Plastic surgery at the turn of the century: an opportunity for self-assessment.

J. McCarthy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200003000-00062

2000-03-01

Abstract:As we enter the 21st century, the year 2000, or Y2K, what are some of the issues that we, as plastic surgeons, will face? We all know that change is life’s one constant but that change also presents opportunities. We should also recognize that change has positive and negative aspects. As Sir Francis Bacon said: “He who will not apply new remedies must expect new evils.” That said, I want to examine several issues of critical importance, as I see it, to plastic surgery today. First, I want to look at their positive as well as negative aspects. Then I would like to make specific recommendations—courses of action that to me seem to be essential to our future growth and success. Change is not coming; change is here now. And like all Darwin’s creatures, we will have to adapt smartly if we intend to survive. First, I think we all would agree that the loss or diminution of physician autonomy has had a tremendous impact on our lives and our profession. I know that in my case one of the strong incentives for pursuing a career in medicine was that one day I could “hang out my shingle” and direct the course of my professional career. I think that for many of us the dream was to study, learn, and go forth to treat patients. Today, young plastic surgeons, just completing residency training and saddled with educational loans, have little chance of “hanging out their shingles.” There are fewer practice opportunities; start-up costs are enormous and the system of reimbursement changes daily. I began by writing that we had to look at both sides of every issue. One could, in fact, argue eloquently that the lack of physician autonomy has a brighter side than the one I just described. Anyone who has ever run his or her own practice knows well the meaning of the phrase “you don’t own a small business; it owns you.” Giving up what we might call such “indentured autonomy” generally means getting out from under a mountain of tedious detail, allowing you to spend more time with your patients— and losing autonomy can probably be good for your health. But to me and my generation of physicians, the concept of “shift medicine” was looked down upon. Obstetricians would never think of leaving a woman in labor just because their shift was up. Normal schedules were something only for “regular” human beings. Recently we have come to realize that physicians are regular human beings—that they work more effectively if they can get off the treadmill once in a while—that creative insight is often the product of rest and time away from the practice. And, in this sense, shift medicine may actually lead to a higher quality practice of medicine. But turn the coin over again—I do not want someone in my family to be the woman in active labor when the doctor announces, “Shift over, see you tomorrow. Meet Doctor X and the next crew.” Nor would I particularly like to be the patient of a group practice that, to survive economically, must restrict time with each patient to 12 minutes. But such are the economics of reduced physician autonomy. Reduced physician autonomy has other negative effects. It stifles surgical education programs. The enthusiastic surgery resident, who