Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

You definitely have a point about the value of taking time to provide thorough care to patients. In my own practice, I've noticed that patients really appreciate it when they feel heard and cared for, especially when we take the time to address all their concerns. This approach, as you mentioned, does indeed lead to running late, but the trade-off can be worthwhile in terms of patient satisfaction and quality of care.

However, the challenge arises when dealing with long queues and a high volume of patients (a common scenario in our practice). In such scenarios, spending extended time with each patient can exacerbate wait times for others, leading to extended shifts and added strain on other staff members like nurses, pharmacists, and lab technicians, etc. This can contribute to overall fatigue among healthcare providers, which might inadvertently compromise the quality of care towards the end of the day. (I have personally experienced this)

How can we maintain a balance between providing thorough, attentive care and managing our time effectively to minimize the impact on waiting patients and other healthcare staff? Perhaps there are systemic or procedural changes that could support this balance. What are your thoughts on this, or what strategies have you seen work in similar situations?

Yes, in our practice, the assistants work set shifts. Our solution (since the corporation didn't want to pay overtime) was to have one assistant in the office arrive late and leave late. The docs who ran late (not all of them, say 30%) would do the exams (that needed to be chaperoned) early in the appointment, same with procedures that needed assistance. Then the assistant could leave at her assigned time and docs could continue discussions as long as they needed. Follow up appointments also were scheduled before the appointment ended or they called the following day to get their next appointment scheduled.

Oh and I'm not trying to overstate my ability to provide "patient satisfaction". I didn't implement my "run late" strategy to improve patient satisfaction, I did it to improve my satisfaction. Since I knew I was going to be late, I didn't stress about the time. If a patient arrived late herself, I (almost) never turned her away. I had my assistant tell her that I would see her in between patients who arrived on time, if she was willing to wait. Some did, some didn't, but I never turned folks away (unless I had to leave to go to the operating room or some other obligation). But my Patient Satisfaction numbers were nothing special, however I was probably in the top 2% of happiest docs.

[Sushan]

You definitely have a point about the value of taking time to provide thorough care to patients. In my own practice, I've noticed that patients really appreciate it when they feel heard and cared for, especially when we take the time to address all their concerns. This approach, as you mentioned, does indeed lead to running late, but the trade-off can be worthwhile in terms of patient satisfaction and quality of care.

However, the challenge arises when dealing with long queues and a high volume of patients (a common scenario in our practice). In such scenarios, spending extended time with each patient can exacerbate wait times for others, leading to extended shifts and added strain on other staff members like nurses, pharmacists, and lab technicians, etc. This can contribute to overall fatigue among healthcare providers, which might inadvertently compromise the quality of care towards the end of the day. (I have personally experienced this)

How can we maintain a balance between providing thorough, attentive care and managing our time effectively to minimize the impact on waiting patients and other healthcare staff? Perhaps there are systemic or procedural changes that could support this balance. What are your thoughts on this, or what strategies have you seen work in similar situations?

Yes, in our practice, the assistants work set shifts. Our solution (since the corporation didn't want to pay overtime) was to have one assistant in the office arrive late and leave late. The docs who ran late (not all of them, say 30%) would do the exams (that needed to be chaperoned) early in the appointment, same with procedures that needed assistance. Then the assistant could leave at her assigned time and docs could continue discussions as long as they needed. Follow up appointments also were scheduled before the appointment ended or they called the following day to get their next appointment scheduled.

Oh and I'm not trying to overstate my ability to provide "patient satisfaction". I didn't implement my "run late" strategy to improve patient satisfaction, I did it to improve my satisfaction. Since I knew I was going to be late, I didn't stress about the time. If a patient arrived late herself, I (almost) never turned her away. I had my assistant tell her that I would see her in between patients who arrived on time, if she was willing to wait. Some did, some didn't, but I never turned folks away (unless I had to leave to go to the operating room or some other obligation). But my Patient Satisfaction numbers were nothing special, however I was probably in the top 2% of happiest docs.

Thank you for the insight. I agree with you that we also do not turn away any patients, and in that manner, patients are indeed satisfied. I find personal satisfaction in knowing that I have consulted all the patients who came in without turning any of them away. However, there's another side to this.

At the end of the day, when I'm tired from seeing all those patients, I often reflect on the many who came for unnecessary treatments at unusual times, seemingly at their leisure. This sometimes feels like an abuse of my service. It leaves me questioning the value of treating patients beyond my duty hours, especially when it means sacrificing my time with family, rest, and personal growth.

What do you say about this? How do you reconcile the demands of patient care with the need to maintain personal boundaries and ensure your own well-being?

[LuckyR]

Yes, in our practice, the assistants work set shifts. Our solution (since the corporation didn't want to pay overtime) was to have one assistant in the office arrive late and leave late. The docs who ran late (not all of them, say 30%) would do the exams (that needed to be chaperoned) early in the appointment, same with procedures that needed assistance. Then the assistant could leave at her assigned time and docs could continue discussions as long as they needed. Follow up appointments also were scheduled before the appointment ended or they called the following day to get their next appointment scheduled.

Oh and I'm not trying to overstate my ability to provide "patient satisfaction". I didn't implement my "run late" strategy to improve patient satisfaction, I did it to improve my satisfaction. Since I knew I was going to be late, I didn't stress about the time. If a patient arrived late herself, I (almost) never turned her away. I had my assistant tell her that I would see her in between patients who arrived on time, if she was willing to wait. Some did, some didn't, but I never turned folks away (unless I had to leave to go to the operating room or some other obligation). But my Patient Satisfaction numbers were nothing special, however I was probably in the top 2% of happiest docs.

Thank you for the insight. I agree with you that we also do not turn away any patients, and in that manner, patients are indeed satisfied. I find personal satisfaction in knowing that I have consulted all the patients who came in without turning any of them away. However, there's another side to this.

At the end of the day, when I'm tired from seeing all those patients, I often reflect on the many who came for unnecessary treatments at unusual times, seemingly at their leisure. This sometimes feels like an abuse of my service. It leaves me questioning the value of treating patients beyond my duty hours, especially when it means sacrificing my time with family, rest, and personal growth.

What do you say about this? How do you reconcile the demands of patient care with the need to maintain personal boundaries and ensure your own well-being?

Well first of all no product or service (with very few exceptions) should be "free". Even a $5 charge (for a $200 service) is important to dissuade the abuse of the system you describe. I've run across patients who came to the office purely for the social interaction. Ridiculous (though the appointments were pleasant).

My extremely high personal work life satisfaction is due partially to good luck (though, as a generally lucky person, I believe that you create your own luck to a great extent) and partially due to attitudinal and practice detail choices. I always tell students and residents "it's a marathon, not a sprint" and "you can't take care of patients if you don't take care of yourself". Hence my choice to "run late". Examples of good luck include being a male in a female dominated field, OB/GYN. I know some docs who review the call schedule to verify that they don't take an "unfairly" high amount of night or weekend call. They'd sit with pen and paper to tally the count and complain to the Admin if it was unequal. I only looked at the schedule so I knew when and where to show up. In my opinion that's just a psychological setup for dissatisfaction.

[LifeUnboxed]

**"Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines"** by Dr. Colleen Huber presents a critical perspective on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. The book argues that the vaccines have not been sufficiently proven to be safe or effective and highlights concerns over their rapid development and approval processes. It examines reported side effects, vaccine-related injuries, and questions the reliability of the clinical trial data. Dr. Huber also discusses the political and economic influences surrounding the vaccine rollout, suggesting that these factors may have compromised the integrity of public health recommendations. The book aims to provide an alternative viewpoint and encourages readers to critically evaluate the mainstream narrative on COVID-19 vaccination.

[Sushan]

Yes, in our practice, the assistants work set shifts. Our solution (since the corporation didn't want to pay overtime) was to have one assistant in the office arrive late and leave late. The docs who ran late (not all of them, say 30%) would do the exams (that needed to be chaperoned) early in the appointment, same with procedures that needed assistance. Then the assistant could leave at her assigned time and docs could continue discussions as long as they needed. Follow up appointments also were scheduled before the appointment ended or they called the following day to get their next appointment scheduled.

Oh and I'm not trying to overstate my ability to provide "patient satisfaction". I didn't implement my "run late" strategy to improve patient satisfaction, I did it to improve my satisfaction. Since I knew I was going to be late, I didn't stress about the time. If a patient arrived late herself, I (almost) never turned her away. I had my assistant tell her that I would see her in between patients who arrived on time, if she was willing to wait. Some did, some didn't, but I never turned folks away (unless I had to leave to go to the operating room or some other obligation). But my Patient Satisfaction numbers were nothing special, however I was probably in the top 2% of happiest docs.

Thank you for the insight. I agree with you that we also do not turn away any patients, and in that manner, patients are indeed satisfied. I find personal satisfaction in knowing that I have consulted all the patients who came in without turning any of them away. However, there's another side to this.

At the end of the day, when I'm tired from seeing all those patients, I often reflect on the many who came for unnecessary treatments at unusual times, seemingly at their leisure. This sometimes feels like an abuse of my service. It leaves me questioning the value of treating patients beyond my duty hours, especially when it means sacrificing my time with family, rest, and personal growth.

What do you say about this? How do you reconcile the demands of patient care with the need to maintain personal boundaries and ensure your own well-being?

Well first of all no product or service (with very few exceptions) should be "free". Even a $5 charge (for a $200 service) is important to dissuade the abuse of the system you describe. I've run across patients who came to the office purely for the social interaction. Ridiculous (though the appointments were pleasant).

My extremely high personal work life satisfaction is due partially to good luck (though, as a generally lucky person, I believe that you create your own luck to a great extent) and partially due to attitudinal and practice detail choices. I always tell students and residents "it's a marathon, not a sprint" and "you can't take care of patients if you don't take care of yourself". Hence my choice to "run late". Examples of good luck include being a male in a female dominated field, OB/GYN. I know some docs who review the call schedule to verify that they don't take an "unfairly" high amount of night or weekend call. They'd sit with pen and paper to tally the count and complain to the Admin if it was unequal. I only looked at the schedule so I knew when and where to show up. In my opinion that's just a psychological setup for dissatisfaction.

I completely agree with your perspective on not offering services for free. Charging even a minimal fee, like the $5 you mentioned for a $200 service, is crucial to discourage system abuse. Yet I've witnessed patients visiting GPs just for social interaction after paying their fee. It shows that while the fee can reduce misuse, it's not a complete deterrent for those seeking human contact. However, implementing such charges in a system that has historically been free could pose significant political risks, potentially resulting in electoral losses for the current government if not managed carefully.

On your point about personal work-life satisfaction, I appreciate your insight. The philosophy of seeing one’s profession as a marathon and not a sprint, and prioritizing self-care resonates deeply with me. I also find your approach to handling the on call schedule particularly enlightening. While some may scrutinize their work hours for fairness, your strategy of focusing on what's necessary—simply knowing when and where to show up—might indeed be a healthier mindset, avoiding unnecessary dissatisfaction. Your username, LuckyR, seems quite fitting for your inherent 'Luckiness' and your positive perspectives.

[Sushan]

**"Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines"** by Dr. Colleen Huber presents a critical perspective on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. The book argues that the vaccines have not been sufficiently proven to be safe or effective and highlights concerns over their rapid development and approval processes. It examines reported side effects, vaccine-related injuries, and questions the reliability of the clinical trial data. Dr. Huber also discusses the political and economic influences surrounding the vaccine rollout, suggesting that these factors may have compromised the integrity of public health recommendations. The book aims to provide an alternative viewpoint and encourages readers to critically evaluate the mainstream narrative on COVID-19 vaccination.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your summary provides a clear insight into the critical approach Dr. Huber takes towards the handling and approval processes of COVID-19 vaccines. It’s important to scrutinize and question the rapid development of such significant medical interventions, and the book's focus on potential side effects and political influences adds a necessary layer to the ongoing discussion about public health practices and transparency.

However, while skepticism can be healthy, it's also crucial to balance such viewpoints with data from multiple sources and the broader scientific community, which has largely supported the vaccines' efficacy and safety based on extensive research and global data. Engaging with a range of scientific analyses might provide a more rounded perspective.

I’m interested to hear more about your take on how well the book navigates these complex ethical issues. Do you think Dr. Huber provides a fair assessment, or is there a risk of bias given the strong stance against the mainstream narrative?

[LifeUnboxed]

Ignorance is bliss!. It's understandable that after reading the book, I resonate with the author's exploration of the pharmaceutical industry's practices and potential conflicts of interest and the book navigates wonderfully covering these complex ethical issues. Addressing pain points within the industry is crucial for promoting transparency and accountability. Additionally, the emergence of new evidence regarding potential side effects and health concerns related to COVID vaccines, such as heart issues and brain injuries, is a valid cause for concern and warrants thorough investigation and discussion.When discussing complex and sensitive topics like vaccine safety, it's important to consider a wide range of perspectives and evidence to form a comprehensive understanding. While highlighting shortcomings in the pharmaceutical industry and raising awareness about potential health risks are valuable contributions to the public discourse, it's also essential to approach these discussions with critical thinking and a commitment to presenting a well-rounded view of the subject.Continuing to engage in conversations that shed light on important issues and encourage critical thinking is a positive step towards promoting informed decision-making and fostering a more transparent healthcare landscape. I would certainly keep exploring these topics thoughtfully and constructively.

[Sushan]

Ignorance is bliss!. It's understandable that after reading the book, I resonate with the author's exploration of the pharmaceutical industry's practices and potential conflicts of interest and the book navigates wonderfully covering these complex ethical issues. Addressing pain points within the industry is crucial for promoting transparency and accountability. Additionally, the emergence of new evidence regarding potential side effects and health concerns related to COVID vaccines, such as heart issues and brain injuries, is a valid cause for concern and warrants thorough investigation and discussion.When discussing complex and sensitive topics like vaccine safety, it's important to consider a wide range of perspectives and evidence to form a comprehensive understanding. While highlighting shortcomings in the pharmaceutical industry and raising awareness about potential health risks are valuable contributions to the public discourse, it's also essential to approach these discussions with critical thinking and a commitment to presenting a well-rounded view of the subject.Continuing to engage in conversations that shed light on important issues and encourage critical thinking is a positive step towards promoting informed decision-making and fostering a more transparent healthcare landscape. I would certainly keep exploring these topics thoughtfully and constructively.

I agree that transparency and accountability are crucial, especially when it comes to public health. It’s interesting to hear that you found this book navigated these issues effectively.

While it's vital to scrutinize the pharmaceutical industry's practices, it's also important to consider the extensive research and global data supporting the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. There are undoubtedly valid concerns and instances of side effects, but the broader scientific consensus indicates that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Do you think there’s a way to balance skepticism with trust in the scientific community? How can we ensure that critical discussions about vaccine safety remain constructive and informed by a broad spectrum of data and expert opinions?