Feeling like the enemy: the emotion management and alienation of hospital doctors

Introduction Globally, an epidemic of psychological distress, burnout, and workforce attrition signify an acute deterioration in hospital doctors' relationship with their work—intensified by COVID-19. This deterioration is more complicated than individual responses to workplace stress, as it is heavily regulated by social, professional, and organizational structures. Moving past burnout as a discrete “outcome,” we draw on theories of emotion management and alienation to analyze the strategies through which hospital doctors continue to provide care in the face of resource-constraints and psychological strain. Methods We used Mobile Instant Messaging Ethnography (MIME), a novel form of remote ethnography comprising a long-term exchange of digital messages to elicit “live” reflections on work-life experiences and feelings. Results The results delineate two primary emotion-management strategies—acquiescence and depersonalization—used by the hospital doctors to suppress negative feelings and emotions (e.g., anger, frustration, and guilt) stemming from the disconnect between professional norms of expertise and self-sacrifice, and organizational realities of impotence and self-preservation. Discussion Illustrating the continued relevant of alienation, extending its application to doctors who disconnect to survive, we show how the socio-cultural ideals of the medical profession (expertise and self-sacrifice) are experienced through the emotion-management and self-estrangement of hospital doctors. Practically, the deterioration of hospital doctors' relationship with work is a threat to health systems and organizations. The paper highlights the importance of understanding the social structures and disconnects that shape this deteriorating relationship and the broad futility of self-care interventions embedded in work contexts of unrealized professional ideals, organizational resource deficits and unhappy doctors, patients, and families

Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure

Background Nesiritide is approved in the United States for early relief of dyspnea in patients with acute heart failure. Previous meta-analyses have raised questions regarding renal toxicity and the mortality associated with this agent. Methods We randomly assigned 7141 patients who were hospitalized with acute heart failure to receive either nesiritide or placebo for 24 to 168 hours in addition to standard care. Coprimary end points were the change in dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitalization for heart failure or death within 30 days. Results Patients randomly assigned to nesiritide, as compared with those assigned to placebo, more frequently reported markedly or moderately improved dyspnea at 6 hours (44.5% vs. 42.1%, P = 0.03) and 24 hours (68.2% vs. 66.1%, P = 0.007), but the prespecified level for significance (P≤0.005 for both assessments or P≤0.0025 for either) was not met. The rate of rehospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause within 30 days was 9.4% in the nesiritide group versus 10.1% in the placebo group (absolute difference, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.1 to 0.7; P = 0.31). There were no significant differences in rates of death from any cause at 30 days (3.6% with nesiritide vs. 4.0% with placebo; absolute difference, −0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.3 to 0.5) or rates of worsening renal function, defined by more than a 25% decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (31.4% vs. 29.5%; odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.21; P = 0.11). Conclusions Nesiritide was not associated with an increase or a decrease in the rate of death and rehospitalization and had a small, nonsignificant effect on dyspnea when used in combination with other therapies. It was not associated with a worsening of renal function, but it was associated with an increase in rates of hypotension. On the basis of these results, nesiritide cannot be recommended for routine use in the broad population of patients with acute heart failure. (Funded by Scios; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00475852.

Pharmacologic management of patients with both heart failure and diabetes

Diabetes and heart failure often occur together in patients, with each condition influencing the treatment of the other. Each disease has its own well-documented impact on prognosis, but when they are present in the same patient, the risk of morbidity and mortality increases substantially. Some therapies used in the treatment of diabetes are contraindicated in patients with heart failure, and some therapies for treating heart failure are often mistakenly believed to be contraindicated in patients with diabetes. This article aims to clarify the evidence behind treating these conditions simultaneously and dispel the myths surrounding the pharmacologic management of diabetes in heart failure and vice vers