Search

Background: Physicians have dual responsibilities to make medical decisions that serve their patients' best interests but also utilize health care resources wisely. Their ability to practice cost-consciously is particularly challenged when faced with patient expectations or requests for medical services that may be unnecessary., Objective: To understand how physicians consider health care resources and the strategies they use to exercise cost-consciousness in response to patient expectations and requests for medical care., Design: Exploratory, qualitative focus groups of practicing physicians were conducted. Participants were encouraged to discuss their perceptions of resource constraints, and experiences with redundant, unnecessary and marginally beneficial services, and were asked about patient requests or expectations for particular services., Participants: Sixty-two physicians representing a variety of specialties and practice types participated in nine focus groups in Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota in 2012 MEASUREMENTS: Iterative thematic content analysis of focus group transcripts, Principal Findings: Physicians reported making trade-offs between a variety of financial and nonfinancial resources, considering not only the relative cost of medical decisions and alternative services, but the time and convenience of patients, their own time constraints, as well as the logistics of maintaining a successful practice. They described strategies and techniques to educate patients, build trust, or substitute less costly alternatives when appropriate, often adapting their management to the individual patient and clinical environment., Conclusions: Physicians often make nuanced trade-offs in clinical practice aimed at efficient resource use within a complex flow of clinical work and patient expectations. Understanding the challenges faced by physicians and the strategies they use to exercise cost-consciousness provides insight into policy measures that will address physician's roles in health care resource use.

Training in ethics and professionalism is a fundamental component of residency education, yet there is little empirical information to guide curricula. The objective of this study is to describe empirically derived ethics objectives for ethics and professionalism training for multiple specialties. Study design is a thematic analysis of documents, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups conducted in a setting of an academic medical center, Veterans Administration, and community hospital training more than 1000 residents. Participants were 84 informants in 13 specialties including residents, program directors, faculty, practicing physicians, and ethics committees. Thematic analysis identified commonalities across informants and specialties. Resident and nonresident informants identified consent, interprofessional relationships, family interactions, communication skills, and end-of-life care as essential components of training. Nonresidents also emphasized formal ethics instruction, resource allocation, and self-monitoring, whereas residents emphasized the learning environment and resident-attending interactions. Conclusions are that empirically derived learning needs for ethics and professionalism included many topics, such as informed consent and resource allocation, relevant for most specialties, providing opportunities for shared curricula and resources.

Informed choice of health insurance could morally justify later, potentially harmful rationing decisions the way informed consent justifies potentially harmful medical interventions. In complex and technical areas, however, individuals may base decisions more on trust than informed choice. We interviewed enrollees in managed care plans in Southeast Michigan, United States, to explore in detail their expectations and experiences in choosing and using their health plan. Diverse subjects participated in semi-structured interviews about health insurance choices, experiences, and expectations. Results are presented for the theme of trust (and distrust), which emerged spontaneously in discussions about health care and health insurance. Forty subjects diverse in age, ethnicity, and income took part in 31 interviews. Interviewees mentioned many of the elements of interpersonal trust in specific physicians, often in the context of discussions about care experiences, doctor payment, and conflict of interest. Elements included physical and emotional vulnerability, expectations of goodwill, advocacy and competence. and belief in professional ethics. Trust in the medical profession had more hesitancy, and often included mention of honesty or ethics. Elements of trust in hospitals included vulnerability to financial loss, and expectations of competence (quality). Elements of trust in health insurance plans often emerged in discussions about catastrophic illness coverage denials, and profit, and were more often negative. Vulnerability, worry, fear and security were prominent. Fiscal rather than clinical competence was emphasized, while expectations of goodwill remained. Enrollees in managed care plans spontaneously discussed trust and distrust in individuals and institutions during conversations about their insurance expectations and experiences. Similarities and differences in the elements and the context of these discussions illuminate distinctions between these healthcare relationships of trust.

Changes in the structure of the health care system have placed unprecedented stress on the surgeon-patient relationship. The essential trust placed in the surgeon by her patients has been weakened by changes in the structure and financing of the health care system. This article considers the historical and ethical foundation of the surgeon-patient relationship and proposes that the primary moral obligation of surgeons is to strengthen and earn patient trust. By improving communication skills, enhancing ethical education, serving as consistent advocates for patients, and conducting patient-focused outcome research, the surgical community can meet its moral obligation by increasing trust in the surgeon-patient relationship.

In response to three articles on managed care by Allen Buchanan, David Mechanic, and Ezekiel Emanual and Lee Goldman (this issue), I discuss doctor-patient and organization-member trust and the moral obligations of those relationships. Trust in managed care organizations (providers of and payers for health care) stands in stark contrast to the current contractual model of health insurance purchase, but is more coherent with consumer expectations and with the provider role of such organizations. Such trust is likely to differ from that between doctors and patients. Financial reimbursement systems for physicians, one example of organizational change in our health system, can be evaluated for their impact on both kinds of trust according to their intrusiveness, openness, and goals. Although involving managed care enrollees in value-laden decisions that affect them is commendable, restrictions on or regulation of physician incentive systems may be better accomplished on a national level.

Objective: Obtain detailed information about the frequency and content of discussions about withholding treatment between doctors and elderly outpatients., Design: Survey., Setting: Primary care geriatric clinic at an urban university., Participants: Twelve physicians and one nurse practitioner completed questionnaires for 185/198 (93.4%) patient visits., Measurements: Questionnaires were completed by physicians after each patient visit during August 1989. Interviews were conducted with physicians who had discussed limiting life-sustaining treatment with patients., Results: Ten percent (n = 19) of patients seen had had discussions with their physicians about life-sustaining treatment. These patients were older and had worse prognoses as estimated by their physicians. Physicians usually raised the issue with the families of demented patients and mentioned dementia, quality of life, prognosis, and the need to make other clinical decisions as motivation for initiating discussions. The majority of patients with poor prognoses, however, had not had discussions about life support., Conclusions: Despite increasing attention given to end-of-life decisions in the medical and lay press, discussions with elderly outpatients about limiting treatment occur rarely. They are more likely when patients are older or have worse prognoses, but age, prognosis, and poor quality of life do not consistently lead physicians to raise the issue.