User login
Clinical Research in Early Career Academic Medicine
Conducting clinical research as an early career gastroenterologist can take on many forms and has varying definitions of success. This article focuses on key factors to consider and should be supplemented with mentorship tailored to personal interests, goals, and institutional criteria for success. In this article, we will discuss selected high-yield topics that assist in early-career research. We will briefly discuss 1. Defining your niche, 2. Collaboration, 3. Visibility, 4. Time management, 5. Funding, 6. Receiving mentorship, and 7. Providing mentorship. We will conclude with discussing several authors’ experience in the research lab of the first author (FELD Lab – Fostering Equity in Liver and Digestive disease).
Defining Your Niche
Defining your niche is an essential component of an early career, as when academicians must transition from a trainee, who is supporting the research of an established mentor, to defining their own subspeciality area of investigation. Early-career academics should build on their prior work, but should also explore their own passions and skill set to define what will be unique about their research program and contributions to the field. Of course, positioning oneself at the intersection of two or more seemingly unrelated fields opens much opportunity for large impact but comes at a cost of identifying mentorship and justifying the niche to funders.
Collaboration
Fostering a collaborative environment is essential for early-career physician-researchers. One effective approach is to establish collaboration circles with other early career academics. Expanding research endeavors beyond a single institution to a multi-center framework enriches both scope and impact. This collaborative approach not only amplifies the depth of research but also facilitates peer mentorship and sponsorship. Participation in such networks can significantly enhance scholarly output and broaden professional reach during this critical phase of academic progression. Furthermore, prioritizing the promotion of colleagues within these networks is crucial. Proactive sponsorship opportunities, such as inviting peers to present at institutional seminars, strengthen both individual and collective academic visibility.
Collaboration is also essential to foster between trainees involved in early-career investigators’ work. An interconnected lab environment ensures that trainees remain informed about concurrent projects, thereby fostering a culture of shared knowledge and optimized productivity. Encouraging trainees to spearhead research aligned with their interests, under mentor guidance, nurtures independent inquiry and leadership. By establishing explicit roles, responsibilities, and authorship agreements at the outset of collaborative projects, early career mentors can avoid future conflicts and preserve a collaborative culture within the lab. This structured approach cultivates a supportive ecosystem, advancing both individual and collective research achievements.
Visibility
Establishing visibility and developing name recognition are crucial components of career advancement for early-career academic physicians. By clearly defining their areas of expertise, faculty can position themselves as leaders within their discipline. Active participation in professional societies, both at the local and national level, engagement with interest groups, and frequent contributions to educational events can be effective strategies for gaining recognition. Leveraging social media platforms can be helpful in enhancing visibility by facilitating connections and promoting research to a broader audience.
Moreover, research visibility plays a vital role in academic promotion. A strong publication record, reflected by an increasing h-index, demonstrates the impact and relevance of one’s research. Self-citation, when appropriate, can reinforce the continuity and progression of scholarly contributions. While publishing in high-impact journals is desirable, adaptability in resubmitting to other journals following rejections ensures that research remains visible and accessible. It also clearly establishes by whom the work was first done, before someone else investigates the line of inquiry. Through a combination of strategic engagement and publication efforts, early-career physicians can effectively build their professional reputation and advance their academic careers.
Time Management
Time management is essential for any research, and particularly in early career when efficiency in clinical care duties is still being gained. Securing protected time for research is essential to develop a niche, build connections (both institutionally and beyond their institutions), and demonstrate productivity that can be utilized to support future grant efforts.
Similarly, using protected time efficiently is required. Without organization and planning, research time can be spent with scattered meetings and responding to various tasks that do not directly support your research. It is helpful to be introspective about the time of the day you are most productive in your research efforts and blocking off that time to focus on research tasks and minimizing distractions. Blocking monthly time for larger scale thinking and planning is also important. Weekly lab and individual one-on-one meetings also support time management for trainees and lab members, to ensure efficiency and progress. Additionally, robust clinical support is essential to ensure that research time remains protected and patient care moves forward. When negotiating for positions, and in regular meetings thereafter, it is important to advocate for sufficient clinical staffing such that non-physician tasks can be appropriately delegated to another member of the care team.
Funding
Securing adequate funding poses a significant challenge for all early-career physician-scientists, particularly because of the discrepancy between National Institutes of Health salary caps and the higher average salaries in academic gastroenterology. This financial gap can deter physicians from pursuing research-intensive careers altogether and can derail early investigators who do not obtain funding rapidly. To overcome this, early-career investigators may need to adopt flexible strategies, such as accepting a lower salary that aligns with grant funding limits or funneling incentive or bonus pay to research accounts. Alternatively, they can advocate for institutional support to bridge the salary gap, ensuring their research efforts remain financially viable.
Institutions committed to fostering research excellence may offer supplemental funding or bridge programs to retain talented physician-scientists, thereby mitigating the financial strain and encouraging long-term engagement in research. Regular meetings to review salary and support sources, including philanthropy, foundation grants, and other streams, should be undertaken with leadership to align the researcher’s timeline and available funding. If career development funding appears untenable, consideration of multi–principal investigator R01s or equivalent with senior established investigators can be a promising path.
Receiving Mentorship
Effective mentorship for early-career physician-scientists should be approached through a team-based model that leverages both internal and external mentors. Internal mentors, familiar with the specific culture, expectations, and advancement pathways of the institution, can provide invaluable guidance on navigating institutional metrics for success, such as promotion criteria, grant acquisition, and clinical-research balance. External mentors, on the other hand, bring a broader perspective by offering innovative career development strategies and solutions derived from experiences at their home institutions. This multimodal mentorship model ensures a well-rounded approach to professional growth.
All national gastroenterology societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, offer structured early-career mentorship programs designed to connect emerging researchers with experienced leaders in the field (see below). These programs typically require a formal application process and are highly regarded for their exceptional quality and impact. Participation in such initiatives can significantly enhance career development by expanding networks, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and providing tailored guidance that complements institutional support. Integrating both internal and external mentorship opportunities ensures a robust and dynamic foundation for long-term success in academic medicine.
- AGA Career Compass (https://gastro.org/fellows-and-early-career/mentoring/)
- ACG Early Career Leadership Program (https://gi.org/acg-institute/early-career-leadership-program/)
- AGA-AASLD Academic Skills Workshop (https://gastro.org/news/applications-now-being-accepted-for-the-2024-aga-aasld-academic-skills-workshop/)
- AASLD Women’s Initiative Committee Leadership Program (https://www.aasld.org/promoting-leadership-potential-women-hepatology)
- Scrubs n Heels Mentorship Matrix (https://scrubsandheels.com/matrix/)
Providing Mentorship
The trainee authors on this manuscript describe in this section what has been helpful for them as mentees in the FELD research lab.
Student doctor Nguyen describes her experience as a lab member and things she finds most helpful as a medical student in the lab:
- Upon joining the team, a one-to-one meeting to discuss trainee’s personal and professional goals, and availability, was crucial to building the mentor-mentee relationship. Establishing this meaningful mentorship early on clarified expectations on both sides, built trust, and increased motivation. As a trainee, it is essential for me to see how my work aligns with a long-term goal and to receive ample guidance throughout the process.
- One of the most impactful experiences has been joining informal lunch sessions where trainees discussed data collection protocols and exchanged insights. In doing so, Dr. Feld has cultivated a lab culture that encourages curiosity, constructive feedback, and collaborative learning.
- To increase productivity, our team of trainees created a useful group message thread where we coordinated more sessions to collaborate. This coordination formed stronger relationships between team members and fostered a sense of shared purpose.
Dr. Cooper, a third year internal medicine resident, describes her experience as both a research mentee and a mentor to the junior trainees: “As a resident pursuing a career in academic gastroenterology and hepatology, I have found three key elements to be most helpful: intentional mentorship, structured meetings, and leadership development.”
- Intentional mentorship: Prior to joining the lab, I met with Dr. Feld to discuss my research experience and my goals. She took the time to understand these within the context of my training timeline and tailored project opportunities that aligned with my interests and were both feasible and impactful for my next steps. This intentional approach not only fostered a productive research experience but also established a mentor-mentee relationship built on genuine care for my growth and development.
- Regular meetings: Frequent lab meetings promote accountability, teamwork, and shared problem-solving skills. The open exchange of ideas fosters collaboration and joint problem solving to elevate the quality of our research. They are also an opportunity to observe key decision-making points during the research process and have been a great way to learn more about solid methodology.
- Supervised leadership: I have had ample time to lead discussions and coordinate projects among the junior trainees. These monitored leadership experiences promote project management skills, mentorship, and team dynamic awareness while maintaining the safety net of senior guidance. This model helped me transition from a trainee supporting others’ research to a more independent role, contributing to multi-disciplinary projects while mentoring junior members.
Conclusion
In conclusion, many exciting opportunities and notable barriers exist to establishing a clinical research laboratory in the early career. While excellence in each of the areas outlined may evolve, some aspects will come easier than others and with time, persistence, and a bit of luck, the research world will be a better place because of your contributions!
Dr. Feld is assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and physician executive of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging for the department of medicine at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) Chan Medical School, Worcester. Ms. Nguyen is a medical student at UMass Chan Medical School. Dr. Cooper is a resident physician at UMass Chan Medical School. Dr. Rabinowitz is an attending physician in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass. Dr. Uchida is codirector of the Multidisciplinary Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Clinic at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Conducting clinical research as an early career gastroenterologist can take on many forms and has varying definitions of success. This article focuses on key factors to consider and should be supplemented with mentorship tailored to personal interests, goals, and institutional criteria for success. In this article, we will discuss selected high-yield topics that assist in early-career research. We will briefly discuss 1. Defining your niche, 2. Collaboration, 3. Visibility, 4. Time management, 5. Funding, 6. Receiving mentorship, and 7. Providing mentorship. We will conclude with discussing several authors’ experience in the research lab of the first author (FELD Lab – Fostering Equity in Liver and Digestive disease).
Defining Your Niche
Defining your niche is an essential component of an early career, as when academicians must transition from a trainee, who is supporting the research of an established mentor, to defining their own subspeciality area of investigation. Early-career academics should build on their prior work, but should also explore their own passions and skill set to define what will be unique about their research program and contributions to the field. Of course, positioning oneself at the intersection of two or more seemingly unrelated fields opens much opportunity for large impact but comes at a cost of identifying mentorship and justifying the niche to funders.
Collaboration
Fostering a collaborative environment is essential for early-career physician-researchers. One effective approach is to establish collaboration circles with other early career academics. Expanding research endeavors beyond a single institution to a multi-center framework enriches both scope and impact. This collaborative approach not only amplifies the depth of research but also facilitates peer mentorship and sponsorship. Participation in such networks can significantly enhance scholarly output and broaden professional reach during this critical phase of academic progression. Furthermore, prioritizing the promotion of colleagues within these networks is crucial. Proactive sponsorship opportunities, such as inviting peers to present at institutional seminars, strengthen both individual and collective academic visibility.
Collaboration is also essential to foster between trainees involved in early-career investigators’ work. An interconnected lab environment ensures that trainees remain informed about concurrent projects, thereby fostering a culture of shared knowledge and optimized productivity. Encouraging trainees to spearhead research aligned with their interests, under mentor guidance, nurtures independent inquiry and leadership. By establishing explicit roles, responsibilities, and authorship agreements at the outset of collaborative projects, early career mentors can avoid future conflicts and preserve a collaborative culture within the lab. This structured approach cultivates a supportive ecosystem, advancing both individual and collective research achievements.
Visibility
Establishing visibility and developing name recognition are crucial components of career advancement for early-career academic physicians. By clearly defining their areas of expertise, faculty can position themselves as leaders within their discipline. Active participation in professional societies, both at the local and national level, engagement with interest groups, and frequent contributions to educational events can be effective strategies for gaining recognition. Leveraging social media platforms can be helpful in enhancing visibility by facilitating connections and promoting research to a broader audience.
Moreover, research visibility plays a vital role in academic promotion. A strong publication record, reflected by an increasing h-index, demonstrates the impact and relevance of one’s research. Self-citation, when appropriate, can reinforce the continuity and progression of scholarly contributions. While publishing in high-impact journals is desirable, adaptability in resubmitting to other journals following rejections ensures that research remains visible and accessible. It also clearly establishes by whom the work was first done, before someone else investigates the line of inquiry. Through a combination of strategic engagement and publication efforts, early-career physicians can effectively build their professional reputation and advance their academic careers.
Time Management
Time management is essential for any research, and particularly in early career when efficiency in clinical care duties is still being gained. Securing protected time for research is essential to develop a niche, build connections (both institutionally and beyond their institutions), and demonstrate productivity that can be utilized to support future grant efforts.
Similarly, using protected time efficiently is required. Without organization and planning, research time can be spent with scattered meetings and responding to various tasks that do not directly support your research. It is helpful to be introspective about the time of the day you are most productive in your research efforts and blocking off that time to focus on research tasks and minimizing distractions. Blocking monthly time for larger scale thinking and planning is also important. Weekly lab and individual one-on-one meetings also support time management for trainees and lab members, to ensure efficiency and progress. Additionally, robust clinical support is essential to ensure that research time remains protected and patient care moves forward. When negotiating for positions, and in regular meetings thereafter, it is important to advocate for sufficient clinical staffing such that non-physician tasks can be appropriately delegated to another member of the care team.
Funding
Securing adequate funding poses a significant challenge for all early-career physician-scientists, particularly because of the discrepancy between National Institutes of Health salary caps and the higher average salaries in academic gastroenterology. This financial gap can deter physicians from pursuing research-intensive careers altogether and can derail early investigators who do not obtain funding rapidly. To overcome this, early-career investigators may need to adopt flexible strategies, such as accepting a lower salary that aligns with grant funding limits or funneling incentive or bonus pay to research accounts. Alternatively, they can advocate for institutional support to bridge the salary gap, ensuring their research efforts remain financially viable.
Institutions committed to fostering research excellence may offer supplemental funding or bridge programs to retain talented physician-scientists, thereby mitigating the financial strain and encouraging long-term engagement in research. Regular meetings to review salary and support sources, including philanthropy, foundation grants, and other streams, should be undertaken with leadership to align the researcher’s timeline and available funding. If career development funding appears untenable, consideration of multi–principal investigator R01s or equivalent with senior established investigators can be a promising path.
Receiving Mentorship
Effective mentorship for early-career physician-scientists should be approached through a team-based model that leverages both internal and external mentors. Internal mentors, familiar with the specific culture, expectations, and advancement pathways of the institution, can provide invaluable guidance on navigating institutional metrics for success, such as promotion criteria, grant acquisition, and clinical-research balance. External mentors, on the other hand, bring a broader perspective by offering innovative career development strategies and solutions derived from experiences at their home institutions. This multimodal mentorship model ensures a well-rounded approach to professional growth.
All national gastroenterology societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, offer structured early-career mentorship programs designed to connect emerging researchers with experienced leaders in the field (see below). These programs typically require a formal application process and are highly regarded for their exceptional quality and impact. Participation in such initiatives can significantly enhance career development by expanding networks, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and providing tailored guidance that complements institutional support. Integrating both internal and external mentorship opportunities ensures a robust and dynamic foundation for long-term success in academic medicine.
- AGA Career Compass (https://gastro.org/fellows-and-early-career/mentoring/)
- ACG Early Career Leadership Program (https://gi.org/acg-institute/early-career-leadership-program/)
- AGA-AASLD Academic Skills Workshop (https://gastro.org/news/applications-now-being-accepted-for-the-2024-aga-aasld-academic-skills-workshop/)
- AASLD Women’s Initiative Committee Leadership Program (https://www.aasld.org/promoting-leadership-potential-women-hepatology)
- Scrubs n Heels Mentorship Matrix (https://scrubsandheels.com/matrix/)
Providing Mentorship
The trainee authors on this manuscript describe in this section what has been helpful for them as mentees in the FELD research lab.
Student doctor Nguyen describes her experience as a lab member and things she finds most helpful as a medical student in the lab:
- Upon joining the team, a one-to-one meeting to discuss trainee’s personal and professional goals, and availability, was crucial to building the mentor-mentee relationship. Establishing this meaningful mentorship early on clarified expectations on both sides, built trust, and increased motivation. As a trainee, it is essential for me to see how my work aligns with a long-term goal and to receive ample guidance throughout the process.
- One of the most impactful experiences has been joining informal lunch sessions where trainees discussed data collection protocols and exchanged insights. In doing so, Dr. Feld has cultivated a lab culture that encourages curiosity, constructive feedback, and collaborative learning.
- To increase productivity, our team of trainees created a useful group message thread where we coordinated more sessions to collaborate. This coordination formed stronger relationships between team members and fostered a sense of shared purpose.
Dr. Cooper, a third year internal medicine resident, describes her experience as both a research mentee and a mentor to the junior trainees: “As a resident pursuing a career in academic gastroenterology and hepatology, I have found three key elements to be most helpful: intentional mentorship, structured meetings, and leadership development.”
- Intentional mentorship: Prior to joining the lab, I met with Dr. Feld to discuss my research experience and my goals. She took the time to understand these within the context of my training timeline and tailored project opportunities that aligned with my interests and were both feasible and impactful for my next steps. This intentional approach not only fostered a productive research experience but also established a mentor-mentee relationship built on genuine care for my growth and development.
- Regular meetings: Frequent lab meetings promote accountability, teamwork, and shared problem-solving skills. The open exchange of ideas fosters collaboration and joint problem solving to elevate the quality of our research. They are also an opportunity to observe key decision-making points during the research process and have been a great way to learn more about solid methodology.
- Supervised leadership: I have had ample time to lead discussions and coordinate projects among the junior trainees. These monitored leadership experiences promote project management skills, mentorship, and team dynamic awareness while maintaining the safety net of senior guidance. This model helped me transition from a trainee supporting others’ research to a more independent role, contributing to multi-disciplinary projects while mentoring junior members.
Conclusion
In conclusion, many exciting opportunities and notable barriers exist to establishing a clinical research laboratory in the early career. While excellence in each of the areas outlined may evolve, some aspects will come easier than others and with time, persistence, and a bit of luck, the research world will be a better place because of your contributions!
Dr. Feld is assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and physician executive of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging for the department of medicine at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) Chan Medical School, Worcester. Ms. Nguyen is a medical student at UMass Chan Medical School. Dr. Cooper is a resident physician at UMass Chan Medical School. Dr. Rabinowitz is an attending physician in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass. Dr. Uchida is codirector of the Multidisciplinary Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Clinic at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Conducting clinical research as an early career gastroenterologist can take on many forms and has varying definitions of success. This article focuses on key factors to consider and should be supplemented with mentorship tailored to personal interests, goals, and institutional criteria for success. In this article, we will discuss selected high-yield topics that assist in early-career research. We will briefly discuss 1. Defining your niche, 2. Collaboration, 3. Visibility, 4. Time management, 5. Funding, 6. Receiving mentorship, and 7. Providing mentorship. We will conclude with discussing several authors’ experience in the research lab of the first author (FELD Lab – Fostering Equity in Liver and Digestive disease).
Defining Your Niche
Defining your niche is an essential component of an early career, as when academicians must transition from a trainee, who is supporting the research of an established mentor, to defining their own subspeciality area of investigation. Early-career academics should build on their prior work, but should also explore their own passions and skill set to define what will be unique about their research program and contributions to the field. Of course, positioning oneself at the intersection of two or more seemingly unrelated fields opens much opportunity for large impact but comes at a cost of identifying mentorship and justifying the niche to funders.
Collaboration
Fostering a collaborative environment is essential for early-career physician-researchers. One effective approach is to establish collaboration circles with other early career academics. Expanding research endeavors beyond a single institution to a multi-center framework enriches both scope and impact. This collaborative approach not only amplifies the depth of research but also facilitates peer mentorship and sponsorship. Participation in such networks can significantly enhance scholarly output and broaden professional reach during this critical phase of academic progression. Furthermore, prioritizing the promotion of colleagues within these networks is crucial. Proactive sponsorship opportunities, such as inviting peers to present at institutional seminars, strengthen both individual and collective academic visibility.
Collaboration is also essential to foster between trainees involved in early-career investigators’ work. An interconnected lab environment ensures that trainees remain informed about concurrent projects, thereby fostering a culture of shared knowledge and optimized productivity. Encouraging trainees to spearhead research aligned with their interests, under mentor guidance, nurtures independent inquiry and leadership. By establishing explicit roles, responsibilities, and authorship agreements at the outset of collaborative projects, early career mentors can avoid future conflicts and preserve a collaborative culture within the lab. This structured approach cultivates a supportive ecosystem, advancing both individual and collective research achievements.
Visibility
Establishing visibility and developing name recognition are crucial components of career advancement for early-career academic physicians. By clearly defining their areas of expertise, faculty can position themselves as leaders within their discipline. Active participation in professional societies, both at the local and national level, engagement with interest groups, and frequent contributions to educational events can be effective strategies for gaining recognition. Leveraging social media platforms can be helpful in enhancing visibility by facilitating connections and promoting research to a broader audience.
Moreover, research visibility plays a vital role in academic promotion. A strong publication record, reflected by an increasing h-index, demonstrates the impact and relevance of one’s research. Self-citation, when appropriate, can reinforce the continuity and progression of scholarly contributions. While publishing in high-impact journals is desirable, adaptability in resubmitting to other journals following rejections ensures that research remains visible and accessible. It also clearly establishes by whom the work was first done, before someone else investigates the line of inquiry. Through a combination of strategic engagement and publication efforts, early-career physicians can effectively build their professional reputation and advance their academic careers.
Time Management
Time management is essential for any research, and particularly in early career when efficiency in clinical care duties is still being gained. Securing protected time for research is essential to develop a niche, build connections (both institutionally and beyond their institutions), and demonstrate productivity that can be utilized to support future grant efforts.
Similarly, using protected time efficiently is required. Without organization and planning, research time can be spent with scattered meetings and responding to various tasks that do not directly support your research. It is helpful to be introspective about the time of the day you are most productive in your research efforts and blocking off that time to focus on research tasks and minimizing distractions. Blocking monthly time for larger scale thinking and planning is also important. Weekly lab and individual one-on-one meetings also support time management for trainees and lab members, to ensure efficiency and progress. Additionally, robust clinical support is essential to ensure that research time remains protected and patient care moves forward. When negotiating for positions, and in regular meetings thereafter, it is important to advocate for sufficient clinical staffing such that non-physician tasks can be appropriately delegated to another member of the care team.
Funding
Securing adequate funding poses a significant challenge for all early-career physician-scientists, particularly because of the discrepancy between National Institutes of Health salary caps and the higher average salaries in academic gastroenterology. This financial gap can deter physicians from pursuing research-intensive careers altogether and can derail early investigators who do not obtain funding rapidly. To overcome this, early-career investigators may need to adopt flexible strategies, such as accepting a lower salary that aligns with grant funding limits or funneling incentive or bonus pay to research accounts. Alternatively, they can advocate for institutional support to bridge the salary gap, ensuring their research efforts remain financially viable.
Institutions committed to fostering research excellence may offer supplemental funding or bridge programs to retain talented physician-scientists, thereby mitigating the financial strain and encouraging long-term engagement in research. Regular meetings to review salary and support sources, including philanthropy, foundation grants, and other streams, should be undertaken with leadership to align the researcher’s timeline and available funding. If career development funding appears untenable, consideration of multi–principal investigator R01s or equivalent with senior established investigators can be a promising path.
Receiving Mentorship
Effective mentorship for early-career physician-scientists should be approached through a team-based model that leverages both internal and external mentors. Internal mentors, familiar with the specific culture, expectations, and advancement pathways of the institution, can provide invaluable guidance on navigating institutional metrics for success, such as promotion criteria, grant acquisition, and clinical-research balance. External mentors, on the other hand, bring a broader perspective by offering innovative career development strategies and solutions derived from experiences at their home institutions. This multimodal mentorship model ensures a well-rounded approach to professional growth.
All national gastroenterology societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, offer structured early-career mentorship programs designed to connect emerging researchers with experienced leaders in the field (see below). These programs typically require a formal application process and are highly regarded for their exceptional quality and impact. Participation in such initiatives can significantly enhance career development by expanding networks, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and providing tailored guidance that complements institutional support. Integrating both internal and external mentorship opportunities ensures a robust and dynamic foundation for long-term success in academic medicine.
- AGA Career Compass (https://gastro.org/fellows-and-early-career/mentoring/)
- ACG Early Career Leadership Program (https://gi.org/acg-institute/early-career-leadership-program/)
- AGA-AASLD Academic Skills Workshop (https://gastro.org/news/applications-now-being-accepted-for-the-2024-aga-aasld-academic-skills-workshop/)
- AASLD Women’s Initiative Committee Leadership Program (https://www.aasld.org/promoting-leadership-potential-women-hepatology)
- Scrubs n Heels Mentorship Matrix (https://scrubsandheels.com/matrix/)
Providing Mentorship
The trainee authors on this manuscript describe in this section what has been helpful for them as mentees in the FELD research lab.
Student doctor Nguyen describes her experience as a lab member and things she finds most helpful as a medical student in the lab:
- Upon joining the team, a one-to-one meeting to discuss trainee’s personal and professional goals, and availability, was crucial to building the mentor-mentee relationship. Establishing this meaningful mentorship early on clarified expectations on both sides, built trust, and increased motivation. As a trainee, it is essential for me to see how my work aligns with a long-term goal and to receive ample guidance throughout the process.
- One of the most impactful experiences has been joining informal lunch sessions where trainees discussed data collection protocols and exchanged insights. In doing so, Dr. Feld has cultivated a lab culture that encourages curiosity, constructive feedback, and collaborative learning.
- To increase productivity, our team of trainees created a useful group message thread where we coordinated more sessions to collaborate. This coordination formed stronger relationships between team members and fostered a sense of shared purpose.
Dr. Cooper, a third year internal medicine resident, describes her experience as both a research mentee and a mentor to the junior trainees: “As a resident pursuing a career in academic gastroenterology and hepatology, I have found three key elements to be most helpful: intentional mentorship, structured meetings, and leadership development.”
- Intentional mentorship: Prior to joining the lab, I met with Dr. Feld to discuss my research experience and my goals. She took the time to understand these within the context of my training timeline and tailored project opportunities that aligned with my interests and were both feasible and impactful for my next steps. This intentional approach not only fostered a productive research experience but also established a mentor-mentee relationship built on genuine care for my growth and development.
- Regular meetings: Frequent lab meetings promote accountability, teamwork, and shared problem-solving skills. The open exchange of ideas fosters collaboration and joint problem solving to elevate the quality of our research. They are also an opportunity to observe key decision-making points during the research process and have been a great way to learn more about solid methodology.
- Supervised leadership: I have had ample time to lead discussions and coordinate projects among the junior trainees. These monitored leadership experiences promote project management skills, mentorship, and team dynamic awareness while maintaining the safety net of senior guidance. This model helped me transition from a trainee supporting others’ research to a more independent role, contributing to multi-disciplinary projects while mentoring junior members.
Conclusion
In conclusion, many exciting opportunities and notable barriers exist to establishing a clinical research laboratory in the early career. While excellence in each of the areas outlined may evolve, some aspects will come easier than others and with time, persistence, and a bit of luck, the research world will be a better place because of your contributions!
Dr. Feld is assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and physician executive of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging for the department of medicine at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) Chan Medical School, Worcester. Ms. Nguyen is a medical student at UMass Chan Medical School. Dr. Cooper is a resident physician at UMass Chan Medical School. Dr. Rabinowitz is an attending physician in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass. Dr. Uchida is codirector of the Multidisciplinary Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Clinic at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Endoscopy in a do-not-resuscitate patient: Practical and ethical considerations
Editor’s Note: I am very excited to introduce a section to The New Gastroenterologist that will address topics in clinical medical ethics we frequently face as gastroenterologists. There are several inherent ethical issues in gastroenterology that are not often explicitly discussed, such as periprocedural code status, informed consent, transplantation, performance of endoscopy in the critically ill, and nutrition support in the setting of end of life care. Often the most difficult decisions we make as clinicians are fraught with ethical implications which can be daunting and difficult to navigate. The goal of this section is to address these issues in a case-based format to offer some guidance to young gastroenterologists grappling with similar scenarios.
This month’s issue features the inaugural piece for this series, written by Dr. Lauren Feld (University of Washington), which discusses a clinical scenario in which a patient with a preexisting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is about to undergo endoscopy. The article provides a systematic approach to periprocedural code status and highlights existing guidelines that are generally not well known among gastroenterologists.
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
An 89-year old female with history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with melena and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia. The family member designated as the patient’s power of attorney (POA) agrees that her code status upon admission will be do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) without plan for invasive procedures. However, she has continued overt bleeding with concomitant hemodynamic instability. The POA and ICU team are now asking for urgent endoscopic evaluation, but do not agree to temporary code reversal for the duration of the procedure.
This vignette highlights an important distinction between a patient’s goals of care and the code status. While these two terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, “code status” refers to a patient’s wishes in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, while “goals of care” refers to a more comprehensive understanding of what care fits within a patient’s values. Patients or their families may still desire interventions such as procedures, but not wish to have a resuscitation attempt in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. This leads to the commonly encountered clinical scenario in which a patient planning to undergo endoscopy has an active DNR order.
Frequently, DNR orders are temporarily rescinded prior to invasive procedures. There are several reasons this occurs. First, patients or decision makers may decide that the improved rates of survival in intraprocedural arrests changes their risk-benefit assessment about resuscitation procedures. Secondly, proceduralists may feel an ethical duty to resuscitate a patient if the cause of the arrest is considered iatrogenic and potentially reversible. In addition, proceduralists may worry about legal or professional risk if a patient suffers cardiopulmonary arrest during a procedure and an attempt at resuscitation does not occur.
While this is a frequently encountered clinical scenario, there is wide variation in clinical practice. This variation led to the creation of guidelines set forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 1993 and subsequently adopted by the American College of Surgeons. These guidelines recommend a discussion between the physician and the patient prior to the procedure, utilizing shared decision-making around three options: 1) a full attempt at resuscitation; 2) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to specific procedures; and 3) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to the patient’s goals and values.
However, these guidelines are both not well known and frequently not applied amongst clinicians and ancillary staff. Patients are frequently told that they must reverse their DNR order to full code prior to undergoing endoscopy. Dissemination of a systematic approach to a patient with a DNR order who requires endoscopy is important to ensure patients have autonomy over their medical decision-making, while also ensuring that health care professionals feel comfortable with their decisions.
The first step when encountering this scenario is to ensure that the procedure is indicated in this particular patient. While guidelines and algorithms have a substantial role in deciding the appropriate work-up for a presenting complaint such as a presumed upper gastrointestinal bleed, the art of medicine lies in the role of the physicians to decide if an invasive procedure is indicated in their specific patients. This decision should be based on the patients’ presenting clinical scenario, their overall comorbidities, their values, and their goals of care.
As the medical complexity of the patient increases, the risks of the procedure increase and it is ultimately up to the endoscopist to frame the informed consent conversation such that the patient and family understand the potential risks and benefits in their specific case.
With a patient who has a desire to avoid aggressive resuscitation attempts, the physician, patient, and family should weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure, and carefully examine if the indication is sufficient. For the patient outlined in the case, her dementia limits her decision-making capacity, and the clinical team is working with a surrogate decision-maker, her POA, to understand the patient’s wishes and goals. Her POA reports upon admission that invasive procedures may not be in line with her previously expressed values or in her best interest. However, with the development of an acute decompensation due to a presumed GI bleed, a potentially reversible cause, the POA requests an endoscopy to attempt to intervene. Occasionally, a patient with clear goals of care can have a change in these goals when a decompensation occurs. The gastroenterologist should assess if this represents a true desire for invasive procedures, or if this is a response to pressure from other members of the clinical team or family, or if palliative needs are not being met. In this patient, her POA desires an endoscopy because her likely upper GI bleed may be contributing to an acute decompensation, but does not wish for other aggressive measures if she should suffer cardiopulmonary arrest. Although upper endoscopy is a generally safe and well-tolerated procedure, this patient’s cardiopulmonary comorbidities increase the risk of the procedure; therefore, the gastroenterology team should proceed with a candid, detailed discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives with the patient’s POA.
If the decision is made to proceed with endoscopy, the next step is to address the patient’s code status surrounding the procedure. This conversation should focus on three key goals: 1) allow the physician to gain understanding of the patient or surrogate’s perspectives on goals of care; 2) provide the patient or surrogate with an understanding of the risks and potential outcomes of the procedure, as well as resuscitation options; and 3) ultimately arrive at a mutual consensus regarding the patient’s periprocedural code status. Plans for postprocedural care should also be discussed.
While gastroenterology societies do not have specific guidelines surrounding this situation, there are several steps clinicians can take to ensure patient safety and autonomy are preserved:
- Physicians should avoid one-size-fits-all policies, such as the expectation that patients routinely return to full code for procedures.
- The patient and/or decision-makers should have a discussion regarding the risks during the procedure and potential reversibility of these risks.
- The patient should be presented with the option to either reverse to full code, refuse specific resuscitative measures such as defibrillation or intubation, or be allowed to explain his or her own views on goals of care and allow the procedural team to use their clinical judgment should an emergency arise.
- Physicians should be specific regarding the duration of the code status change. For example, in a patient who has reversed the code status to allow a full resuscitation attempt, the team and patient should discuss how long the patient will remain intubated after the procedure.
- This discussion should be documented carefully in the chart to assist with dissemination amongst the medical team.
This process will ensure that clear guidelines are defined such that everyone, including the patient’s potential decision makers, understand to what they are agreeing.
While physicians and care teams are primarily concerned with providing high-quality and individualized care to patients, it is true that concerns surrounding medicolegal risk are present. Careful informed consent and informed refusal conversations will reduce risk. Indeed, in a patient who has a DNR order, physicians are more likely to be at risk performing resuscitation efforts than withholding them. Communication between patients, families, and physicians remains the foundation for a trusting relationship and decreased litigation risk.
For this patient, engaging her POA in an honest and thorough discussion about her goals of care, as well as the risks of both performing and not performing the upper endoscopy are critical to her care. If her POA wishes to proceed with the procedure and have her remain DNR during the procedure, this should be documented and adhered to. Ultimately, the best outcome for this patient will occur with an individualized risk-benefit assessment and open, frequent communication among the care team and her POA.
Dr. Feld is a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts of interest.
Editor’s Note: I am very excited to introduce a section to The New Gastroenterologist that will address topics in clinical medical ethics we frequently face as gastroenterologists. There are several inherent ethical issues in gastroenterology that are not often explicitly discussed, such as periprocedural code status, informed consent, transplantation, performance of endoscopy in the critically ill, and nutrition support in the setting of end of life care. Often the most difficult decisions we make as clinicians are fraught with ethical implications which can be daunting and difficult to navigate. The goal of this section is to address these issues in a case-based format to offer some guidance to young gastroenterologists grappling with similar scenarios.
This month’s issue features the inaugural piece for this series, written by Dr. Lauren Feld (University of Washington), which discusses a clinical scenario in which a patient with a preexisting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is about to undergo endoscopy. The article provides a systematic approach to periprocedural code status and highlights existing guidelines that are generally not well known among gastroenterologists.
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
An 89-year old female with history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with melena and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia. The family member designated as the patient’s power of attorney (POA) agrees that her code status upon admission will be do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) without plan for invasive procedures. However, she has continued overt bleeding with concomitant hemodynamic instability. The POA and ICU team are now asking for urgent endoscopic evaluation, but do not agree to temporary code reversal for the duration of the procedure.
This vignette highlights an important distinction between a patient’s goals of care and the code status. While these two terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, “code status” refers to a patient’s wishes in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, while “goals of care” refers to a more comprehensive understanding of what care fits within a patient’s values. Patients or their families may still desire interventions such as procedures, but not wish to have a resuscitation attempt in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. This leads to the commonly encountered clinical scenario in which a patient planning to undergo endoscopy has an active DNR order.
Frequently, DNR orders are temporarily rescinded prior to invasive procedures. There are several reasons this occurs. First, patients or decision makers may decide that the improved rates of survival in intraprocedural arrests changes their risk-benefit assessment about resuscitation procedures. Secondly, proceduralists may feel an ethical duty to resuscitate a patient if the cause of the arrest is considered iatrogenic and potentially reversible. In addition, proceduralists may worry about legal or professional risk if a patient suffers cardiopulmonary arrest during a procedure and an attempt at resuscitation does not occur.
While this is a frequently encountered clinical scenario, there is wide variation in clinical practice. This variation led to the creation of guidelines set forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 1993 and subsequently adopted by the American College of Surgeons. These guidelines recommend a discussion between the physician and the patient prior to the procedure, utilizing shared decision-making around three options: 1) a full attempt at resuscitation; 2) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to specific procedures; and 3) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to the patient’s goals and values.
However, these guidelines are both not well known and frequently not applied amongst clinicians and ancillary staff. Patients are frequently told that they must reverse their DNR order to full code prior to undergoing endoscopy. Dissemination of a systematic approach to a patient with a DNR order who requires endoscopy is important to ensure patients have autonomy over their medical decision-making, while also ensuring that health care professionals feel comfortable with their decisions.
The first step when encountering this scenario is to ensure that the procedure is indicated in this particular patient. While guidelines and algorithms have a substantial role in deciding the appropriate work-up for a presenting complaint such as a presumed upper gastrointestinal bleed, the art of medicine lies in the role of the physicians to decide if an invasive procedure is indicated in their specific patients. This decision should be based on the patients’ presenting clinical scenario, their overall comorbidities, their values, and their goals of care.
As the medical complexity of the patient increases, the risks of the procedure increase and it is ultimately up to the endoscopist to frame the informed consent conversation such that the patient and family understand the potential risks and benefits in their specific case.
With a patient who has a desire to avoid aggressive resuscitation attempts, the physician, patient, and family should weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure, and carefully examine if the indication is sufficient. For the patient outlined in the case, her dementia limits her decision-making capacity, and the clinical team is working with a surrogate decision-maker, her POA, to understand the patient’s wishes and goals. Her POA reports upon admission that invasive procedures may not be in line with her previously expressed values or in her best interest. However, with the development of an acute decompensation due to a presumed GI bleed, a potentially reversible cause, the POA requests an endoscopy to attempt to intervene. Occasionally, a patient with clear goals of care can have a change in these goals when a decompensation occurs. The gastroenterologist should assess if this represents a true desire for invasive procedures, or if this is a response to pressure from other members of the clinical team or family, or if palliative needs are not being met. In this patient, her POA desires an endoscopy because her likely upper GI bleed may be contributing to an acute decompensation, but does not wish for other aggressive measures if she should suffer cardiopulmonary arrest. Although upper endoscopy is a generally safe and well-tolerated procedure, this patient’s cardiopulmonary comorbidities increase the risk of the procedure; therefore, the gastroenterology team should proceed with a candid, detailed discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives with the patient’s POA.
If the decision is made to proceed with endoscopy, the next step is to address the patient’s code status surrounding the procedure. This conversation should focus on three key goals: 1) allow the physician to gain understanding of the patient or surrogate’s perspectives on goals of care; 2) provide the patient or surrogate with an understanding of the risks and potential outcomes of the procedure, as well as resuscitation options; and 3) ultimately arrive at a mutual consensus regarding the patient’s periprocedural code status. Plans for postprocedural care should also be discussed.
While gastroenterology societies do not have specific guidelines surrounding this situation, there are several steps clinicians can take to ensure patient safety and autonomy are preserved:
- Physicians should avoid one-size-fits-all policies, such as the expectation that patients routinely return to full code for procedures.
- The patient and/or decision-makers should have a discussion regarding the risks during the procedure and potential reversibility of these risks.
- The patient should be presented with the option to either reverse to full code, refuse specific resuscitative measures such as defibrillation or intubation, or be allowed to explain his or her own views on goals of care and allow the procedural team to use their clinical judgment should an emergency arise.
- Physicians should be specific regarding the duration of the code status change. For example, in a patient who has reversed the code status to allow a full resuscitation attempt, the team and patient should discuss how long the patient will remain intubated after the procedure.
- This discussion should be documented carefully in the chart to assist with dissemination amongst the medical team.
This process will ensure that clear guidelines are defined such that everyone, including the patient’s potential decision makers, understand to what they are agreeing.
While physicians and care teams are primarily concerned with providing high-quality and individualized care to patients, it is true that concerns surrounding medicolegal risk are present. Careful informed consent and informed refusal conversations will reduce risk. Indeed, in a patient who has a DNR order, physicians are more likely to be at risk performing resuscitation efforts than withholding them. Communication between patients, families, and physicians remains the foundation for a trusting relationship and decreased litigation risk.
For this patient, engaging her POA in an honest and thorough discussion about her goals of care, as well as the risks of both performing and not performing the upper endoscopy are critical to her care. If her POA wishes to proceed with the procedure and have her remain DNR during the procedure, this should be documented and adhered to. Ultimately, the best outcome for this patient will occur with an individualized risk-benefit assessment and open, frequent communication among the care team and her POA.
Dr. Feld is a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts of interest.
Editor’s Note: I am very excited to introduce a section to The New Gastroenterologist that will address topics in clinical medical ethics we frequently face as gastroenterologists. There are several inherent ethical issues in gastroenterology that are not often explicitly discussed, such as periprocedural code status, informed consent, transplantation, performance of endoscopy in the critically ill, and nutrition support in the setting of end of life care. Often the most difficult decisions we make as clinicians are fraught with ethical implications which can be daunting and difficult to navigate. The goal of this section is to address these issues in a case-based format to offer some guidance to young gastroenterologists grappling with similar scenarios.
This month’s issue features the inaugural piece for this series, written by Dr. Lauren Feld (University of Washington), which discusses a clinical scenario in which a patient with a preexisting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is about to undergo endoscopy. The article provides a systematic approach to periprocedural code status and highlights existing guidelines that are generally not well known among gastroenterologists.
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
An 89-year old female with history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with melena and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia. The family member designated as the patient’s power of attorney (POA) agrees that her code status upon admission will be do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) without plan for invasive procedures. However, she has continued overt bleeding with concomitant hemodynamic instability. The POA and ICU team are now asking for urgent endoscopic evaluation, but do not agree to temporary code reversal for the duration of the procedure.
This vignette highlights an important distinction between a patient’s goals of care and the code status. While these two terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, “code status” refers to a patient’s wishes in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, while “goals of care” refers to a more comprehensive understanding of what care fits within a patient’s values. Patients or their families may still desire interventions such as procedures, but not wish to have a resuscitation attempt in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. This leads to the commonly encountered clinical scenario in which a patient planning to undergo endoscopy has an active DNR order.
Frequently, DNR orders are temporarily rescinded prior to invasive procedures. There are several reasons this occurs. First, patients or decision makers may decide that the improved rates of survival in intraprocedural arrests changes their risk-benefit assessment about resuscitation procedures. Secondly, proceduralists may feel an ethical duty to resuscitate a patient if the cause of the arrest is considered iatrogenic and potentially reversible. In addition, proceduralists may worry about legal or professional risk if a patient suffers cardiopulmonary arrest during a procedure and an attempt at resuscitation does not occur.
While this is a frequently encountered clinical scenario, there is wide variation in clinical practice. This variation led to the creation of guidelines set forth by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 1993 and subsequently adopted by the American College of Surgeons. These guidelines recommend a discussion between the physician and the patient prior to the procedure, utilizing shared decision-making around three options: 1) a full attempt at resuscitation; 2) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to specific procedures; and 3) a limited attempt at resuscitation defined with regard to the patient’s goals and values.
However, these guidelines are both not well known and frequently not applied amongst clinicians and ancillary staff. Patients are frequently told that they must reverse their DNR order to full code prior to undergoing endoscopy. Dissemination of a systematic approach to a patient with a DNR order who requires endoscopy is important to ensure patients have autonomy over their medical decision-making, while also ensuring that health care professionals feel comfortable with their decisions.
The first step when encountering this scenario is to ensure that the procedure is indicated in this particular patient. While guidelines and algorithms have a substantial role in deciding the appropriate work-up for a presenting complaint such as a presumed upper gastrointestinal bleed, the art of medicine lies in the role of the physicians to decide if an invasive procedure is indicated in their specific patients. This decision should be based on the patients’ presenting clinical scenario, their overall comorbidities, their values, and their goals of care.
As the medical complexity of the patient increases, the risks of the procedure increase and it is ultimately up to the endoscopist to frame the informed consent conversation such that the patient and family understand the potential risks and benefits in their specific case.
With a patient who has a desire to avoid aggressive resuscitation attempts, the physician, patient, and family should weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure, and carefully examine if the indication is sufficient. For the patient outlined in the case, her dementia limits her decision-making capacity, and the clinical team is working with a surrogate decision-maker, her POA, to understand the patient’s wishes and goals. Her POA reports upon admission that invasive procedures may not be in line with her previously expressed values or in her best interest. However, with the development of an acute decompensation due to a presumed GI bleed, a potentially reversible cause, the POA requests an endoscopy to attempt to intervene. Occasionally, a patient with clear goals of care can have a change in these goals when a decompensation occurs. The gastroenterologist should assess if this represents a true desire for invasive procedures, or if this is a response to pressure from other members of the clinical team or family, or if palliative needs are not being met. In this patient, her POA desires an endoscopy because her likely upper GI bleed may be contributing to an acute decompensation, but does not wish for other aggressive measures if she should suffer cardiopulmonary arrest. Although upper endoscopy is a generally safe and well-tolerated procedure, this patient’s cardiopulmonary comorbidities increase the risk of the procedure; therefore, the gastroenterology team should proceed with a candid, detailed discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives with the patient’s POA.
If the decision is made to proceed with endoscopy, the next step is to address the patient’s code status surrounding the procedure. This conversation should focus on three key goals: 1) allow the physician to gain understanding of the patient or surrogate’s perspectives on goals of care; 2) provide the patient or surrogate with an understanding of the risks and potential outcomes of the procedure, as well as resuscitation options; and 3) ultimately arrive at a mutual consensus regarding the patient’s periprocedural code status. Plans for postprocedural care should also be discussed.
While gastroenterology societies do not have specific guidelines surrounding this situation, there are several steps clinicians can take to ensure patient safety and autonomy are preserved:
- Physicians should avoid one-size-fits-all policies, such as the expectation that patients routinely return to full code for procedures.
- The patient and/or decision-makers should have a discussion regarding the risks during the procedure and potential reversibility of these risks.
- The patient should be presented with the option to either reverse to full code, refuse specific resuscitative measures such as defibrillation or intubation, or be allowed to explain his or her own views on goals of care and allow the procedural team to use their clinical judgment should an emergency arise.
- Physicians should be specific regarding the duration of the code status change. For example, in a patient who has reversed the code status to allow a full resuscitation attempt, the team and patient should discuss how long the patient will remain intubated after the procedure.
- This discussion should be documented carefully in the chart to assist with dissemination amongst the medical team.
This process will ensure that clear guidelines are defined such that everyone, including the patient’s potential decision makers, understand to what they are agreeing.
While physicians and care teams are primarily concerned with providing high-quality and individualized care to patients, it is true that concerns surrounding medicolegal risk are present. Careful informed consent and informed refusal conversations will reduce risk. Indeed, in a patient who has a DNR order, physicians are more likely to be at risk performing resuscitation efforts than withholding them. Communication between patients, families, and physicians remains the foundation for a trusting relationship and decreased litigation risk.
For this patient, engaging her POA in an honest and thorough discussion about her goals of care, as well as the risks of both performing and not performing the upper endoscopy are critical to her care. If her POA wishes to proceed with the procedure and have her remain DNR during the procedure, this should be documented and adhered to. Ultimately, the best outcome for this patient will occur with an individualized risk-benefit assessment and open, frequent communication among the care team and her POA.
Dr. Feld is a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts of interest.