An intriguing video…not about medicine…not about sim…but just about life

I came across this video via a feed on Facebook. It’s got nothing to do with sim, with helicopters, medicine or even education (well except maybe it contributes to general education of life).

http://www.upworthy.com/the-earth-shatteringly-amazing-speech-that-ll-change-the-way-you-think-about-adulthood-4?g=2

I thought it deserved to be shared. It struck a chord because I’ve been that guy stuck in line at the grocery store and just about ready to lose it…then having to get back in my car and drive home in Toronto’s ridiculous traffic. This video reminds us about others, that the people around us may not be in nearly the fortunate situations that we’re in or maybe they’ve just had an even worse day at work than me. Regardless, I hope I can remember this video next time I’m pissed off at how long the line in the grocery store is or when I’m stuck 3 hours of traffic, just trying to get home.

For those interested, the speech is an excerpt from a commencement speech delivered by David Foster Wallace in 2005 before his death in 2008.

 

 

A HEMS experience from a resident perspective (and a few pictures from my last flight)

This post is being written while on a plane back to Toronto…I’m just settling into some serious jetlag so I figured no better time than put down a few thoughts on my experience in Auckland. For the past 6 months I’ve worked in NZ with the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust as the HEMS education fellow and flight physician. Coming from Canada where putting physicians on-board helicopters to work in a pre-hospital environment is about as foreign as …. I came to Auckland with little knowledge about what to expect.

Posing for the photo op. Realized a modeling career isn't in my future.

Posing for the photo op. Realized a modeling career isn’t in my future.

To say the least, the entire experience was amazing and unforgettable! And much of this must be attributed to amazing group who work at ARHT. My supervisor and HEMS medical director, Chris Denny, got me organized and met with me weekly. We set out a plan, established learning outcomes and gradually implemented an advanced simulation plan at ARHT. Amazingly the ARHT facilitated this with the purchase of several brand new simulation manikins which only enhanced the learning possibilities. I worked alongside several talented physicians (Sam Bendall and Scott Orman) who mentored me in advanced simulation techniques, e-learning, integration of social media and blogging into education.

My time at ARHT was divided between educational endeavours and work as the HEMS duty doctor. Both allowed me to work and learn with the entire ARHT team who taught me more than they can imagine! While I can’t possibly thank everyone in this format, I developed great relationships with Barry Watkin (chief paramedic) and Herby Barnes (head crewman) who both worked to help me implement some of our educational objectives!

A view of Auckland at sunset

A view of Auckland at sunset

As the HEMS education fellow, I ran weekly simulations (often based on jobs we had recently done or questions that had come up), case-based learning sessions and finally task training sessions. We described our learning online both through the aucklandhems.com blog and via Twitter. We flew across the Tasman to practice our pre-hospital ultrasound skills at SMACC2013 (an impressive 2nd place…despite our less than optimal subject matter we had to teach)! (link). We implemented new standard operating procedures based on (and tested in) simulation. There was collaboration with teaching and simulation with the Auckland City ED as I worked there part-time as well.

On the west coast outside Auckland

On the west coast outside Auckland

Finally, I had the opportunity to practice pre-hospital & retrieval medicine. This opportunity to learn from some amazing doctors, paramedics, crewmen and pilots in a setting that previously was entirely unfamiliar, was awesome! I gained an entirely new appreciation for ergonomics as practicing medicine in the back of a helicopter is entirely different than even the craziest of emergency departments! I had opportunities to do winch rescues (both practice and operational), jumping from helicopters, rock swims with surf rescue, run resuscitations in remote areas and the list goes on.

What stood out however, was the theme of safety. In medicine, safety is sadly a relatively new topic…but for many of our pilots and crewmen, safety has been a part of their work since they started. In fact, those in aviation who don’t embrace safety…tend not to have very long work careers (for obvious & unfortunate reasons). Working in a helicopter is among the highest risk occupations around so it’s not surprising the ARHT team take safety so seriously. I spoke with the crewmen and pilots as much as a could to better appreciate their perspective…so that perhaps in medicine I can borrow and learn from their obsession. I suspect (as others have as well) that medicine lags in safety management because bad outcomes don’t harm clinicians directly…in a helicopter however, lack of concern for safety does affect everyone onboard. Thus the entire team has a vested interest in promoting and ensuring safe procedures. We run safety briefings, we have an online safety management system in place and just like the rest of aviation we incorporated checklists for both routine & high-risk procedures. As HEMS doctors, we tried to emulate the pilots/crewmen so we also use a checklist for our high-risk procedures like rapid sequence intubation…this is just starting to catch on in the ED but in my opinion there’s much room for improvement! I once asked one of our pilots about checklists and why they use them… I told him that in medicine, people fear checklists because they think it will take away their ability to think…he laughed and replied:

“we have checklists not so that we stop thinking…but so we can start thinking during a crisis and not worry about forgetting small details”.

And that brings me to the end of my last blog post at ARHT. A huge thanks to the entire team at HEMS & ARHT for inviting me to Auckland, helping me learn and trying new things! I will continue blogging but likely with a shift towards simulation and education. I’ll still be collaborating with the HEMS team at ARHT and hopefully posting some stuff on aucklandhems.com. So that’s it for now…back to my inflight movie, Argo.

Navigating the world of social media in clinical medicine

It’s great to see articles now about the impact and effects of social media in medicine especially in other specialities. This article titled “Social Media and Clinical Care” was just published in Circulation and deserves at least a brief review by any clinician who uses social media either to augment clinical care. It’s also encouraging to see this appear in the journal Circulation which has as a relatively high impact factor (around 14). Clearly the academic medical community and more importantly the general medical community is taking note of the importance of social media.

Whether you like it or hate it, I would argue we shouldn’t fight social media. It’s unlikely to disappear especially now with more than 1 billion smartphones on the planet.  Instead as clinicians we should use it in a way that helps us communicate with each other, with patients and ultimately improves care. That being said, social media does NOT equal good or better! (it can be ). We always strive to “do no harm” and social media in medicine should be no exception.

To borrow the Spiderman quote “with great power comes great responsibility“. The same applies to social media…in fact maybe I should try and coin my own modification “with great social media power comes great social media responsibility”! But as we increasginly engage in social media we must recognize it’s power…which is why we should continue to use it but also understand how it can be quite dangerous.

What this article does it outline the various ways that it can be used within clinical medicine. It also highlights the ethical challenges we face and provide some perspective using an ethical framework.  The great thing is that in the spirit of FOAM (free open access medicine) this article is free! Congratulations for Circulation for making this accessible to all.

Who should read this article?

  • Any clinician who has patients participating in social media as a source for medical advice
  • Any clinician who uses social media as a form of communication/education with other clinicians
  • Any clinician who engages with their patients through social media as a form of education
  • Any clinician looking for some good references of studies that evaluate the impact of social media within medicine/patients

Does this sound like all clinicians should read it? I would say unless you still think rotating tourniquets is the optimal method to treat heart failure, yes…you probably should at least give it a glance.

What I found interesting was the discussion about whether it’s appropriate to use specific patient cases on a blog. I haven’t taken up this practice, but I really do value reading other medical blogs when authors recount specific instances. It’s helpful to read these accounts – almost as if you’re speaking with a colleague about an interesting/challenging case…but now your colleague can be anyone in the world. Powerful stuff! But at the same time, I respect the issues of confidentiality that surround such discussions. What was interesting was the article quoted data that found

“medical educators…felt that writing a deidentified patient narrative using a respectful tone was never or rarely acceptable (61%)”

That is really quite high…61%! And impressively it was a “deidentified” patient described  using a “respectful tone”. I’m curious to know what others think but I personally don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s obviously better to have patient consent but what if the case was 2 years prior? Does that change anything? Pragmatically it would be hard to find that patient…and perhaps considerable learning can be achieved from the case. This is definitely a challenge for educators/clinicians in balancing the risks & benefits. More importantly, it doesn’t seem like our colleagues may support such actions!

The authors of this article outline some recommendations for physicians who have blogs/websites as well as those who engage in online social networks. None of these are revolutionary but they provide us with good reminders of how we can continue to uphold our commitment to improving patient care in an ethical manner.

Source: Chretien & Kind Circulation 2013

Source: Chretien & Kind Circulation 2013

 

Source: Chretien & Kind Circulation 2013

Source: Chretien & Kind Circulation 2013

 

 

Family presence during resuscitations…the debate continues

For those of us involved in acute care medicine, you’ve likely faced the question

“should we invite the family to be present during the resuscitation?”

More than likely you also have an opinion on the matter. In fact, as I’ve started to look at the literature, people have very strong opinions about this subject! For those with short attention spans…check out a recent New England Journal of Medicine article for further evdience! 

I’ll be candid – I support the practice of having families present for the resuscitation, or at least inviting them to be present. I understand some families will decline which is entirely their choice but importantly other families will find this important to be present.

The last time I invited a family to observe was in an ICU setting where we were in the process of resuscitating a young person who had suffered cardiac arrest. The patient was extremely unstable with episodes of CPR and increasing pressor requirements.  I knew the family was waiting in the family room so I handed over the role of team leader to another colleague and visited with the family. Before leaving, however, the entire team was made aware of the plan to have the family present. Everyone was in agreement with the plan. I invited all family members to be present though only 3 of 5 requested to observe. Before entering, I outlined that they would see their loved one with a “breathing tube” and that “CPR” may be in process. We had our most senior ICU nurse with the family throughout the resuscitation to explain exactly what was happening. Never once were they left alone, however, we did encourage if they wished to hold their loved ones hand. We had planned our equipment prior to allow for this. Unfortunately the patient died but the family expressed their gratitude to the entire team for their efforts. Furthermore, they thanked us for allowing them to be with the patient during the final moments of her life. I can’t speak to why the family chose to be present, but they expressed nothing but gratitude for the invitation.

Detractors will say that family presence may have hindered the teams performance and perhaps led to psychological harm to the patient’s family. I also can’t speculate on the long term consequences for observing this potentially traumatic event. However, our team unanimously decided it would be appropriate and we proceeded accordingly.

Importantly, our team had a short de-brief afterwards where any concerns, comments and opinions were heard. There was no disagreement among team members that what was done was appropriate.

I recalled this story after reading this week’s NEJM which published a pre-hospital trial which randomized family members to observation of CPR compared to standard practice. The primary outcome was the proportion of relatives with PTSD related symptoms. Impressively, those family members who observed the resuscitation had significantly lower frequency of PTSD related symptoms than those who did not witness the resuscitation. There was no affect on resuscitation characteristics, patient survival and none resulted in medicolegal claims.

In conclusion, the authors stated that:

“family presence during CPR was associated with positive results on psychological variables and did not interfere with medical efforts, increase stress in the health care team or medicolegal conflicts”

Some will argue that this study applies only to the pre-hospital setting since in-hospital situations are very different. In this study setting, many may have witnessed the actual collapse which differs from the hospital. So in the pre-hospital setting, maybe this is sufficient evidence to proceed with offering family presence? I can’t imagine there’s going to be another randomized trial any time soon. This is likely the best evidence we’ll get…at least out of hospital.

There is a vast array of highly opinionated individuals who have posted replies to this topic and I believe these warrant reading. Its amazing how strong the opinions are despite the lack of evidence. There have been several studies that have evaluated ED personnel opinion – these show equipoise…in one study it was 50.9% who supported family presence.

As many who are against the practice have pointed out, lack of support and communication during the resuscitation are detrimental and counterproductive. There must  be a designated individual who can provide perspective and explanation to the family. Furthermore that individual must recurrently reassess the emotional state of the family. While some feel this is a pandora box that should NEVER be opened, I would disagree. One of the editorialists for the NEJM article summaries the situation quite well:

“Part of our job as physicians is to help patients and families establish goals of care, process life-threatening events, and, at times, orchestrate the best death possible.”

 

What is most important as acute care clinicians is that we continue the discourse and encourage future study. There is clearly no definitive answer and to argue in one direction or the other without acknowledging the lack of evidence is ignorant. We have multiple surveys that report equipoise among clinicians followed by anecdotal reports of success with family observation.  Interestingly, several large guidelines have endorsed family presence including those from the AHA.

Based on this emerging evidence, it certainly doesn’t discourage me from further pursuing family presence. I will continue to invite families into the resuscitation room, however, before this occurs I will ensure the following:

  1. Discuss with the team so that everyone is aware that the family will be entering 
  2. Offer to the family the opportunity to be present
  3. Prepare the family for what they may see and that the resuscitation may be stopped during their present
  4. Ensure there is a well experience clinician (either RN or MD) with the family throughout the resuscitation
  5. Debrief the resuscitation team afterwards

 

What should be encouraged is similar situations be incorporated within simulation training. Before we fully integrate family presence, just like any other high-risk procedure, we should practice it and be competent. The entire team should be aware and understand the implications.

For those wishing to read more, I highly recommend a critical review of the literature published in 2005. While it’s a bit older, it is quite helpful! At that time there was little evidence to support many of the concerns expressed by those do not support family presence…

 

Google Glass = craziness!

Check out this video – the new Google Glass promo video.

I just watched this video at a conference combining social media & critical care (SMACC 2013 and I thought it deserved a mention). I have no affiliation with Google, but gotta love how they push the limits of awesome!

Imagine how this could work within medicine – what if, as the Resuscitation Team Leader, you were wearing Google Glass…all the drug doses, adverse reactions, algorithms would be available immediately. Or more interestingly, an educator could review the perspective of a trainee who is running a resuscitation. Or perhaps the trainee is provided with this technology to help enhance their learning experience. Or what about improving tele-medicine, where experts in a different city can provide expertise by viewing what’s happening in the trauma room. While this happens now, imagine if it came right from the team leader’s perspective. The possibilities…pretty well endless!

A reflection on SMACC (Social Media and Critical Care Conference) in Sydney!

The past 3 days has been a whirlwind experience in Sydney, Australia where I attended the Social Media and Critical Care Conference (@smacc2013).

smacc-big

I joined a group of several of my colleagues at Auckland HEMS to participate in the inaugural conference. It combined two seemingly unrelated things – social media & critical care. Making it probably the among the first (if not the first) medical conference to have social media as a key theme. Over the past few years, physicians in critical care, emergency medicine and prehospital medicine have become leaders in social media and using the internet as a learning tool. The creators of the conference started the innovative website Lifeinthefastlane which is a blog read by thousands of acute care physicians around the world. They decided to extend their scope and create a conference which in my opinion was a huge success! This conference was a natural extension of the relatively new concept that highlights “medical education for anyone anytime, anywhere” – this concept is known as FOAM or “free access open meducation” (#FOAMed on twitter). I won’t describe it fully here as others have already done so. But it’s the way in which we use social media and the internet to share, disseminate and collaborate within medical education.

As a reflection on the conference I’d like to share a couple highlights and concepts that emerged. What was unique about the conference was the use of Twitter. There was heavy emphasis on live tweeting during each session with a designated twitter coordinator who would pose questions to the speakers directly from those asked on Twitter. There was constant discussion on Twitter with both conference attendees and even those clinicians half-way around the world. Let me provide a brilliant demonstration of this in action. In one session about coagulation in trauma, the session facilitator (Dr. Minh Le Cong from the blog PHARM) tweeted asking for comments from those in the twittersphere. Within minutes there were comments coming in from Dr. Karim Brohi, a trauma surgeon in London, England who is a world expert in coagulation in trauma. A discussion among the speaker and the audience resulted based on his comments. Never before had I seen such interaction at a global level occur during a conference. The power in capturing ideas and facilitiating live discussion among both those attending the conference and leading experts sitting in a room across the world is amazing!

When I would look around the room in each session, there was a barrage of tweeting with many sending out comments made by conference speakers as they happened. This is incredibly powerful. It allowed for an immediate online commentary for those not attending the conference. But it also allowed those of us in other sessions to hear some highlights and really get an idea of what was happening especially if there were controversial topics being discussed.

Every talk was videorecorded and posted online for free viewing by anyone in the world. This represents a huge step in promoting free open access medial education (FOAM). Why we restrict education to those who can afford or arrange travel to these conferences is mindboggling. Our business is to improve patient care and if we can collaborate and share ideas that emerge from great meetings like this then our patients will definitely benefit.

Imagine a speaker says something quite controversial. Previously it might never really be discussed again. Or perhaps it might be misrepresented several weeks or months later in a report. At this conference, speaker comments could be disseminated rapidly with the opportunity for rapid responses and discussion.

Unlike many academic conferences, speakers were introduced based on their blog (and not their publication count or number of academic achievements). While the merits of publications should not be diminished, it highlighted that an online presence where your ideas are shared, exposed and subject to review from people around the world is a new way to gain status within the medical world.

Finally, the conference started to address how FOAM, social media and asynchronous learning can be incorporated within medicine. There were enthusiastic talks that demonstrated the power of online education but also some excellent perspectives that online learning is not a learning panacea. These sessions were humbling since we must remember that despite all this technology, we still treat people. Our job requires human interaction and without reflection we can begin to forget this. Those on blogs and twitter drive the curriculum because topics are interesting, but sometimes the less sexy topics deserve discussion. There’s no curriculum to guide us online and this may not always benefit learners.

As long as we can appreciate these limitations we can maximize the potential of a asynchronous learning using an online platform. Never before can we collaborate, share, discuss and even criticize. It’s an exciting time for medical education and SMACC did a great job making it a reality!

Deception and misdirection – Is being “unethical” a bad thing during medical simulation?

This week’s post was prompted from a recent set of articles in the journal Simulation in Healthcare. Until recently, I’ve given little thought to purposeful deception during  simulation scenarios. Often scenarios are designed to be somewhat “tricky” with a key learning point. This often takes place by incorporating a random medical fact/concept that the learner may not pick up. For example, the seizing patient in refractory status epilepticus…if the participants took a proper history from the family they would have found out that patient has recently started treatment for tuberculosis. The diagnosis of INH induced seizures would be clinched  But what about when you purposefully try to mess with the participants and actually challenge their personality, their ability to behave as a physician and arguably break the psychological safety that should exist within a simulation? Is this beneficial or does such a scenario inhibit learning? optical-illusion-man

I’d like to review and comment on the articles and editorials published in the most recent edition Simulation in Healthcare. The article is a description about how simulation was used to test/study medical hierarchy during a medical resuscitation.

The authors (pediatric intensivists) implemented a scenario where a young child was critically ill with hyperkalemia resulting in a dysrhythmia and incidental hypophosphatemia. The team leader (who was a confederate) was scripted to order potassium phosphate to replace the low phosphate, however, this would also result in death of the simulated patient. The learners (ICU residents/fellows) had some idea that a team leader (staff intensivist) would appear part way through the case but were unaware that such hierarchy conflict would emerge. The team leader confederate was instructed to comply by not administering the drug only if the team demonstrated repeated or sustained challenges in giving this potentially deadly medication. The authors describe running the scenario 3 times and reported the following responses:

  1. Appropriate, successful challenge of drug administration and team leader complied
  2. Appropriate challenge but delayed resulting in delayed appropriate management
  3. The order was not challenged and the simulated patient died

What are you thoughts after reading this? Do you have a visceral reaction that this was a good or bad idea?

My opinion is that in the right circumstances with trained educators I think this is extremely powerful, useful and should be part of the educational toolbox. There’s an accompanying editorial where the authors have raise multiple concerns about this approach which I won’t reiterate – all of which are valid. Though interestingly they also provide well written counter arguments in anticipation of how others may respond.

Simulation scenarios that address non-medical aspects that can lead to patient harm should be simulated. While I agree that this type of case probably is best administered by an experienced simulation educator with highly skilled participants, I disagree with the editorial which suggests that such scenarios should be avoided. They were concerned that this may cause the participant to think:

“Am I the kind of person who is unwilling or unable to challenge a respected colleague who I think is making bad medical judgments, even when this may result in serious injury to the patient, or even death”

I would argue (like the study’s authors) that with proper briefing regarding the educational purpose of the simulation and adequate de-briefing to explore the cognitive decision points that resulted in the patient’s outcome, then learning can be achieved. The degree of deception should be related to experience level of the participants since junior learners would unlikely benefit from such a difficult scenario. However, increasingly, we recognize that teamwork and crew resource management (CRM) play an important role in how we care for patients. Our non-technical skills and awareness to our own cognitive biases during critical situations has considerable impact on patient outcomes.  It’s inevitable that during critical situations we may face challenging interpersonal interactions or difficult decisions.  We should train by pushing the limits of the team and the system. I acknowledge there are some who are concerned regarding the disregard for psychological safety during such simulations. I argue that with proper approaches that psychological safety can be managed. Furthermore we can do a much better job controlling the psychological safety of a simulation than we can simply leaving learners to fend for themselves during a real-life situation where not only their psychological safety is at stake, but the medical safety of the patient is at risk.

The argument that we should study this more before widespread use is reasonable but I’m not sure that results from one centre will be applicable to others. The validity of such studies remains challenging to say the least. Certainly larger studies will help, but meanwhile simulations including misdirections or deceptions that challenge not only technical knowledge but interpersonal and team dynamics should be supported.

 

Abstract from cited article above 

Case & Commentary: Using Simulation to Address Hierarchy Issues During Medical Crises. Calhoun AW et al. Simul Healthc. 2013; 8(1):13-19

Medicine is hierarchical, and both positive and negative effects of this can be exposed and magnified during a crisis. Ideally, hierarchies function in an orderly manner, but when an inappropriate directive is given, the results can be disastrous unless team members are empowered to challenge the order. This article describes a case that uses misdirection and the possibility of simulated ‘‘death’’ to facilitate learning among experienced clinicians about the potentially deadly effects of an unchallenged, inappropriate order. The design of this case, however, raises additional questions regarding both ethics and psychological safety. The ethical concerns that surround the use of misdirection in simulation and the psychological ramifications of incorporating patient death in this context are explored in the commentary. We conclude with a discussion of debriefing strategies that can be used to promote psychological safety during potentially emotionally charged simulations and possible directions for future research. (Sim Healthcare 8:13Y19, 2013)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEJM commentary on service in medical education – They got it wrong.

Last week there was a very interesting perspective/editorial published in the NEJM. But one that I thought deserves some comment because I strongly disagreed with the authors. In fact, I thought it was unfortunate to see this commentary in such a widely read journal.

The title was “Service: An Essential Component of Graduate Medical Education“. It was authored by two Boston physicians (both appear to be oncologists). The authors outline their concern that service should be seen as an educational objective that shouldn’t be minimized, instead “resident duties that confer a high degree of service may still provide high educational value, in the form of genuine experience with patient care”. In essence they argue that seeing any/all patients is a learning opportunity! We will often joke about this on a shift when there’s a patient that likely won’t be a valuable learning experience for the trainee. I would agree that learning probably can gained from most patient interactions however, the quality and the yield may very often be low. Plus rather than subscribe to these authors’ belief  any patient presents learning opportunities and service should be viewed as learning, we should recognize that different learners have different needs. I would argue that in the emergency department, a surgery intern may gain very little from seeing a patient with chronic back pain that is seeking opiates and has considerable behavior issues. Patients like this can be challenging and often provide little learning especially when there are other patients to see. For instance, it’s very possible there’s a patient that needs to be seen that will better fulfill the pre-defined objectives of the surgery intern. However, this patient may be useful for the senior emergency medicine resident to manage as such patients will be their responsibility once they’re staff.

The authors then provide several examples of “service” which I found quite interesting.  One which particularly caught my attention…”A family practice resident misses a teaching conference in order to see her last clinic patient, who arrives late because of transportation problems“. They argue that a “didactic” teaching session is not nearly as valuable as seeing that final patient in clinic! I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Residents/trainees should not be made to miss preestablished learning opportunities for service. Whatever this “teaching session” is, it’s been integrated into the curriculum such that the resident can work towards achieving competence in their field. There may be exceptions but as a rule I would advocate against this mindset.

We have begun to move towards a competency-based approach to medical education with a set of competencies laid out for residents to achieve by the end of their training. As they work towards these competencies, there’s no doubt that they’ll be doing “service” and “less valuable” tasks but to think that simply seeing patients and doing scut work is valuable because you never know when that little piece of learning may occur is wrong.

The final words of the authors addressed the aspect of competency-based education head on: “many medical educators have worked to optimize the educational value of residency and protect trainees from engaging in menial activities from which they do not learn. As such reform continues, however, it risks going too far and sacrificing certain essential educational experiences that can emerge from service activities, as well as the opportunity to teach trainees about service’s importance to the profession”

Overall  the author’s argument came across as annoyed staff physicians who were having to do their own work and no longer being able to pawn it off on their residents.

In general, I strongly disagreed with the authors’ argument. In an era in medical education when time has become a commodity and duty hour restrictions have become reality, we must continue on the path towards ensuring trainees are competent based on pre-defined learning objectives. We should seek efficient and high yield methods for trainees to learn. To continue forcing a resident to do dictations for the same thing over and over simply because they need to learn the value of service seems to go against this approach. It will not help trainees become better doctors and as a result our patients will suffer. And as most of us agree, we became physicians to become experts in patient care and help those who can’t help themselves.