Skip to main content

The need for Geriatrics


There is an excellent op-ed in the Boston Globe from Dr. Lewis Lipsitz that in clear yet eloquent language makes the case for training of more Geriatricians, and the survival of Geriatrics as a specialty. Dr. Lipsitz is a Professor at Harvard Medical School and chief of Gerontology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

One of the nice things that were articulated in this op-ed is that one of the most of the important roles of the Geriatrician is to listen. While many older patients have a whole bunch of specialists, it is the role of the Geriatrician to put everything together, listening to the patient and caregiver at great length. There was one rather stunning statistic in the op-ed. In 2007 only 91 new Geriatricians were trainied in the US. As the need for Geriatrics is increasing, the number seeking training is falling.

Dr. Lipsitz notes a major problem recruiting Geriatricians is the poor compensation compared to other medical specialties. The key skills taught in Geriatrics are not lucrative procedural skills---and spending more time with patients is certainly not profitable.

An odd benefit of all these negative financial incentives for becoming a Geriatrician is that it ends up making it a lot of fun to play a role in training. This may seem like an odd statement, but our fellows are truly amazing, and I think one of the reasons is this anti-incentive. Our fellows certainly do not choose Geriatrics for the money--in fact, most of them have survived a gauntlet of attendings who have questioned their choice, noting that they are "good enough" to get a cardiology or GI fellowship. Our fellows join us because they are passionate about providing great care for the elderly, teaching others to provide this care, and doing research that will lead to care improvements. Working true believers who really believe in what they are doing is a lot of fun. However, training only a small number of true believers is not good for our health system, or our nation's elderly. It is really important the disincentives Dr. Lipsitz discusses be addressed.

Dr. Chris Langston, program director at the John A. Hartford Foundation, has an excellent discussion of this article on the health AGEnda blog. He calls on all of us to step up to the plate and make the case to the public for better care for older patients, and the workforce issues that are needed to make this happen.

Comments

Dan Matlock said…
Geriatricians are an interesting bunch. I hypothesize that we all have a bit of an axe to grind with the way elderly are treated in our system and it comes through. When talking to patients, we are caring, patient, and thoughtful; when talking to colleagues treating (or mistreating) our patients, we can be a little rough.

I do agree that this kind of passion is one of the biggest things I enjoy about a geri community.
Thank you very much for blogging about Dr. Lipsitz OpEd. He is devoted to geriatric research and improving the quality of life in older adults. Did you know he was recently highlighted in Boston Magazine as a Top Geriatrician?

Follow Hebrew SeniorLife's research and our leaders on twitter at http://Twitter.com/H_SeniorLife

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …