Archive Page 119

The Art of Covering

I was a little taken aback when Dr. C. changed my patient from warfarin to one of the “Novel Anticoagulants”, and one I seldom use, at that.

I have only worked with her for about three years, and we seem to come from the same mold, seasoned family docs with a penchant for teaching and patient empowerment. I had not imagined she would step in and completely change my treatment plan when she was just covering for one day.

As far as which is safer, warfarin with variable therapeutic effect and fluctuating INRs or Novel Anticoagulants, which have hardly been studied at all in patients on dialysis, you won’t see test results that may worry you, but the unknowns are still there.

It was a judgment call, and she took it upon herself to change my treatment. She may never see that particular patient again, but that brief doctor-patient relationship has changed my patient’s risk of stroke, to the better or to the worse, I don’t know which way.

As we are now adding a couple of new providers to our clinic, I think back to discussions we had 20-25 years ago, when we had another major influx of providers.

We met back then to talk about what we all wanted from each other when “covering”, and we were all pretty clear that, even though we might feel tempted to tweak blood pressure medications, diabetic regimens or other things while treating an acute problem, we wouldn’t necessarily appreciate if someone did that to our patient and our treatment plan.

So we had a truce: We would deal with the problem at hand and suggest that the patient talk to their PCP about adjusting their treatment. As far as the acute situation, we agreed to emulate each other’s style a little. Dr. Z often gave very explicit advise on over the counter and alternative treatments for more or less self limited illnesses, while I have always been inclined to say, “those things won’t make this go away any faster, they just keep you busy while you wait”. I did a lot more handholding when I covered for Dr. Z. and I think she was less adamant about my patients spending money at the health food store.

Doctors aren’t all the same, and patients usually gravitate to providers who meet their needs. And, I hope this doesn’t surprise anybody, there are many different ways to treat the same problem. Trained “abroad” and old enough to have seen medical “facts” come and go, it has been obvious to me for a long time.

I think there is a balance here. A patient who seems dissatisfied with the status of their condition or its treatment deserves to hear that there are options, and a covering provider can point that out, but to offer such advise unsolicited can do more harm than good. We shouldn’t try to look smart at the expense of our colleagues. It may be better to approach that colleague privately and say, “do you still prefer warfarin over Xarelto in dialysis patients?”

I’m still thinking about that one.

Demonic Dreams and Irreversible Psychosis from Commonly Prescribed Big Gun Medications

My patient, a rugged sixty year old with massively muscular forearms, gray chest hair at the V of his denim shirt, and a voice that suggested years of liquor and unfiltered cigarettes, lowered his voice and leaned forward.

“I’m not usually scared of anything, but for three nights now, ever since I started taking the Levaquin for this pneumonia, I have had the most horrific nightmares. I can’t even talk about them, that’s how terrifying they are. I have never been so scared in my life. You’ve got to get me on a different antibiotic, or I would rather let the pneumonia run its course.”

I had never heard of such a side effect from this commonly used broad spectrum antibiotic, but a quick search on my iPhone yielded a long list of references to this phenomenon.

I agreed that he should stop his antibiotic, and prescribed a combination of two others that would be an appropriate treatment for him. I cautioned him to let us know if he started to feel worse on the new medications.

That night I did some research. It turns out levofloxacin and several other quinolone antibiotics can affect GABA receptors.

“CNS effects of quinolones correlate with its binding to the receptors for γ-amino butyric acid (GABA) in the brain. GABA is an inhibitory neurotransmitter of brain. Quinolones prevent normal binding of GABA with their receptors. So it increases CNS stimulation.[4] There are reports on quinolones directly activating N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) and adenosine receptors. Thus, under specific conditions of sufficient CNS penetration, associated with antagonism of inhibitory pathways (GABA) and stimulation of excitatory pathways (NMDA, adenosine), observable CNS symptoms are manifested. This mechanism explains the pathogenesis of the acute anxiety and insomnia in the above cases with levofloxacin therapy.[5,6] These mechanisms are even correlating with non-dopaminergic pathways of psychosis. It is even possible that the above-said cases might have progressed on to psychosis.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410005/

I thought back on another medication that I had seen cause bizarre and horrific psychological effects. The Swedish made antipsychotic quetiapine, or Seroquel, has caused frightening demonic visions and auditory hallucinations in a few patients I have encountered. While it seems unfortunate that an antipsychotic, often used off label for benign things like insomnia, can cause psychiatric symptoms, it isn’t totally unimaginable that when we try to chemically manipulate the mind, things can go wrong. I wondered if others had noticed the same side effect and if there was a known mechanism behind it.

It didn’t take long before I found that Seroquel can cause an upregulation of dopamine receptors and that, if treatment isn’t stopped, irreversible psychosis can develop with long term use.

“Theoretical model illustrating the ability of chronic treatment with antipsychotic medication to induce dopamine supersensitivity. It is proposed that with chronic antipsychotic treatment (synapse on the right), there are increases in the numbers of dopamine D2 receptors (D2) and D2 receptors in a high-affinity state for dopamine (D2High) in the striatum, without significant changes in presynaptic dopamine release, synthesis, or reuptake. In turn, the D2 receptor upregulation enhances D2-mediated dopamine signaling, shown by the red arrows, thus producing a state of supersensitivity to dopamine agonist stimulation. The functional consequences of this dopamine supersensitivity would include antipsychotic treatment failure, supersensitivity-related psychosis, and movement disorders.”

https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/477313

I was, as so often in my work, again humbled by the double edged power of the medications we prescribe for our patients, and by the tremendous responsibility we have of choosing the right medicine for the right purpose. I was reminded of the difference in mentality I observed when I first moved from Sweden to this country:

There, if the first treatment I chose didn’t work, it was nothing to be ashamed about. It simply justified using the “bigger guns”.

Here, if my first, and safest, treatment choice doesn’t work, it is a “treatment failure”. We are constantly tempted to prescribe the strongest medicine, which is often the most dangerous one.

What is Healthcare and Who Deserves it?

Today’s news if full of commentary about work requirements for Medicaid. Is work a prerequisite for healthcare or is health a prerequisite for work?

Not to complicate things, but can we even agree on what healthcare is? I don’t think we can, and it largely falls back on what we want to share in paying for.

A patient with an ugly skin lesion can have it removed if it might be cancer or if it bleeds or causes pain. If it is just ugly, it’s considered cosmetic, and insurance won’t pay for it.

A man wants a vasectomy, while another one regrets having one and wants it reversed. Is one procedure more medically necessary than the other and more deserving of societal cost sharing?

Even the most esoteric medical procedures, like freezing embryos or cloning children, could be called healthcare, but may not have society’s support when it comes to being necessary or desirable.

And, even as we speak, what about abortions? Are they healthcare or not?

In many ways, I think life was simpler practicing medicine in Socialized Sweden. The Government paid and the Government made the rules. Here, the Government makes some rules, the insurance industry makes others; the Government pays for some people’s care and the insurance industry pays for others. And the insurance companies all have different rules.

Since healthcare costs twice as much in this country as anywhere else in the world, it seems painfully obvious that we need to talk about what the purpose of healthcare is and, from a moral perspective, what we have a right to expect our fellow countrymen/women (if not citizens) to pay for.

It is remarkable that such an enormous slice of our budget and our life so much lacks definition and almost seems to be taboo to openly try to debate.

If we look at other aspects of cost sharing in our society, can we draw any useful parallels?

If a high school senior wants to repeat his senior year because he had so much fun, should he be able to do it for free? (Just a hypothetical example, I don’t know if anyone would really want to.)

If a child calls the fire department every time she smells smoke from the family barbecue, should the town charge the family or stop sending a fire truck?

If an amateur sailor capsizes every weekend and always calls Marine Patrol, should they keep responding?

In social policy terms, the word entitlement is used to define programs like Medicare and Medicaid. I think that is an unfortunate and very loaded word. Contrast that with another word that I personally keep coming back to: Stewardship.

It is time for a serious conversation about balancing stewardship and entitlement in healthcare. At least as long as it is not all self-pay: Taxes or insurance premiums both imply we want someone else to pay for some or much of what we think of as our personal healthcare.

My Triple Aim of Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addicted Patients

My second foray into Suboxone treatment has evolved in a way I had not expected, but I think I have stumbled onto something profound:

Almost six months into our in-house clinic’s existence, I have found myself prescribing and adjusting treatment for about half of my MAT patients for co-occurring anxiety, depression, bipolar disease and ADHD as well as restless leg syndrome, asthma and various infectious diseases.

Years ago, working in a mental health clinic, we had strict rules to defer everything to each patient’s primary care provider that wasn’t strictly related to Suboxone treatment. One problem was that many of our patients there didn’t have a medical home or had difficulty accessing services. Another problem was that primary care providers unfamiliar with opioid addiction treatment were uncomfortable prescribing almost anything to patients on Suboxone.

This time around, the majority of my patients come to our clinic for all of their health care, or decide after being in our program to establish as primary care patients. I am the PCP for a good portion, and as the Medical Director for my clinic I not only have access to their medical records, but I am thoroughly familiar with my primary care colleagues’ preferences, practice styles and personal clinical strengths and weaknesses. That allows me to know when it works best to steer patients toward separate appointments for, say, their anxiety, and when it works better to establish a treatment plan right then and there as they become increasingly stable on their Suboxone.

Being involved in our group sessions, seeing clients on a weekly basis, even if briefly sometimes, and sharing impressions in post-group debriefings with my substance abuse counselor, Behavioral Health Director and our dedicated MAT coordinator has given me a profound insight into the personalities and circumstances of my Suboxone patients. The sheer depth of my insight from our comprehensive approach has allowed me to initiate life changing medication treatments for a large handful of patients beyond merely Suboxone.

Through a new grant we will soon also have a case manager, who will help our patients navigate their way back into mainstream society.

It’s funny: I had pictured Suboxone treatment as a carve-out niche in my practice, but it has become the most comprehensive, integrated thing that I do.

Doctors and CEOs Need Time to Think

I’ve always likened the job of a primary care physician to that of a Chief Executive Officer of a small business. Family doctors manage the “business” of delivering and coordinating care for more than a thousand patients at an average cost, in the United States, of $8,500 per year – an $8-$12 million business. Because the actions or inactions of the PCP impact the need for, and cost of, specialist and hospital care “downstream” from the primary care office, I think of this as “our” business.

Because of this, I subscribe to the Harvard Business Review. I figure doctors must have some degree of common business sense. And in my medical education, the slant of the business education I got was mostly relevant in the context of Socialized Medicine. I think that is helpful and useful in my practice in a medically underserved area, but there’s more to primary care than serving the underserved on a national level.

Reading the article “How CEOs Manage Time” in the current issue of HBR, I was struck by how light the “grueling” schedule of an American CEO is compared to that of an ordinary family practitioner: 9.7 hours of work each weekday and 3.9 hours on each weekend day.

I was also intrigued by the statistic that 61% of CEOs’ time is spent face to face and 24% on electronic communication. Only an unspecified fraction of 15% is spent on reading written reports.

Undocumented as far as both CEOs and physicians, as far as I know, is how much time we spend researching and thinking. A pullout quote rings true for doctors as well:

I do think it is crucial for primary care doctors to consider the value of their time in a businesslike manner. I know our employers do, but I suspect there is much confusion and disagreement about how to make the best use of our time. In simpler times, doctors just saw patients and brought in professional fees commensurate with their efforts.

But in today’s climate, where outcomes data is starting to determine office revenue and where the health of casual or infrequent visitors to our offices affects our bottom line, we need to claim the value of our time – and I feel strongly that we must leverage our knowledge for the biggest possible impact within our organizations and for our patient populations.

That impact will be less and less determined by line worker type activities such as traditional face to face office visits, and more and more by how we guide and coordinate more and more aspects of our enrolled patients’ health care.

We have added layers of staff to do this coordination work, but in many cases physicians have been peripheral, remaining too heavily involved in the traditional physician activities and not lending their medical common sense and “street smarts” to what could easily become a bloated and disconnected layer of bureaucracy.

Just like a CEO can be the originator and spokesperson for a corporate philosophy while making sure there are middle managers who can reinforce the message on a daily basis, we must be able to shape the overarching medical philosophy and the clinical pathways within our organizations. By doing that, we can more safely delegate tasks while also constantly overseeing and officially promoting and supporting the work that is done by care managers, health educators, nurses and medical assistants.

But just like CEOs, we can’t be spending all our time in meetings, face to face encounters and answering electronic messages. We need some time to research, consider and create. And the more our routine tasks spill over into nights and weekends, the less chance there is that we can think creatively and leapfrog our organizations into the next level of healthcare delivery.


I just realized none of the posts show on an iPad or a computer, but they do show on an iPhone. WordPress is working on this. In the meantime, please visit my Substack.

 

 

Osler said “Listen to your patient, he is telling you the diagnosis”. Duvefelt says “Listen to your patient, he is telling you what kind of doctor he needs you to be”.

 

BOOKS BY HANS DUVEFELT, MD

CONDITIONS, Chapter 1: An Old, New Diagnosis

Top 25 Doctor Blogs Award

Doctor Blogs

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Mailbox

contact @ acountrydoctorwrites.com
Bookmark and Share
© A Country Doctor Writes, LLC 2008-2022 Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given.