Practicing Medicine with an MD Only

The tragic story of Dr Robert Chu is making the rounds on social media after a profile in the Toronto Star and an accompanying piece about the troublesome nature of the CaRMS match that did not provide him a residency position despite two application cycles. His is a horrific end that highlights the high-stress, low-support nature of medicine in general, but particularly for those who hit speed bumps on their path to becoming a physician.

Many words have been written or spoken about how to remedy situations like this and prevent outcomes like Dr Chu's. These are important topics to discuss which for far too long have been left unaddressed in actions if not in words. I wish these conversations were happening independent of this story, however, as there is so much unknown about Dr Chu's situation that it prevents his particular circumstances from being meaningfully addressed and throws his death into the middle of a discussion that is much, much bigger than his individual story, significant as it is.

There are numerous responses being discussed, but I wanted to focus on one of them. Namely, that having an MD, even without any residency training, should permit someone to work in healthcare in some capacity. Indeed, an MD is rather unique among degrees in that, on its own, means very little. Even in fields where additional training is often necessary, the introductory degree still holds value and can be used to pursue various career paths. The MD is, in effect, a useless degree.

This idea has been circulating among American physicians for some time, even if it hasn't gained much traction in Canada, in no small part due to the increasing presence of Physician Assistants (PAs) and Nurse Practitioners (NPs) in the US. Particularly when it comes to PAs, American physicians see people who have spent less time training than a freshly-graduated MD who cannot work independently, but are able to essentially practice medicine under a qualified physician. This begs the question as to why MDs who were unable to match couldn't do the same. It may not even be overly difficult to set up such a system, as PAs don't have much legal authority themselves, but work under the framework of delegation legislated for physicians. The legal and regulatory framework is largely in place already to allow supervised MD practice without residency, under the direction of a fully-trained physician.

Yet, as things currently stand, I would not being in favour of letting MDs practice in a manner similar to PAs. While MD training is longer, and thus both deeper and broader than that for PAs, it's not particularly functional. MDs are trained more to know rather than to do. PAs are trained to work as they were intended as soon as they graduate. A fresh PA is essentially an extra arm to a physician, allowing them to do more using their already-established knowledge. A fresh MD is more like an extra brain, which isn't particularly helpful to a fully-trained physician who already has that knowledge in spades.

Updating training within MD programs to emphasize practical skills above knowledge could solve this problem and set physicians up to have some sort of back-up option if they fail to land a residency. I'd far prefer a set-up like this with continual supervised practice as opposed to something like the old rotating internship leading to the ability to work as a GP after only a year of post-graduate training. This would require a fairly massive shift in medical education from the current approach, all at a time when getting even small adjustments is an uphill battle. Still, I believe that making medical student education more practical and focused on what we do rather than what we know is worthwhile on its own merits, independent of its implications for the job market.

So, it's an option I think should be considered in these sorts of discussions. It's not the simplest solution (that would be simply making moves to improve the student-to-residency spot ratio) and it's not without its flaws. However, I think it could fit into a broader approach to improving medical education that moves the profession forward.

Ontario Binding Arbitration Framework

The OMA and the Ontario Government, against all odds, have come to an agreement. A preliminary one. On how to approach a real agreement. This isn't a physician services agreement, which is what would be needed to provide for a real update of physician funding schemes, but it's a start. Effectively, this sets the stage for negotiations and provides a framework to come to an agreement through a binding arbitration system.

In rejecting the previous tentative physician services agreement, I had two main concerns. First, that the presence of a defined, limited physician services budget with clawbacks on physicians as a whole put too much responsibility on individuals physicians for results beyond their power to affect. Worse, it set up an economic situation that would further encourage physicians to bill and practice in ways that advantaged them at the expense of patients, taxpayers, and their own colleagues. Second, it did not provide any protections for physicians against decision-making of the Ontario government, which is vitally important as physicians have minimal protections from current labour laws and no practical ability to strike in the event of a protracted labour dispute.

This agreement, the Binding Arbitration Framework, effectively has the Ontario government yielding the second point entirely. If this framework is agreed to, we have binding arbitration now and, by the looks of it, moving forward to future negotiations. It appears to be a reasonable solid arrangement, without much in the way of loopholes. The worst criticism I've read is that the government maintains policy-making rights, including which services should be funded which... of course they do. I doubt we could remove that in an agreement regardless of how it was written, thanks to the current Canadian constitution and the Canada Health Act. This was always going to be a loophole, but it'd be extremely inconvenient - politically and legally - for the government to take advantage of this under the proposed framework.

More interestingly, the framework touches on the first point of concern I had as well. It doesn't remove a set physician services budget, which I still find worrisome, but neuters its effectiveness considerably. First, it makes the budget subject to binding arbitration. Second, it explicitly dictates factors that an arbiter should consider, most importantly demographic changes. It does include consideration for the economic situation in Ontario, which is troublesome from an administration that has used any hint of economic weakness to justify public service cuts, but could end up being beneficial as well, as economic strength should work in our favour. Third, and most importantly, breaches in the cap on the physician services budget do not automatically result in punitive action against physicians. Rather, breaches will be subject to arbitration, where it can be determined to what extent, if any, physicians are responsible. Additionally, any punitive actions are subject to negotiation and arbitration, meaning more targeted cuts are possible, in contrast to the current approach of across-the-board cuts. I'd rather see the physician services budget cap removed entirely, but this is a reasonably well-tailored way to maintain its existence while blunting the more objectionable aspects to such a cap.

Some other objections to this agreement have been raised, however. First is that it generally precludes negotiation on the unilateral changes enacted since 2014. Yet, I haven't seen any indication this would be on the table - even the most favourable labour decisions wouldn't include significant back-payments and the OMA has little bargaining power for this time (due in no small part to its own actions). There's what's ideal and there's what's realistic; getting any meaningful compensation for the last 3 years during (failed) negotiations seems like a pipe dream more than anything. Second, the agreement limits ability to engage in strikes or job actions that directly affect patient care... which we couldn't (and shouldn't) do anyway. Job actions that negatively affect patient care in a meaningful way, including strikes, contravene recommended ethical guidelines, including those listed by the CPSO, our regulatory body. Furthermore, physician strikes don't work. The history of them in Canada is full of physicians losing badly. While recognizing a significant desire among Ontario physicians to engage in job actions, if this agreement prevents that, it'll only be saving us from ourselves.

I think I've painted a fairly clear picture of where I stand on this framework. It's not perfect, far from it. Yet, it gives Ontario physicians clear, long-term wins that looked unlikely even a few months ago. The compromises for those wins, while not insignificant, are tolerable. Critically, these benefits come before money is even on the table - I honestly figured that to gain some of these concessions moving forward, physicians would have to endure more financial pain in the short-term. To have them arranged in advance of the negotiations for the current physician services agreement would be a welcome surprise. I rejected the previous tPSA, loudly and proudly. I just voted in favour of this framework.

The Worst Part of Medical Training

While working on another post, I found the following paragraphs saved as a draft post. I'm not sure if I'm the author of these words and suspect that I'm not, yet can't find who wrote them originally. I have a feeling this was a forum post that ended up getting deleted, that I copied because I felt the words were worth saving.

I present them here as I found them in my draft folder - if the original author comes across this and wants them removed, I will happily do so. However, I think these paragraphs provide an important context to medical training which should be shared.

"I have to highlight this for those considering or early in their medical training, because it's a part of medical training no one appreciates until they're in it.

As a trainee, there will be times where a patient's treatment is below what you consider acceptable. The worst is when there's a preceptor acting completely inappropriately. All you can do is sit back and watch the carnage unfold. If you're lucky, you'll be able to debrief the patient and provide some more appropriate guidance, as well as a bit of simple human empathy.

More often you're simply a cog in a system failing patients that, because you're new to that system, you don't understand and are ill-equipped to navigate. You act the way you think you're supposed to act, even the way others expect you to act, and it causes harm to patients in one way or another. Everyone goes along like it's normal or, worse, thanks you for your part in it. Yet, you have to continue with your role as that cog, because as a trainee, you have no alternative short of quitting. As you gain experience, becoming more knowledgeable about medicine as well as the healthcare system you're now a part of, you start to see opportunities to work around the system to avoid causing harm, to lessen it, or at least to warn patients of what's coming so they aren't blindsided.

This is the worst part of medical training - not the long hours, not the pressure to perform, not the vast amount of knowledge you need to acquire, not even the (fortunately uncommon in my experience) instances where you're personally treated poorly by preceptors - but the time where you're made to be complicit in bad care or outright mistreatment of patients. You don't have the power to change it, and so ultimately you aren't responsible for it, but it sure doesn't feel like it at the time."

I am now about a month away from starting my residency. This is definitely the part of my medical education thus far that I hated the most. It's the part of my upcoming residency I most fear. This is the dark side of medicine, the part that doesn't just challenge your ability, but compels you towards the corruption of your own ideals - ideals which the profession purports to share and uphold, yet frequently betrays.