Indentured Servitude

"Back in my day..." As I am at year nine post-residency, perhaps the work shifts that we were forced to absorb do not seem quite as brutal. Perhaps not. A few years ago, ACGME-- the accrediting body for medical residency-- (amidst threats of class action lawsuits) put out recommendations regarding residents weekly work hours. After recommendations from the Institute of Medicine's report on resident duty hours, ACGME is considering further recommendations, namely to a limit of a sixteen hour work day. The Rand Corporation has published a report in the New England Journal of Medicine, to warn the public that this will be and expensive change: to the tune of an estimated $1.6 Billion per year. Here's a snippet of the coverage from HealthDay:

For years, legislators and patient advocates have called for less grueling hours for medical residents to reduce the chances of medical errors.

Now, new research shows that allowing doctors-in-training to work fewer hours and take longer naps during their shifts won't come cheap -- it will cost the nation's teaching hospitals an estimated $1.6 billion a year.

And there are no guarantees that shortening the shifts of medical residents will improve patient safety, according to the study in the May 21 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Some studies have shown that less-fatigued residents make fewer errors, while other research suggests that more frequent patient hand-offs, which would come as a result of shorter shifts, could actually mean more errors.

Doctors whose shifts have ended may have to leave patients at a critical time, and new doctors who come on duty may not be familiar with the patient, explained Dr. Kenneth Polonsky, chairman of the department of medicine at Washington University and co-author of an accompanying editorial.

"When you make physicians work shorter shifts, there is a trade-off," Polonsky said. "The care becomes discontinuous. That's what we're worried about."

The hours of medical residents are legendary. Until recently, residents often worked 120 hours a week and shifts of up to 40 hours with little more than catnaps, said study author Dr. Teryl Nuckols, an assistant professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles and health services researcher at the RAND Corporation.

That began to change in 2003, when the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) established rules for the nation's 1,200-plus teaching hospitals that limited residents to an 80-hour workweek, 30-hour shifts and lightened workloads.

But those rules are widely flouted, according to surveys of medical residents cited in this latest study.

In December, the influential Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report calling for greater adherence to the guidelines, increased supervision of residents, more attention to patient hand-offs and even shorter shifts. Among the most significant recommendations: shifts no longer than 16 hours or as long as 30 hours if residents were given five hours of protected nap time.

The IOM, however, can only make recommendations. It's up to the ACGME to enact the rules, which it has so far not done.

____________________________________________________________________

Some Thoughts:

1. The numbers are a bit curious. The suggestion is to limit the consecutive work hours only. An 80 hour work week would not change.

2. Dr. Polonsky appears to have concerns that there would be less continuity with handing off patients after 16 hour shifts instead of 24 hour ones. Hand offs usually occur to the night shift, with on call teams working up to 24 hour shifts and then leaving after early rounds. I cannot see where there would be more than three or four more hand offs per week, maximum. A shift from 10-12 to 12-14 hand offs would be most likely. But, if Dr. Polonsky is truly that concerned, I would also question if he is recommending the same continuity for all hospital employees, especially attending physicians.

3. Of course, the attending physicians would quit if told they had to work the same hours as a resident (in spite of getting paid three times as much, on average). But residents cannot quit (at least not easily, or unless they completely quit medicine), they have to accept the work hours handed to them.

4. While there are no "guarantees" that shorter shifts, or naps will help patient safety, many studies, including those reviewed in the IOM report do show that increased fatigue leads to increased medical errors. Good luck fighting that in court when your resident makes an error after hour 23. Basically the logic being used is, you can't prove it will work, because you haven't done it, so you better not do it because you can't prove it will work. Nice.

4. There are approximately 110,000 residents, of whom, approximately 50,000 are actively involved in direct hospital care. Given the average salary of $50,000 per year (Jeez! this is about double what I got ten years ago!), $1.6 Billion could hire approximately 32,000 more residents. Or almost 20,000 Nurse Practitioners. Are we really seeing a 30 to 60 percent increase in uncovered work load with these proposed changes? No chance.

Mental Health Mythbusters: Violence

In a longitudinal study done by Eric Elbogen, PhD and Sally Johnson at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, researchers look at the link between mental illness and violence. 35,000 people were interviewed in two “waves” a few years apart, and correlations between mental health, substance abuse, and violence were examined.

From the CBS News article, a few snippets:

In all, 2.9 percent of participants said they had been violent in the time between the first and second interviews.

When Elbogen evaluated the possible associations between mental illness, violence, and other factors, having a mental illness alone did not predict violence, but having a mental illness and a substance abuse problem did increase the risk of violence.

The risk was increased even more if the person had mental illness, substance abuse problems, and a history of violence….

…"I think a lot of people think mental illness is the usual cause if not the foremost cause of violence," Elbogen says, citing a survey in which 75 percent of respondents said they considered people with mental illness as dangerous.

But his study concludes that the findings say mental illness is relevant and you can see that throughout the data. But it's not really one of the foremost causes of violent behavior [by itself] in our society."….

…Experts who reviewed the paper for WebMD say they hope the new research may change mistaken perceptions toward those who are mentally ill.

"Having a severe mental illness alone doesn't predict anything," as far as violence, says Philip Muskin, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University in New York. The new results, he says, confirm some other studies with similar results.

For those affected by the severe mental illnesses evaluated in the study, Muskin says, "You are no more at risk for committing a violent act than anyone in the population."

Some thoughts:

1. As I have always stated, the single biggest challenge to mental health is that of stigma. Nowhere is that more overt than in the perception of the mentally ill as being arbiters of violence. The individual reports of mentally ill individuals having violent behaviors tend to make the headlines, and skew the public opinion. Our media reports from a sensational point of view, and violence sells. The mentally ill are more likely to be presented as dangerous than beneficial in TV, movies, and literature.
2. The science here is fairly sound, using bivariate and multivariate analyses, and is about as good as one can get for a mostly prospective longitudinal study. The study is published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
3. This data is not new, as researchers have been studying this link for years, and most studies have shown similar results. The number of participants and design of this study certainly appears to give it more power than its predecessors.
4. I would be interested in seeing data that looks at further subgrouping of those with mental illness. Some illnesses, such as antisocial personality disorder, have violence included as part of their criteria for diagnosis. I imagine that the diagnoses of depression, and anxiety disorders alone (which make up the vast majority of those will mental illness) would show significantly less rates of violence.
5. What of those mental illnesses that do have violent or impulsive/explosive behaviors listed in their criteria?
6. Substance abuse, previous history of violence and being younger, male, recently financially or socially stressed, and of low income were all positively correlated with and increased chance for violence. Add mental illness to any of those factors, and there is an exponential rise in correlation; especially with substance abuse and violent history. It is important to screen individuals in the offices of psychiatrists for these factors. Likewise, the domains of social workers, family doctors, and the judicial system should be active in monitoring for and promoting treatment of mental health needs.

"I'm your biggest fan."

From iTWire Australia: Study finds most celebrity stalkers are mentally ill

From Craegmore News: Celebrity stalkers are mentally Ill.

From The Sun: Royal stalkers are mentally Ill.

From the APA Headlines: Celebrity stalkers may have much greater incidence of serious psychotic illness

A study suggests celebrity stalkers are more mentally ill?
Wow! Thanks for the newsflash.
Let’s dig a bit deeper:

Here’s a snippet from the APA:

New Scientist (10/8, Nowak) reports that the results of a study presented at a forensic science meeting in Australia suggests that, "rather than being hapless eccentrics, the majority of stalkers suffer from serious psychotic illnesses." Study leader Paul Mullen, D.Sc., a forensic psychiatrist at Monash University and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health," said, "We didn't expect such high rates of psychosis. It was very surprising to us." For the study, researchers "scrutinized over 20,000 incidences of stalking members of the [British] royal family, such as repeated and threatening letter writing, and repeated attempted approaches and attacks, from 1988 to 2003. The data was contained in files on 8000 people kept by the Metropolitan Police." After culling the files, researchers "examined in detail the files of 250 of the remaining 5000 people judged to be true stalkers. About 80 percent had a serious psychotic illness, including schizophrenia, delusions, and hallucinations, they found." Notably, this "finding contrasts sharply with people who stalk non-famous people," of which only "a fifth...have some sort of serious or severe psychotic disorder." _________________________________________________________________________________

Interesting. The newsworthy part here is that there is a greater rate of comorbid serious mental illness in this group of celebrity stalkers, than what has shown in other studies of non-celebrity stalkers. As to the science, I do wonder if there was a bias in the definition of stalking during the screening process (weeding 8000 people down to 5000). Also, this is a retrospective study (obviously, imagine recruiting for a double blind study!) and is not given an in-study comparator. Also, is this a trend only specific to the royal family? Is there a greater level of impairment if one is hung up over Prince Charles than Eva Longoria?

That all being said, there does seem to be a logic to the trend given that it would seem more “delusional” to develop a fixation with a person one has never met. It would be interesting to see what percentage of those delusional symptoms is persecutory or grandiose. Persecutory delusions are often seen in paranoid schizophrenia, and may involve famous people. For example one might believe that George Bush is bugging his telephone and wants to send him to Guantanamo. (Um, ok, make that Martin Sheen is bugging his phone..) Likewise, it would be consistent with grandiose delusions (as often seen in bipolar disorder) to develop a sense that a famous person is one’s soul mate (as I know that Norah Jones is for me).

Uma Thurman, David Letterman, Mel Gibson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sheryl Crow, Olivia Newton-John, Sandra Day O’Connor (by the same stalker as Olivia Newton John!), Brittney Spears, Monica Seles, and Michael Douglas, are just a sampling of those in the news who have had celebrity stalkers. The effect can be quite devastating on the individual and their family. Many stalkers have tried to reach celebrities by going to the homes of the celebrity’s parents.

The challenge is in figuring out the severity of the stalkers potential for harm. Is a stalker a potential Mark David Chapman (stalker and eventual murderer of John Lennon)? Or is he a laughable (perhaps) William Lepeska, who swam naked across Biscayne Bay to woo Anna Kournakova, who ended up swimming to the wrong house, and getting an express trip to the psych ward?

The mere presence of “serious mental illness” alone though does not give one a sufficient predictor of dangerousness. Most studies have shown consistently that persons with serious mental illness (usually defined as chronic schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, chronic psychotic depression, or schizoaffective disorder) are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.

The movies also portray the dualism of the stalker character. In “The King of Comedy” Sandra Bernhard plays a hapless comedic (albeit darkly so) stalker to Jerry Lewis’ talk show character. Ironically, Jerry Lewis had a stalker once jailed after the stalker showed up at his house with a gun. Wesley Snipes in “The Fan” is an all business stalker--angry, delusional, and on a mission. Kind of the middle ground of the stalker continuum. “Cape Fear” (Mitchum-1962 and DeNiro-1991) has a perfect sociopathic stalker. (Notice three DeNiro movies so far?) BTW, Kathy Bates in Misery is still my favorite, and scariest, on-screen stalker.

For a good book on stalking, and how one (especially young ladies) should respond to stalking, I’d suggest Gavin De Becker’s “The Gift of Fear.”

Stalking stories? Do share. Also, anyone have Norah Jones' phone number? :)

Smelly Science?

A new study from Craig Roberts in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences notes that birth control pills could cause a woman to choose the wrong mate.

From an article byJeanna Bryner at LifeScience:

Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are involved in immune response and other functions, and the best mates are those that have different MHC smells than you. The new study reveals, however, that when women are on the pill they prefer guys with matching MHC odors.

MHC genes churn out substances that tell the body whether a cell is a native or an invader. When individuals with different MHC genes mate, their offspring's immune systems can recognize a broader range of foreign cells, making them more fit.

Past studies have suggested couples with dissimilar MHC genes are more satisfied and more likely to be faithful to a mate. And the opposite is also true with matchng-MHC couples showing less satisfaction and more wandering eyes.

"Not only could MHC-similarity in couples lead to fertility problems," said lead researcher Stewart Craig Roberts, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Newcastle in England, "but it could ultimately lead to the breakdown of relationships when women stop using the contraceptive pill, as odor perception plays a significant role in maintaining attraction to partners."

Sexy scents

The study involved about 100 women, aged 18 to 35, who chose which of six male body-odor samples they preferred. They were tested at the start of the study when none of the participants were taking contraceptive pills and three months later after 40 of the women had started taking the pill more than two months prior.

For the non-pill users, results didn't show a significant preference for similar or dissimilar MHC odors. When women started taking birth control, their odor preferences changed. These women were much more likely than non-pill users to prefer MHC-similar odors.

"The results showed that the preferences of women who began using the contraceptive pill shifted towards men with genetically similar odors," Roberts said.

____________________________________________________________________

The abstract and link to the journal article is here.

A few thoughts:

1. This explains my wife’s disinterest after having kids!

2. There was no placebo group used in this study, always a red flag in my books, especially when one could have easily been done.

3. There is no data to suggest that scent plays a primary role in choosing a mate in this testing group. Only MHC compatible or incompatible scents were tested, which is a far cry from the actual dating choices. That is, there are way too many other factors involved.

4. On the other hand, a new genetic/MHC compatibility internet dating service could be just around the corner for some enterprising person who reads this blog. eSmell.com anyone? Or perhaps a new cologne “infertile, for Men. By Calvin Klein”

5. If my understanding of genetics is correct, MHC is more compatible with first degree relatives. Don’t give your sister the pill.

6. Craig Roberts is the same researcher who determined that women prefer more "rugged" men during the fertile phases of their menstrual cycle (Abstract here). Then again, I'm not sure how much we can trust research from someone who can't spell "odor" correctly.