Author: Maria Yang, MD

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Medicine Systems

The Social History.

From the notes I read, it seems that other medical specialties limit “social history” to whether or not someone uses tobacco, drinks alcohol, or uses drugs.

“Social history” is meant to get a sense of the context in which people live. Where do they live? Who do they live with? How did they come to live there? Where did they grow up? What sort of work do they do? How much school have they finished? What do they do for fun? What are the important relationships in their lives? etc.

I almost always start my clinical interviews with the social history. There are several reasons why I do this:

One, it’s a more neutral place to start. My hope is that it will help the person feel more comfortable talking to me. Most of these questions are easy to answer, since many of them overlap with social conversation: Where do you live? How long have you lived there? This is also an opportunity to communicate through non-verbal communication: The nodding, the eye contact, and all the other behaviors that show that I’m paying attention and worthy of trust. (“See, it’s not so bad to talk with a psychiatrist.”)

Two, it puts the information the person shares with me into context. If people don’t have a stable place to live, then they have good reason to feel anxious about their safety and exhausted from poor sleep. If someone lives with other people who are struggling with substance use or are often fighting, then this person may not be able to recruit them to help with the tasks of daily life. They may not even feel safe staying with them, but don’t have other choices. One can’t expect someone to take medication on a regular basis when they don’t have enough money to buy food.

Three, if people don’t want to talk to me for whatever reason, the way they stop the conversation is useful information. Sometimes people are paranoid for a variety of reasons—some based in reality, some not—and they shut down the interview. Sometimes people want to talk to me, but they’re exhausted and ask me to come back later. Sometimes people don’t like something about me: my hair (it’s noteworthy how some people respond to my hair), my ethnicity, my clothes, my sex, the way I talk. I can’t change most of those things, and how people respond to all that tells me (1) how I can better interact with them in the future and (2) what might be going on that is causing them to respond this way. And sometimes people don’t want to talk to me because I’m not conducting the interview in a skillful way: Maybe I’m coming across as cranky, uncaring, or judgy.

Four, and most importantly, I want the person to know that I view them as a human being. I wince whenever someone immediately launches into their mental health history: “Okay, I have a diagnosis of schizophrenia and I take Zyprexa and Cogentin….” This tells me that this person got the message over time that no one is interested in him as a person; people only want to know his diagnosis and medications. But people aren’t their diagnoses or their medication regimens. All people have hopes and dreams; they have things they want to do and people they want to be. While a summary statement might make the interview more efficient, it matters whether this person volunteers at the animal shelter every week because he loves dogs or whether he stays at home and watches TV all day. This information is valuable, regardless of his diagnosis.

It takes time to get a social history. Short appointments, though, are short-sighted. It’s much faster to generate diagnoses from labs and studies; it’s much faster to write prescriptions than to listen to patients. If physicians don’t get an accurate history, then physicians are more likely to generate wrong diagnoses. Wrong diagnoses, along with no information about the contexts in which people live, lead to wrong interventions. Did anyone then actually save any time?

Categories
Informal-curriculum Medicine Nonfiction Seattle

My Seattle Times Op-Ed about #MeToo in Medicine.

The Seattle Times published an op-ed I wrote! Their editorial staff provided the title, #MeToo in medicine: ‘Who would believe a trainee?’

I wonder: What if I had a different byline? Would the Seattle Times have published it if I worked as a nurse? medical student? medical assistant?

What if I worked as a janitor in a hospital? Or in housekeeping?

What if I waited tables? worked in retail? had a job that is “off the books”?

The last sentence in my op-ed is “I was fortunate, but not all women are.” I was fortunate in that I had support from supervisors and colleagues, and that the psychiatrist in question didn’t do anything worse.

I remain fortunate, though, in that I have the privilege to be able to share this story to a wider audience. I have access that other people lack. And those are the people we should consider about when we talk about “#MeToo”.

The senior psychiatry resident at the University of Washington School of Medicine warned me ahead of time. She laughed as she said, “He’s weird. You’ll get used to him.”

When I first met with him, the psychiatrist lazily spun in his chair, his left hand tucked into his pants, his thumb hanging out. After he told me his expectations as my supervisor, he patted my right thigh as he ended the meeting.

I spent one day a week training in his clinic. He often put his hand on my shoulder. If he sat near me, he extended his arm to pat my leg. When I sat far from him, he crowed compliments in front of patients and other staff: “Dr. Yang is one of the best residents who has ever worked with me!”

He began to send emails to me at all hours of the day and night. They stopped referring to clinical research and developments; now he wrote of art, history and music that he thought I would enjoy. Some of the timestamps on his emails were near 2 a.m.

“Do as I say, don’t do as I do,” he chided in his emails. “Good night.”

My discomfort increased over time, though I wondered if I was overreacting. After all, didn’t another resident tell me that he was weird? She didn’t seem distressed with his behavior. Maybe I was too sensitive.

I asked two other supervisors, both psychiatrists, for advice. The male psychiatrist was angry and swift in his response: “You have to tell your residency director. This isn’t right.”

The female psychiatrist wavered. “I don’t know,” she said after a long pause. “It’s up to you if you want to say something. It could turn into a ‘he said, she said’ issue.”

She had a point: Who would believe a trainee over a tenured professor? Would he retaliate? How would this affect the rest of my training?

I decided to talk with him first. My request seemed reasonable: “Could you please stop touching me and stop sending emails to me that are unrelated to clinical work? I feel uncomfortable when those things happen.” I rehearsed.

The next time I saw him, he greeted me with a pat on the shoulder. I felt my face flush as I stammered, “Could you please stop touching me? It makes me feel uncomfortable.”

He paused, then smiled. “Why didn’t you tell me sooner? It’s not that big of a deal. I’m just being friendly.”

It was a big deal: He stopped talking to me entirely when we were in front of patients. He stopped teaching me. At what would become our last meeting together, he refused to acknowledge my concerns about a clinical issue. It seemed like he was trying to pick a fight with me. We fell silent. He looked at me with amusement. I glared at him.

“Are we done?” I still felt like I needed his permission to leave.

“Yup!” He grinned. It was clear I had to talk with my residency director.

She believed me. She was swift and immediately pulled me from the rotation.

One of my fellow trainees, a robust man who played football in college, was assigned to work with him for the following six months.

My fellow colleague believed me. He was swift. He objected and asked for another rotation, stating that he didn’t feel comfortable working with a physician who had mistreated another trainee.

The psychiatrist ultimately left the institution, following an administrative leave.

Sexual harassment occurs in every profession, even medicine. To stop this, we need as many people as possible — men, women, colleagues, advisers and leaders — to support women and act swiftly when these events occur. I was fortunate, but not all women are.

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Medicine

Thoughts about the Digital Pill.

Reader and stellar nurse Natalie[1. I know Natalie is a “stellar” nurse because we used to work together.] wondered about my thoughts about the digital pill.

My initial reactions were similar to several of those who were interviewed for the article. The digital pill, which provides electronic information to confirm whether someone has ingested the medication, has great potential to become a tool of coercion. Aripiprazole (Abilify) is classified as an antipsychotic medication, which is often prescribed to people who have beliefs that machines and other surveillance tools are in their bodies. Why would the nascent technology of a digital pill make its debut for this population?

I have several other concerns about this digital pill:

(1) The purported mechanism of action for aripiprazole (Abilify) involves hand-waving, which is yet another reason why its debut as a digital pill is perplexing. To the manufacturer’s credit, the package insert for arpiprazole is blunt: “The mechanism of action of aripiprazole in schizophrenia or bipolar mania, is unknown.” (Section 12.1.) The explanation in the scientific papers, though, gets those hands waving all over the place (warning: technical language fast approaching):

The development of D2 partial agonists is a logical strategy for the treatment of schizophrenia because the pathophysiologic mechanism of schizophrenia is thought to be based on too much dopamine activity in some regions of the brain and too little dopamine activity in other regions. A D2 partial agonist can act as a functional antagonist in areas of high levels of dopamine, such as the mesolimbic pathway, but not in areas of normal dopamine levels, such as the nigrostriatal and tuberoinfundibular pathways. Thus, a D2 partial agonist is expected to reduce the positive symptoms of schizophrenia without producing movement disorders or elevated prolactin levels. In regions of low dopamine concentration, such as the mesocortical pathway, a D2 partial agonist will show functional agonist activity.

Put into plain language, what all that means is aripiprazole might stimulate specific receptors in one part of the brain, but block those same receptors in other parts of the brain. The concentration of dopamine might determine whether aripiprazole stimulates or blocks those receptors.

I’m skeptical.

That’s like an antibiotic that only kills one specific type of bacteria in one part of the body, but doesn’t kill that same specific bacteria in other parts of the body.

How does that work? Especially since science has yet to determine the underlying causes of psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia?

So, in sum, this is a digital form of a medication that has an uncertain mechanism of action for a disease that we don’t fully understand.

What?

(2) The focus on adherence to medication assumes that the ingestion of medications is the most important aspect of treatment. This may be true for some individuals, but does not apply to everyone. Psychiatry focuses on maximizing function and quality of life. Sometimes people can attain both without taking digital pills daily.

(3) Most people under my care don’t have access to technology like smart phones. Some of these individuals also have the most severe symptoms and are the most likely to benefit from a variety of interventions: Skills coaching, housing, nutrition, exercise, art, and talk and behavioral therapies, in addition to medication.

(4) I don’t know how the data from this digital pill will actually change care. Psychiatry, for now, still relies on the observation of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of people. Whether someone is taking their medications or not may not actually change treatment plans.

For example, say Natalie is under my care and takes a digital pill. I learn that Natalie takes this medication five days out of seven. All sources report that she’s doing okay: She’s getting along with her family, is going to school or work, is keeping up with her rent, and continues to follow the blogs she likes. Do I encourage her to take the medication every day? What more gains might she make? What if it detracts from her quality of life to have to take a medication every day, particularly when she’s doing okay?

Or, what if the digital pill tells me that Natalie hasn’t taken medications at all since I prescribed them to her? And Natalie continues to experience significant symptoms? I guess it’s helpful to have confirmation that Natalie isn’t taking medication, but, if I have sufficient rapport with Natalie, she’ll straight up tell me that she’s not taking it. Why use a digital pill when I can get the information from someone directly? Particularly when she can tell me the specific reasons why she doesn’t want to take it?

Or, what if the digital pill tells me that Natalie is taking the medication everyday, but she also continues to demonstrate significant symptoms? Again, the confirmation that she’s taking her medications could be helpful, but if I have rapport with her and she continues to suffer from symptoms, it’s likely that she would tell me this information, anyway.

If physicians want people to trust them, then physicians must show that they trust the people under their care. There are easier and more compassionate ways to get accurate information without resorting to a digital pill.

(5) Lastly, who are we actually treating with this digital pill? Who is going to feel better with the data the pill generates?

This data won’t tell individuals anything they don’t already know. They will know if they took their medications or not. (And savvy patients will figure out a way to subvert this digital pill reporting: Maybe they will give the meds to a pet or to another person.) This data is meant to help physicians feel better, not patients.

If the goals of psychiatry are to help reduce suffering, improve function, and help people live the lives they want to lead, we cannot rely on medications alone to achieve this, particularly for those individuals with significant symptoms. Even if the data shows that someone is taking medications daily, that process measure is meaningless if the person’s overall function and quality of life remains poor.

Categories
Nonfiction Observations Reflection

Patients in a Resuscitation Room.

I didn’t post anything here last week because my dad, while walking, was hit by a car. (He is feeling better, thank you.)

When I arrived, my father occupied one of four beds in a resuscitation room. The other three beds were empty. It was still early in the morning and there were few people in the emergency department.

As the day wore on, other patients were wheeled into and out of the room. A pale yellow curtain with a floral motif enclosed the space around each patient. The patients and their visitors caught glimpses of each other whenever the ED staff pulled the curtains open.

While curtains provide visual privacy, they are not soundproof.

An inmate from the local jail came in with chest pain. He shared his entire medical history with his accompanying jail officer. After listening to the inmate’s monologue for about five minutes, the officer interjected, “I’m going to watch this TV show now.” The inmate, along with the rest of us, listened to what sounded like an action movie. The inmate sounded more disappointed than relieved when he learned that he did not need to stay in the hospital. He went back to jail.

A mother and father came in for reasons I never learned. Their young toddler with enormous eyes grasped the pale yellow curtain in her tiny fists as she explored both sides of the boundary. Their infant stopped wailing when the mother sang, her voice full and calm. When the family left, they took the laughter with them.

A woman with dark pink hair was wheeled in. Another car hit her while she was driving. Her voice was light and melodic as she expressed profuse thanks to the medics. Her voice cracked as she spoke to a friend on the phone: Was she ever going to get a break? Why did her friend hit her with the car? Why was this the third time in her life she was in a car crash? What if she never got sensation back in her leg? Why did she have so much bad luck? After she hung up the phone, she wept. She took her frustration out on the nurse. No one was at her bedside.

A slender man was wheeled in. He, too, was in a car crash. His answers to questions were short and quiet. The sadness on his face could have been new, though the wrinkles around his lips and eyes hinted that maybe he wore a sad face most days. He stared up at the ceiling. No one visited him.

My mother came into the room, too. My father recalled when he was last in an emergency department: His wife was short of breath and feeling exhausted. He remembered the week she spent in the hospital, all the questions, poking, and testing she had to endure, and how much she hated it.

“Now I understand why she didn’t like the hospital,” he murmured. The edge of the pale yellow curtain shifted, though no one was there.

Categories
Consult-Liaison Observations

Status Game Strategy.

How do you introduce yourself when you greet people, particularly those you don’t know?

Yes, your answer might depend on who you’re meeting. But what’s your general approach?

I try to emanate warmth: I make eye contact and smile. I do what I think will make the person feel comfortable. I listen and try to speak less than the other person… unless it becomes clear that the other person wants to listen more and speak less, too.

This strategy has worked for me: It helps me form and maintain relationships. This approach has produced few, if any, negative consequences.

Some people use a different strategy when they interact with others: They assert their superiority. They say things like they have “one of the great memories of all time” and “I went to an Ivy League college… I’m a very intelligent person.”

The other way to assert superiority is to denigrate others, such as commenting that others are “weak”, “lightweight”, and “fake”.

This, of course, is a status game. Who has higher status? Who should have higher status? And if I should always have higher status, how can I make sure that everyone around me recognizes that?

Sometimes people use this status game strategy because it’s the only way they know how to interact with other people.

Maybe they learned long ago that the people in their life only paid attention to them when they said something that asserted their high status. People only took interest in them when they said things like, “I’m a very rich person.” The attention of others makes them feel worthy, seen, and valued. It’s nice to have a lot of money, but some people crave a wealth of attention.

Asserting high status, though, becomes a vicious, reinforcing cycle. After a while, people won’t care when they hear things like “I’m a very rich person”. They’ve heard that before and won’t react the way they once did. So it escalates: Soon, these individuals have the best memory, the highest IQ, and the best words.

Even though these statements are false—and verifiably false!—it doesn’t matter. Remember that outrage and indignation are still forms of attention. And some people are never satisfied with the amount of attention they receive.

This status game strategy works for some people: It helps them form and maintain relationships. For whatever reason, it has produced few, if any, negative consequences.

There are other ways, of course, to interact with people. However, it takes time and practice to do something different. Why change what you’re doing if it’s worked for you for so many years?

People who behave this way don’t need our pity. Pity doesn’t help anyone. One wonders, though, what happened to them in the past. Despite being over 70 years of age, they still don’t know how to interact with people without elevating themselves or putting others down.