Linda Girgis, MD

Medical misinformation is all too common these days, especially as many try to politicize public health recommendations. While doctors are not immune from these narratives, we are still expected to follow evidence-based practices. Even though we try our best to follow best clinical practices, misinformation often creeps up in the course of patient encounters. It is easy to grow frustrated when this happens but it’s important to remember that it often comes from a good place: our patients trust us to give them the real information.

7 Ways to combat medical misinformation

Slideshows

The pandemic has shown that medical misinformation can spread as quickly as a deadly disease.

 7 Ways to combat medical misinformation

What can be done to handle discussions around medical misinformation?

Everyone is talking about public health since the pandemic started. It is often hard to know who the real experts are. It is imperative, as the experts that our patients trust, to get the right information. We need to know what the medial authorities, such as the CDC, WHO, and our medical societies are saying. We need to understand the data they are publishing. For example, if they report on studies showing that a vaccine is 95% effective, that is the data we need to share with our patients. If we say they always work, that would be wrong information. If we say some doctor on Instagram says there is a study that shows they don’t work at all, that would be wrong as well. Know the trusted sources and know what they are saying. We can’t share reliable information when we don’t have it.

Follow clinical guidelines from appropriate medical societies.

There are many medical societies and groups out there. During our careers, we learn those that we can depend on to get accurate information and serve as a guide for us. For those of us in family practice, the American Academy of Family Practice is such a medical authority on all things family medicine. Each specialty has their own governing society. These societies tend to release clinical guidelines on the treatment and prevention of diseases we may encounter in the course of our medical practice. We should be following these guidelines as appropriate. There are also outlier medical groups publishing conflicting recommendations. When they conflict with the oldest, most-known authorities, then there is a good chance that they are wrong.

Address specific concerns that the patients have.

We can give the patient a ton of information but unless we address what they are actually concerned about, we lost them. For example, we can tell a patient that the COVID vaccine is safe but if their only concern is that it may cause infertility, we fail if we don’t reassure them on that point. We need to listen and ask what specific concerns they have

While something may seem ridiculous to us as healthcare providers, it may be completely reasonable to our patients. We need to understand where they are coming from and try to understand why they believe something that may be obviously misinformed. Maybe they heard it from a close family member or a role model they followed all their lives. Ridiculing these others is not going to bring patients closer to the truth. A family member may be trying to keep their loved one from harm. We need to be empathetic and not undermining.

I often hear from patients that the specialists didn’t take time to answer their questions. Patients are not going to follow our advice if they don’t feel confident about that decision. During the pandemic, we’re busier than ever before. However, our patients probably have more questions than ever before. Answering the patients questions about the vaccine may save time down the road when we convince them to get vaccinated rather than treating them when they become infected.

As a doctor, it is hard to admit when we don’t know something. Yet, we don’t know everything and it is wrong to give patients made-up or half-truthed answers. This may just feed in to mistrust and falling for other misinformation. If we don’t know something, it is OK that we say so and then commit to finding the answer for the patient. Don’t be a source of misinformation.

Don’t say things on social media that you don’t stand by in real life.

There are doctors on social media that are the source of much misinformation. It is easy to fall into the political arguments surrounding public health policy. However, it’s always best to assume whatever you say on social media is available to the public eye and patients are following it.

Misinformation has been around for a long time but never more pertinent than it seems these days. It is driving politics and economies. Everyone has an opinion on it. Yet, science is an undisputable truth that doesn’t care what anyone thinks about it. As doctors, we are called to be champions for that truth and for the well-being of our patients. Are you ready to take a stand against misinformation?

, MD, is a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J. She is also the author of six books, the editor-In-chief of

and a widely-published author. You can find more of her work at

Articles

Follow these tips to avoid spreading false medical information.

Tips for combatting medical misinformation in the exam room

Many people think doctors are coldhearted and curt. While there may be some that fit the criteria, the majority of physicians truly care about helping others and the lives entrusted to our hands. While we try to save and lengthen lives, sometimes this simply is not possible. One of the hardest tasks that a clinician must do, for many of is, is giving patients bad news.

It amazes me that patients are so varied in their response to this information. Some of them quite expected it and are fully prepared to face the outcome. Others are so shocked that they disbelieve the data. Some may stand steadfast in the face of the worst while others break down on great anguish. There is no wrong or right response and no way to predict how a patient will respond. The best start is to know that delivering bad news to a patient is going to change their life. They will have schedules to change and plans to make. They will be uncertain how they will tell their loved ones. We need to be open to any response and not minimize it. Not all people can be strong and to tell them to do so may trivialize what they are experiencing.

Communicating bad news to your patients

Watching the movies, it seems like doctors are often telling patients they have "six months to live," but this is far from the truth. Most often, we simply do not know how long a patient will live. And any doctor that has practiced for any length of time will share stories of patients whose survival has amazed us. No matter how bad the news, we need to give our patients some hope. And, we must not dash the hope our patients hold within themselves.

Giving bad news is not fun, but as a doctor, it is something you'll have to do from time to time. Here are some tips on how to do it.

There is nothing more frustrating to physicians than knowing a patient needs a certain diagnostic test or medication and having them not be able to get it because their health insurance company won’t cover it. All too often, many services require prior-authorization (PA).

It wouldn’t be so bad if the insurance companies made the guidelines they use to make these determinations readily apparent to those practicing medicine. However, these guidelines are created by the insurance company (with a main goal being cost containment rather than evidence-based medicine), unavailable to treating clinicians, and often they use decades-old recommendations. We are often left to predict the insurance company’s decision.

Many of us feel that it is like playing an epic game where we try to give our best care to our patients, while the insurance companies deny as many tests as possible to increase their profits. The loser of this game is not the one who was able to get the least amount of services covered or earned the least money. Rather, it is the patient: delayed diagnoses/treatment, denied tests, forced to use less effective medications based on formularies developed by insurance companies using their own guidelines, and footing increased costs.

How can this prior-authorization game be played for better odds of winning?

Ways to play the prior authorization game

While these tips may help get some services covered, they often still do not work. The insurance companies hold a lot of power over these medical decisions. The most important thing is to keep fighting the ones we don’t medically agree with. The day we all quit the battle is the day we lose the game and big insurance companies win and determine medical care. We must remain diligent in our fight for optimal clinical outcomes in all and each of our patients.

Prior authorizations are a pain for physicians. Here are a few things you can do to improve your odds of winning.

 features contributions from members of the medical community. The expressed opinions are that of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of 

Physicians are increasingly being squished. As 

 rates decrease or remain stagnant, many people think the solution is to see more 

. Unfortunately, this just doesn’t work in medicine. Those who tend to see 

 seem to also be the same ones who think rushing patients in and out of the office to increase numbers is the answer.

Here are six reasons why seeing more patients is not the solution:

Patients are living longer with more chronic and complicated diseases.

They need more time with physicians and other healthcare providers than ever before. Patients usually have more diseases to monitor and potential complications to watch out for. Additionally, patients are often on more medications, and physicians need more time to discuss potential side effects and interactions. Shortening visits even further means more patients leave the exam room with questions unanswered and conditions undetected. This takes more time down the road. And it sets up the stage for missed diagnoses and unnecessary complications.

When we see more patients, we have less time to document, and we are already struggling against an ever-increasing charting burden. We need to report certain metrics to meet MIPS/

 requirements. We can’t see more patients and record more data at the same time.

 before they come to see us. This does not save time in most cases. Rather, patients come in with many questions that need answers. If we address their concerns up front, they don’t need to call back with additional questions that weren’t answered at the time of their visit or return to have us look at something that was left unexamined.

More patients equal less time to answer all of patients’ concerns in one visit.

Some doctors now limit the number of problems patients can discuss at one visit. I am a family doctor, and often patients may have many disparate concerns that end up being related. For example, a patient may be concerned about why she is so tired and why her legs are swelling. Those are two concerns. However, if we listen to all her concerns, she may also tell us that her hair is falling out and she has trouble swallowing. These added concerns lead me to make the diagnosis of hypothyroidism.

don’t spend enough time with them or listen to all their concerns

, they are not happy. They come to use and are worried about a problem, stressed out about life events or just wanting to make the best decisions to stay healthy. We can do much to ease that - if we have time.

When we rush patients in and out to try to increase numbers, we are not able to comfort our patients. Again, this may lead to follow-up calls. Or worse, the patient 

 about us online or looks for another doctor who can give them 5 extra minutes, both of which can cause our profits to decrease. While we can’t make every patient happy, we should do our best to listen and try to help them find answers.

Everyone is talking about the high degree of 

 among physicians. Most of us are already operating at full steam. Trying to pile more on us is only going to make this problem worse. When we see more patients, we often are left with piles of paperwork to complete after-hours due to the endless load of increasing documentation requirements.

Doctors are human. We need rest, too. We have families, and they need us too. Unless we are allowed to take care or ourselves and our loved ones, our health will suffer. An ailing doctor is not an effective one.

While many in the C-suite think seeing more patients can boost 

 and profits, they fail to see the reality those on the frontlines face every day. Pushing more patients through a dysfunctional healthcare system is not helping anyone, patients or healthcare providers alike. Executives at organizations may see an initial boon to the bottom lines, but over time they are going to burn their resources (i.e., doctors) to the ground. Then they will be left with a crowd of patients in the waiting room and no one left to take care of them.

If we want to improve physician efficiency and productivity, we need to fix our 

, MD, is a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J. She is also the author of six books, the editor-In-chief of 

 and a widely-published author. You can find more of her work at 

Though traditional fee-for-service reimbursement is tied to volume, quality patient care can’t be increased by simply adding more appointments. 

Why seeing more patients doesn’t equal greater productivity

Interoperability was touted as the promise of electronic health records (EHRs). The vision was to create systems that could communicate with each other, making patient records available wherever and whenever they may are treated.  While some systems talk with each other, the truth is that we do not yet have wide-scale interoperability in the healthcare system.

Integration is needed in order for disparate systems to share data. Different vendors need to work together to make interoperability a reality. And, for the most part, EHR vendors are not willing to do this. They have little incentive to build a bridge to another company’s software. After all, they’re a business, and they’d rather sell their own products than share with their competitors.

As a result, providers are stuck in the middle, and that puts patient care at a halt - and a disadvantage. Here are five ways the failed promise of interoperability interferes with daily practice.

In the past, labs and radiology facilities would fax or mail results to physicians’ offices. Today, some have the capability to integrate with certain systems to directly upload data into the EHR. Unfortunately, many do not.

The results still get faxed and mailed to us. Then we need to scan, download, and upload them into the patients’ charts. This clearly involves extra steps and extra time, none of which we’re paid for but need to do for proper documentation and the best patient care.

Interoperability makes it harder to get information that isn’t shared but should be. One of our local hospitals is supposed to be integrated with our system. But sometimes, the results don’t appear in our EHR. We then have to call and request the results. The clerk then argues we already have access to it.

When we finally convince him/her that we don’t have it, the clerk will fax it over, maybe within 15 minutes, maybe within 15 hours. Patients get upset waiting that long for the fax to come, and we’re left waiting until it does.

When systems stop communicating with each other, no one is to blame. One of our local labs is integrated with our EHR but for two weeks, none of the lab results appeared in our EHR. We called the lab and after a 30-minute hold, we were told it was the fault of our EHR software. After another 30-minute hold and an hour and a half phone conversation with our EHR vendor, we were told the fault was with the lab software.

We were going back and forth between both companies for several days. In the meantime, we had to have all the results faxed over, scanned in, downloaded and then uploaded. Once the integration suddenly started working again, we then had double lab entries in all those charts from the previous two weeks, meaning we had to spend even more time reviewing and removing those duplicate results.

Software vendors don’t all do their updates at the same time. When the system is down for one system to update, the others are still going. Then those are down at other times, creating a never-ending cycle of updates.

When a system is down, it doesn’t integrate with the others. In other words, we need to repeat the familiar yet frustrating process of faxing, scanning, downloading and uploading the data.

Keystoke errors in data input can lead to prolonged searches. For example, if my practice doesn’t enter the patient’s middle initial but the pharmacy does, that creates a data mismatch, meaning the prescription will not be recorded in the patient’s chart. Sometimes a simple search will resolve the issue, but it is often more complicated.

When the patient comes for the follow-up appointment and the results are not in the EHR, we end up calling to request the results (maybe after a 15 to 20 minute hold) and they are then faxed over. Those records then they have to - you guessed it - be scanned, downloaded and uploaded into our EHR system.

Where no bridge exists, a website may offer a connection. Many third-party companies now allow providers to access online portals to view results or records. This can be a great workaround if you are dealing with only one or two sites, but it becomes a very complex process when there are six or seven sites to look up, access, download and upload results.

Interoperability is a great idea, but we are still far from achieving it. And, in my opinion, I doubt we ever will. In the meantime, the lack of interoperability place burdens and waste time from a physician’s daily practice.

EHR interoperability is a great idea in theory, but the reality leaves much to be desired.