Abstract

Background:

Late career physicians (LCPs; physicians working beyond age 65 to 75 years) may be at higher risk for delivering unsafe care. To oversee LCPs, some health care organizations (HCOs) have adopted LCP policies requiring cognitive, physical, and practice performance screening assessments. Despite recent controversies, little is known about the content and implementation of such policies.

Objective:

To characterize key features of LCP policies and the perspectives of medical leaders responsible for policy development and implementation.

Design:

Mixed-methods study using content analysis and key informant interviews.

Setting:

29 U.S. HCOs with LCP policies active in 2020.

Participants:

21 purposively sampled interviewees in physician leadership roles at 18 HCOs.

Measurements:

Descriptive statistics of policy features and content analysis of interviews.

Results:

Although policies had many commonalities—mandatory universal screening at a trigger age around 70 years, a strategy of screening followed by in-depth assessment of positive results, and commitment to patient safety as the key motive—they varied substantially in the testing required, funding, processes after a positive screening result, and decision making around concerning results. Policies prioritized institutional discretion in interpreting and responding to test results; many lacked clear language about appeals or other procedural protections for physicians. Leaders were generally satisfied with policies but reported preemptive retirements as physicians approached the screening age and cautioned that substantial investment in cultivating physicians’ buy-in was required for successful rollout.

Limitations:

Sampled policies and interviews may not be representative of all HCOs. The analysis excluded the experiences of HCOs that tried and failed to implement LCP screening.

Conclusion:

Policies about LCPs are considered successful by institutional leaders. Policy variations and early adopters’ implementation experiences highlight opportunities to improve physician acceptance and program rigor.

Primary Funding Source:

The Greenwall Foundation.

Authors: Andrew A. White, MD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9859-0947, Thomas H. Gallagher, MD, Paulina H. Osinska, MPH, Daniel B. Kramer, MD, MPH, Kelly Davis Garrett, PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8977-8489, and Michelle M. Mello, JD, PhD, MPhil https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2877-4270Author, Article, & Disclosure Information