What Patients Don't Know About Medical Schools

There are people who assume that doctors who get into medical school through reservation end up as bad doctors. They have no clue how medical school works.

I won't go into the reasons why reservation (or affirmative action) exists. That is one of the easiest ways for governments to "do something" towards inequity in the society. This post is about the relationship between medical school and bad doctors.

Defining bad doctor

Let's first define a "bad" doctor. An objective way of measuring that would be - a bad doctor is someone who kills the most number of patients. There's a problem with that though. A doctor with no patients would then not be a bad doctor. And a surgeon who takes on the most difficult cases (with proportionately higher chances of deaths) would also be considered a bad doctor. So, the absolute number of patient deaths is not a very good measure of the badness of a doctor.

Maybe we can then take the subjective measure of "patient satisfaction". The doctor who gets 1-star rating for most consultations is a bad doctor. That is tricky though. The doctor cannot keep only the emotions of the patient in mind. The doctor also has to worry about the medical issues. If a patient prefers that the doctor does not examine their abdomen, a doctor who is dealing with this patient's "pain abdomen" may score poorly on patient satisfaction if the doctor does consider it important to palpate abdomen. Patients might be less satisfied if the doctor doesn't prescribe them a few medicines. 

If "patient satisfaction" is measured in a longer term wherein the formalities of a consultation are forgotten and all that remains is the satisfaction of achieving good health, maybe then it is a good measure.

People in the profession can also score doctors. I could make up a criteria for scoring doctors. I could say the doctor who practices the most rational, ethical, and cost-effective medical care is the best doctor and vice versa.

A hospital can say that the doctor who generates the most revenue for the hospital is the best doctor.

Someone can say that the doctor who works the longest hours is the best doctor.

It is thus clear that who is a good doctor and who is a bad doctor is a difficult thing to have consensus on. Let us nevertheless choose a popular vantage point.

Let us call the doctors who are irrational in their care and leads to poor health outcomes as bad doctors. (I had initially included "insensitive to their patients" in that list, but apparently many of us elites think that the fictional (or not?) "Dr House" is a good doctor. So we will first talk about these "good" doctors and later come to whether there are alternate definitions of good doctors).

Medical school training

What does a medical school train doctors in? Indian medical schools (at least the south Indian universities I know about) confer MBBS degree on someone based purely on theory exams and practical exams with theory given more weight. The whole training for 4.5 years is focused on what those exams need. And how're those exams conducted?

Theory exams are mostly single sentence questions that goes like "Write a brief note on <insert health condition name>". (You can see many question papers in the archives of this blog). There is no "Higher Order Thinking Skills" involved in MBBS theory papers. The only skill tested is that of ability to memorize a lot and write a lot more.

Practical exams are slightly better. In the clinical subjects, there would be patients called "cases" who are examined on the spot by the candidate and afterwards an examiner(s) and the candidate discuss the "case". These practical exams are not scored with an "Objective Structured Clinical Examination" pattern. Therefore, it doesn't matter how you examine your patient or if you examine them at all, all that matters is that you have the right diagnosis and that you can discuss lots of points about that diagnosis with the examiner. In reality, often the diagnosis of the patient is "leaked" to the candidate before the exam and once that is known the patient is just a prop in the act.

In summary, medical school tests you on how well you can remember the textbooks - and that alone.

Does that mean all the training in medical school is towards that? No. There are some islands (in form of an exceptional lecturer, post-graduate or peer) where other skills are focused on. But to a large extent medical school training is towards what is tested.

In reality, medical school training does not help people perform good even in these tests because medical school training is literally paid doctors who have no philosophy on teaching (let alone facilitating learning) passing their time with by wasting the valuable time of learners. If medical school professors were sent to teach 12th standard biology classes, their students would dropout and re-join 11th standard in the computer science stream.

(Of course there are some really good people. And the bar is so low that even someone who talks to their students with kindness are considered good professors in medical school. Anyhow, let's not be bogged down by exceptions)

How are doctors made then?

Doctors become doctors not because of medical schools, but in spite of medical schools. It is mostly their interaction with textbooks, peers, patients, and life in general that makes them doctors. And only because the law restricts this opportunity to the confines of medical schools, it is restricted to medical schools.

The skills involved in patient care - communication, courage, critical thinking, empathy, leadership, etc have nothing to do with medical school training.

The theoretical knowledge involved in patient care are all textbooks based.

Procedural skills are learnt by doing (on real patients) with some supervision and there are no special courses to improve or learn these skills in a setting where it is okay to make mistakes.

Where do doctors really learn their craft then?

MBBS doctors start learning real medicine towards the end of MBBS (on their own). They get really good at it only after MBBS - either by working as a postgraduate student or by working in hospitals.

And these opportunities to learn after MBBS are really diverse and heterogeneous. Some work as residents in certain specialty departments where they learn a lot about those specialties (and a bit about medical care in general). Some do this with a gap of a few years (spent in PG entrance preparation).

From then on they keep getting better at it. Because every new patient they're responsible for teaches them something new.

In essence, the 5 years in MBBS has little to do with how good/bad your doctor is. Medical school is a place where doctors learn about the outline and the syllabus of MBBS. After graduating is where they learn to treat people - and that is what decides how good your doctor turns out to be.

What makes a good doctor?

Privilege plays a role. If one has the privilege to get trained abroad (or in India) in medical schools that are interested in pedagogy, ethics, and rationality, there is a good chance that they learn to become better doctors. Also if one has the privilege to afford to work with lesser known good doctors within India, again there is a good chance that they learn to become better doctors.

Scientific temper and critical thinking plays a role. I'm not really certain how one gains these skills. Life experiences that makes one skeptic may help, perhaps? Or reading about science might help too.

Empathy and emotional intelligence plays a role. Understanding one's patient and their context is critical to be able to understand what they're saying. Often the patient is telling the doctor the diagnosis, but the doctor can't hear because they cannot connect.

If you're under the impression that performance in an entrance test is what makes a good doctor, you've gotten it completely wrong.