Burning out of privileging

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 59, No. 4, May 2017, Page 214 Letters

I want to commend Dr Wade on his well-written Premise article detailing the troubled, arguably unnecessary, process that is medical privileging in BC (“Privileging for new medical school graduates in BC,” [BCMJ 2017;59:123-124]).

As I am currently going through my fifth privileging process within the last 24 months, the burden in bureaucracy, burnout, and use of taxpayers’ money is real, especially for locum physicians, and with no studied evidence of benefit in patient care or safety from the process. Dr Wale (of the BC Medical Quality Initiative) attempted a response [BCMJ 2017;59:124] that can be summarized as: “Yes, we acknowledge there are problems, but you should have seen how bad it was previously!” He goes on to say that privileging is meant to be a “conversation.” Not once have I ever discussed my privileging with anyone. He also states that the process “is not [meant] to restrict practice.” If not, then what is the goal? A quick look through the various privileging documents will show that restricting practice is exactly what is intended—if you don’t have the checkbox, you’re not allowed to practise that procedure or skill in that facility. 

Privileging stems from the recommendations of the Cochrane Report (2011), but that report is flawed—they considered patient safety in isolation, without regard to costs, administrative burden, or physician burnout, and with an implied assumption of a weak College. In reality, this province has a strong College that we should be proud of, and there are dire consequences for any physicians caught practising out of scope, up to and including losing both their licence and livelihood. We are professionals, and we should be trusted to practise as professionals. The only credential we should need is a medical licence.
—Brady Bouchard, CCFP
Victoria, BC

Brady Bouchard, CCFP. Burning out of privileging. BCMJ, Vol. 59, No. 4, May, 2017, Page(s) 214 - Letters.

Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.

For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply