|
| |
Documentation - Pros and Cons
There is a wide range of
acceptable standards in medicine. Some doctors have been criticized for not
requiring documentation of diagnosis when they approve cannabis use. Others feel
that the requirement creates unnecessary barriers for patients. My arguments for
requiring documentation include:
-
It is common in other
situations in health care.
-
It enhances patient
protection, both medical, legal and financial.
-
It gives me more
confidence that, if called upon to do so, I could successfully defend a
patient's appropriate medical use in a court of law.
-
If law enforcement calls
me to verify compliance with Prop 215, I am able to say: "Not only did I assess the patient, but I
have independent documentation of the diagnosis for which the patient uses
cannabis."
-
In most cases, law
enforcement officers have been polite and replied something to the effect of:
"Thank you, doctor, we just wanted to make sure it was a valid recommendation."
The following arguments
have been made against requiring documentation:
-
It is not necessarily
consistent with the long tradition in medicine of a trusted doctor/patient
relationship.
-
It may imply that it is
less than acceptable for a doctor to do his or her own evaluation, and determine
that cannabis will or won't benefit a particular patient.
-
Records may be
unavailable or difficult to obtain. Consider the situation of a patient who
suffered a traumatic injury many years ago, and doesn't have ongoing care for
chronic pain. The patient has been self-treating effectively, and now wants to
comply with state law. In this situation, the history and physical examination
might be enough to make me feel comfortable without further documentation of the
diagnosis.
Notes on Confidentiality
Many patients seek out
cannabis consultants because they don't feel comfortable disclosing to their
primary care providers doctors that they have been self-medicating with
cannabis.
Although I do require
that the patient's primary provider or other appropriate practitioner be aware
of, and follow, the serious illness for which cannabis is used, I do not require
that the patient disclose his or her medical cannabis use to these providers in
all cases. The wording I generally use in
explaining this is: "In a perfect world, you should be able to tell your
physician everything. But unless, and until the federal government, employers
and insurance companies no longer discriminate against medical cannabis users,
there is valid reason not to have cannabis mentioned in your medical records."
I ask the patient to
assess whether he or she feels safe in telling their doctor "off the record"
that they're using cannabis medicinally. If the answer is yes, I encourage them
to do so. Your own doctor knows you best, and in a perfect world, one should be
able to tell his or her doctor everything.
I don't accept insurance
for medical cannabis consultations, nor do I recommend that the patient bill the
insurance company, unless the patient is willing to have his/her insurance
company see these records.
Special circumstances
Some patient-care
situations deserve special mention, as they present unusual complexities or
problems.
Should a patient's
medical cannabis use be questioned, some presentations or diagnoses are
particularly likely to be challenged by school, probation or law enforcement
authorities.
Psychiatric Patients
Psychiatric diagnoses,
particularly if unstable, are likely to raise this kind of "red flag." In such cases, it is important to have a good history of the efficacy of
cannabis for the patient. Approval of the therapist is desirable; next best is a
significant other who can attest to the patient's condition being improved by medical cannabis use.
Minors
The recommendation of
medical cannabis use to minors is an area of controversy. As in all of medicine,
one must make a risk/benefit assessment.
The developmental needs
of adolescents and children suggest that cannabis use should be discouraged,
unless, as would be true in a person of any age, the medical benefit obtained
outweighs the risk. Recommendations
for medical cannabis for minors should be issued conservatively, and evidence of
effectiveness should be well-documented, as should be parental consent.
Elders and/or naïve users
Many elders have never
been exposed to a social environment in which cannabis is used recreationally.
For these patients, as well as for any naïve or first-time user, the
psychological effects may be disturbing. The extensive report on medical
cannabis prepared by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine in
1999 suggests that "for some patients-particularly older patients with no
previous marijuana experience-the psychological effects are disturbing (p. 4)."
In the years following
the legalization of cannabis for medical use, only a small fraction of patients
seeking physician approval have been cannabis-naive. At least 90 percent
of those seeking approval from CCRMG-affiliated physicians already know that,
for them, the benefits outweigh any adverse effects. More naive patients can be
expected to inquire about cannabis as a treatment option as favorable research
results from Europe are reported in the literature.
How will the naive patient learn to use
cannabis?
-
An additional question in
relation to the inexperienced user is that of how the patient will learn to use
cannabis.
-
Who is available to teach the patient?
-
Will an informed,
experienced user be available when the patient first tries medical cannabis?
-
In what form will the
patient ingest cannabis?
-
Does he or she understand
the concept of titration of the dose?
-
Is there a protected
environment available to the patient for his or her initial and subsequent use?
-
How should the patient be
counseled about the possibility of unwanted effects?
-
What precautions or
preparation should the patient be advised to use?
Conclusions
Physicians who are
considering whether to approve cannabis use by their patients must first educate
themselves on the subject. Cannabis has a long, impressive history as a safe and
effective medicine. Although the United States has limited studies on the
benefits of cannabis, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has funded
significant research into its mechanism of action. Universities and major
pharmaceutical companies are conducting groundbreaking studies. Much of this
research is available in:
Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential.
My advice to
colleagues, in brief:
-
Practice responsible
medicine, including encouraging patients to obtain appropriate follow-up of
their illnesses from their primary care practitioner.
-
Maintain good
documentation, both of previous history and outside records, and of your own
history, physical, assessment, and follow-up plan.
-
Be able to explain your
decision-making process in a court of law should you be called upon to support a
legitimate patient, or to discuss a patient's cannabis use with an employee
health clinician.
-
On occasion, a question
may arise as to whether a patient can perform safety-sensitive functions in the
workplace. It may be important to document that the patient does not use cannabis
in a specified time frame in relation to hours of work.
-
Do not assist anyone in
breaking the law. The vast majority
of medical cannabis patients are honest and appropriate medical users under the
Compassionate Use Act. (Notwithstanding the situations in which doctors have had
visits from undercover agents posing as patients).
-
I find cannabis patients
to be, on the whole, as honest and forthright as patients or people in general.
-
It should go without
saying, but I will say it: No matter how convinced you may be of the relative
benign-ness of cannabis, do not agree to do anything illegal. Undercover agents
have been known say to a doctor: "I
don't have an illness, I just want to be able to smoke marijuana." It should be
clear that this is not a legitimate use of the Compassionate Use Act .
-
There are millions of
real patients to help.
References
Goldberg, C. (2002a,
8/28/03). A few
thoughts. University of California, Davis School of Medicine. Retrieved
November 26, 2003, from: medicine.ucsd.edu/clinicalmed
Goldberg, C. (2002b,
8/28/03). A practical guide to clinical medicine: Outpatient clinics
University of San Diego School of Medicine.
Retrieved November 24, 2003, from: medicine.ucsd.edu/clinicalmed/clinic.htm
Grant, M. (1992). Future
directions in symptom management. In P. Larson (Ed.), Symptom management
proceedings. San Francisco: UCSF Nursing Press.
Grotenhermen, F. & and E. Russo (2002)
Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential
Binghanton, NY Haworth Press
Institute of Medicine
(1999) Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the science base. Washington D. C.,
National Academy Press Larson, P.
(1992). Symptom management procedings. Paper presented at the Symptom
management: Research trajectories and practice implications, San Francisco.
Rhodes, V., & Watson, P.
(1987). Symptom distress - the concept, past and current. Seminars in Oncology
Nursing, 3(4), 242-247.
PRIOR ARTICLE:
Limitations CONTINUE:
Issues of Confidentiality
| |
|
|
| Input to the Medical Board
of California by year: |
| 2004 |
|
|
|
May 7,
2004 -- Transcript |
| |
Various question raised to the MBC. Comments on MBC positions. |
|
|
|
| 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
May 8, 2003 |
| |
Defining standards of care, complaint initiation and
responsibility |
|
|