patients with serious illness receive news in what researchers call a “suboptimal way.” Could training physicians to deliver bad news help?

JoNel Aleccia, Kaiser Health News

PORTLAND, Ore. — After nearly 40 years as an internist, Dr. Ron Naito knew what the sky-high results of his blood test meant. And it wasn’t good.

But when he turned to his doctors last summer to confirm the dire diagnosis — stage 4 pancreatic cancer — he learned the news in a way no patient should.

The first physician, a specialist Naito had known for 10 years, refused to acknowledge the results of the “off-the-scale” blood test that showed unmistakable signs of advanced cancer. “He simply didn’t want to tell me,” Naito said.

A second specialist performed a tumor biopsy, and then discussed the results with a medical student outside the open door of the exam room where Naito waited.

“They walk by one time and I can hear [the doctor] say ‘5 centimeters,’” said Naito. “Then they walk the other way and I can hear him say, ‘Very bad.’”

Months later, the shock remained fresh.

“I knew what it was,” Naito said last month, his voice thick with emotion. “Once [tumors grow] beyond 3 centimeters, they’re big. It’s a negative sign.”

The botched delivery of his grim diagnosis left Naito determined to share one final lesson with future physicians: Be careful how you tell patients they’re dying.

Since August, when he calculated he had six months to live, Naito has mentored medical students at Oregon Health & Science University and spoken publicly about the need for doctors to improve the way they break bad news.

“Historically, it’s something we’ve never been taught,” said Naito, thin and bald from the effects of repeated rounds of chemotherapy. “Everyone feels uncomfortable doing it. It’s a very difficult thing.”

Robust research shows that doctors are notoriously bad at delivering life-altering news, said Dr. Anthony Back, an oncologist and palliative care expert at the University of Washington in Seattle, who wasn’t surprised that Naito’s diagnosis was poorly handled.

“Dr. Naito was given the news in the way that many people receive it,” said Back, who is a co-founder of VitalTalk, one of several organizations that teach doctors to improve their communication skills. “If the system doesn’t work for him, who’s it going to work for?”

Up to three-quarters of all patients with serious illness receive news in what researchers call a “suboptimal way,” Back estimated.

“’Suboptimal’ is the term that is least offensive to practicing doctors,” he added.

The poor delivery of Naito’s diagnosis reflects common practice in a country where Back estimates that more than 200,000 doctors and other providers could benefit from communication training.

Too often, doctors avoid such conversations entirely, or they speak to patients using medical jargon. They frequently fail to notice that patients aren’t following the conversation or that they’re too overwhelmed with emotion to absorb the information, Back noted in a recent article.

“[Doctors] come in and say, ‘It’s cancer,’ they don’t sit down, they tell you from the doorway, and then they turn around and leave,” he said.

That’s because for many doctors, especially those who treat cancer and other challenging diseases, “death is viewed as a failure,” said Dr. Brad Stuart, a palliative care expert and chief medical officer for the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care, or C-TAC. They’ll often continue to prescribe treatment, even if it’s futile, Stuart said. It’s the difference between curing a disease and healing a person physically, emotionally and spiritually, he added.

“Curing is what it’s all about and healing has been forgotten,” Stuart said.

The result is that dying patients are often ill-informed. A 2016 study found that just 5% of cancer patients accurately understood their prognoses well enough to make informed decisions about their care. Another study found that 80% of patients with metastatic colon cancer thought they could be cured. In reality, chemotherapy can prolong life by weeks or months, and help ease symptoms, but it will not stop the disease.

Without a clear understanding of the disease, a person can’t plan for death, Naito said.

“You can’t go through your spiritual life, you can’t prepare to die,” Naito said. “Sure, you have your [legal] will, but there’s much more to it than that.”

The doctors who treated him had the best intentions, said Naito, who declined to publicly identify them or the clinic where they worked. Reached for verification, clinic officials refused to comment, citing privacy rules.

Indeed, most doctors consider open communication about death vital, research shows. A 2018 telephone survey of physicians found that nearly all thought end-of-life discussions were important — but fewer than a third said they had been trained to have them.

Back, who has been urging better medical communication for two decades, said there’s evidence that skills can be taught — and that doctors can improve. Many doctors bridle at any criticism of their bedside manner, viewing it as something akin to “character assassination,” Back said.

“But these are skills, doctors can acquire them, you can measure what they acquire,” he said.

It’s a little like learning to play basketball, he added. You do layups, you go to practice, you play in games and get feedback — and you get better.

For instance, doctors can learn — and practice — a simple communication model dubbed “Ask-Tell-Ask.” They ask the patient about their understanding of their disease or condition; tell him or her in straightforward, simple language about the bad news or treatment options; then ask if the patient understood what was just said.

Naito shared his experience with medical students in an OHSU course called “Living With Life-Threatening Illness,” which pairs students with ill and dying patients.

“He was able to talk very openly and quite calmly about his own experience,” said Amanda Ashley, associate director of OHSU’s Center for Ethics in Health Care. “He was able to do a lot of teaching about how it might have been different.”

Alyssa Hjelvik, 28, a first-year medical student, wound up spending hours more than required with Naito, learning about what it means to be a doctor — and what it means to die. The experience, she said, was “quite profound.”

“He impressed upon me that it’s so critical to be fully present and genuine,” said Hjelvik, who is considering a career as a cancer specialist. “It’s something he cultivated over several years in practice.”

Naito, who has endured 10 rounds of chemotherapy, recently granted the center $1 million from the foundation formed in his name. He said he hopes that future doctors like Hjelvik — and current colleagues — will use his experience to shape the way they deliver bad news.

“The more people know this, it doesn’t have to be something you dread,” he said. “I think we should remove that from medicine. It can be a really heartfelt, deep experience to tell someone this, to tell another human being.”


Disclaimer: The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.