| |
--
Richard Irons, MD
It is difficult, if not
impossible, to read a
newspaper or watch the
evening news without
recognizing the degree to
which violence permeates our
world. Violence in the
medical workplace does occur
on a regular and continuing
basis, and we often overlook
its more subtle
manifestations and its
effects upon those around
us.
Physicians can consciously
or unconsciously be
perpetrators of disruptive
behavior in the medical
workplace, actions that are
felt by others to represent
anger, intimidation, and the
threat of harm to others.
We often fail to see the
more subtle manifestations
of our conduct, and the ways
in which our thoughts, words
and actions affect another.
A pattern of such behavior
may emerge in some
physicians which has not
been responsive to feedback
from others, and attempts at
corrective action may
continue over time.
The inherent problem is that
of abuse of power and
position for personal gain
or to avoid blame or
responsibility for adverse
outcomes. An
individual may create a
reputation of being
difficult to deal with or
moody and others soon learn
how to work around them
without arousing their ire
or reactions. For the
purposes of this discussion,
we will refer to them as
behaviorally disruptive
physicians.
The expression of anger in
the workplace by physicians
is manifested in a variety
of disruptive and
maladaptive behaviors that
tend to persist or reassert
themselves over time.
They are briefly summarized
in Table I. A given
problem physician will
possess their own
characteristic pattern of
behaviors that result in
conflict and concern in the
hospital or office.
Anger may be expressed with
subtlety and persistence, or
with sudden explosive
dramatic outbursts.
These actions may directly
or indirectly affect the
care given to patients.
A great deal of time is
consumed in adjusting to
this individual, attempting
to control them, and in
efforts to assist those who
feel injured.
Disruptive and Maladaptive
Behaviors
TABLE I. Common
behaviors in disruptive
physicians
Inappropriate anger or
resentments
-
intimidation
-
abusive language
-
blames or shames others
for possible adverse
outcomes
-
unnecessary sarcasm or
cynicism
-
threats of violence,
retribution, or
litigation
Inappropriate words or
actions directed toward
another person
-
sexual comments or
innuendoes
-
sexual harassment
-
seductive, aggressive,
or assaultive behavior
-
racial, ethnic, or
socioeconomic slurs
-
lack of regard for
personal comfort and
dignity of others
Inappropriate response to
patient needs or staff
requests
-
late or unsuitable
replies to pages or
calls
-
unprofessional demeanor
or conduct
-
uncooperative, defiant
approach to problems
-
rigid, inflexible
responses to requests
for assistance or
cooperation
There are a variety of
factors that can lead to
such behavior by any
professional in any medical
establishment on occasion.
Many professionals have
experienced similar behavior
in their homes during
childhood and adolescence.
Many others have directly
suffered from abuse of power
and position during their
medical education or
training. Indeed, some
of the behavior that is no
longer accepted was
considered outrageous, but
tolerated in the not too
distant past. Numerous
articles have appeared in
the medical literature in
recent years documenting the
frequency and prevalence of
medical student and medical
resident abuse.
Negative rolemodeling,
particularly the use of
public humiliation as a
socialized and necessary
element of medical training,
is often used to justify
current behavior.
Physicians experience a
great deal of pressure from
peers and the public to meet
exacting performance
expectations. When
something goes wrong, when a
perfect result or outcome is
in jeopardy, then blame is
anticipated and expected.
If we do not want to accept
the blame, then we are prone
to place it on others.
In the long journey from
high school to practicing
physician, many sacrifices
are required. Often we
do not have as much time for
the development of
interpersonal skills as
other students.
Medical training has not
historically provided
education and experience in
supervisory or team
building, conflict
resolution or effective
leadership. We learn
as we go, often from the
mistakes we make along the
way, unaware of or personal
invulnerabilities or lack of
sophistication.
The medical workplace is the
stage upon which numerous
human dramas are played.
Many tragic scenes occur
wherein suffering, conflict,
and death with their medical
and psychological
consequences are experienced
each day. In this
highly charged environment
there is a constant demand
for faultless performance
and flawless
decision-making. Over
time, we develop a
hardening, a ritualized
suppression of feelings in
order to cope with the
demands and stress. In
the process we can become
insensitive to the needs,
feelings, and sensibilities
of patients, peers, and
coworkers while developing
an emotional armoring
against the criticism, barbs
and comments of others.
Our ability to utilize
healthy adaptive mechanisms
such as humor, altruism,
sublimation and
rationalization can be
overcome. Each of us
carries inherent personal
vulnerabilities and
weaknesses. Mechanisms
that one utilized earlier I
life may no longer be
appropriate or effective.
Our own image of ourselves
may become distorted through
denial, our compulsion with
perfection, our obsession
with being right, and our
narcissistic defenses.
We may lose the ability to
see oneself as other people
see us, becoming susceptible
to a heroic fall, a
metaphoric death due to the
sin of hubris, or false
pride.
When it finally becomes
necessary to take action and
begin the process of coming
to terms with a disruptive
physician, be aware that the
process is seldom easily or
quickly completed.
Initial steps involve the
use of conflict resolution
at the hospital or clinic
level, using senior practice
partners and appropriate
administrative personnel.
In many cases this approach
will be successful.
However in others, initial
strategies that seek
modification of behavior and
corrective action will seem
effective for short periods
of time. Some
professionals will return to
old patterns of disruptive
behavior and the concerned
parties in the hospital or
clinic will finally come to
the conclusion that more
intensive measures are
necessary, and will require
the use of additional
leverage and the help of
outside resources.
The following outline
depicts the most effective
means for accomplishing the
task of confronting the
disruptive professional
under such circumstances.
CONFRONTATION
1.
Rarely will
disruptive professionals
independently seek help.
They characteristically lack
insight into the nature or
severity of their
problematic behavior.
Following aggressive
intervention and assessment,
the majority develop at
least partial insight.
2.
When it is
necessary to proceed to
confrontation, utilize a
diverse team and choose a
neutral meeting site.
Request each team member to
specifically describe the
problem behavior and its
impact upon others.
Emphasize the seriousness of
the situation.
3.
Determine in
advance acceptable outcomes
from the confrontation.
Identify the types of
resources available.
Decide whether an
independent assessment is
needed and the specialized
components that will be
required. Consider
what treatment or therapy is
acceptable in lieu of
assessment. Seek
acknowledgment of the
problem behavior by the
physician and responsibility
to take corrective action.
Offer assistance in
obtaining help and make
recommendations upon
acceptable outcomes.
Disclose what providers of
assessment or treatment are
acceptable. Identify
any financial assistance or
other support the
professional can expect.
THE BOTTOM LINES
4.
Carefully review the
alternatives that will be
exercised if the
professional refuses to
comply with the
recommendations.
Review state and federal
requirements. Reveal
the team’s bottom lines only
if the professional will not
commit to an acceptable
course of action in a
reasonable period of time.
Emphasize potential loss of
privileges, liability
insurance, or termination of
employment or contract.
Outline precisely due
process provisions that are
operable through
organization bylaws or
policies. Indicate
when reports to state
professional health program,
state licensure board or
national practitioner data
bank may be made. Do
not threaten actions you are
not prepared to take.
REHABILITATION AND
RE-ENTRY
5.
If the confrontation
is successful, identify a
peer to serve as a liaison
and mentor in the process.
Monitor progress in
implementation of the agreed
upon action plan.
Develop clear rehabilitation
goals. When
appropriate, emphasize a
plan for return to active
practice when goals are met.
6.
Prior to professional
re-entry or within a short
period of time after
information is obtained from
assessment and/or treatment
[with the physician’s
written authorization],
establish realistic re-entry
expectations and conduct
boundaries. Utilize
peer monitoring and, if
necessary, supervision in
practice. Encourage or
require continuing education
in arrears of weakness.
Construct a clear and
precise re-entry behavioral
contract which specifies the
consequences for failure to
comply. Within the
contract identify a
mechanism for future
conflict resolution.
Provide dignity and support
for the professional as well
as the workplace staff.
Independent assessment by
professionals who are not
associated with the hospital
or clinic provides the most
objective information.
When the professionals that
do such evaluation indicate
at the outset that they will
not be involved in any
therapy or treatment of the
referred party, then an
additional conflict of
interest is avoided.
In our experience,
disruptive professionals who
have serious problems and
have not responded to
conservative measures are
most effectively evaluated
by a multi-disciplinary team
of professionals that
provide comprehensive and
definitive evaluation for
mental disorders, addictive
disease, and covert medical
illnesses. The time
away from professional
responsibilities as well as
the time and expense of such
a process can be therapeutic
in and of itself.
Reports should approach
forensic standards, and
evaluators must be prepared
to represent and defend
their work in the future if
bottom lines need to be
exercised.
|
|