The only certainty in medicine is uncertainty. It touches every aspect of clinical practice, from diagnosis to treatment to prognosis. Despite this, many clinicians view uncertainty as something to tolerate at best or eliminate at worst. But what if we need to rethink and reframe our relationship with uncertainty in medicine?

In this episode, we sit down with Jonathan Ilgen and Gurpreet Dhaliwal, co-authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article, "Educational Strategies to Prepare Trainees for Clinical Uncertainty." Together, we explore the nature of uncertainty in clinical practice, its effects on trainees and seasoned clinicians, and strategies to embrace it as a fundamental part of medical reasoning rather than a regrettable byproduct.

Jonathan and Gurpreet share insights from research and clinical experience, offering practical methods to help trainees and clinicians recognize, manage, and even embrace uncertainty. Key topics we discuss include:

• The paradoxical nature of uncertainty: When perceived as a threat, it can provoke anxiety or fear; yet when framed as an opportunity, it can inspire hope and optimism.

• Why uncertainty is inevitable in medical practice and its impact on clinicians.

• Is uncertainty a state or a trait?

• The distinction between epistemic uncertainty (knowledge gaps) and aleatoric uncertainty (randomness in outcomes).

• How experienced clinicians utilize strategies such as forward planning and monitoring to navigate uncertainty.

• Communicating uncertainty with patients: how to do it effectively without eroding trust.

• How to integrate uncertainty into medical education.

During the conversation, we explore the emotional responses to uncertainty and how these reactions can influence clinical practice and decision-making.

Importantly, Jonathan and Gurpreet emphasize the importance of openly communicating uncertainty with colleagues, supervisors, and patients—a practice that, contrary to common belief, actually strengthens trust, fosters transparency, and encourages collaboration. By normalizing and embracing uncertainty, clinicians can better manage the complexities of medicine and build confidence in their ability to care for patients in the face of the unknown.

👉 We're thrilled that Meg Wallhagen, Professor of Nursing at UCSF, has recorded an intro to this week's podcast. Any listener who contributes $1000+ is invited to record an intro to a GeriPal podcast! You can donate here, any amount is appreciated. Also, Meg is looking for practicing or student clinicians (physicians and nurses) who are willing to participate in a study on how a simulation of hearing loss promotes a greater appreciation of the experience of hearing loss. Participation should take no more than one to one and one half hour and you will receive a gift card in acknowledgement of your time. If interested, please contact her directly at meg.wallhagen@ucsf.edu.

For more info, click the following link to open the flyer (PDF format): Information_Flyer_Practitioneer

** NOTE: To claim CME credit for this episode, click here **

In a recent episode of the GeriPal podcast, we explored whether the field of palliative care is in need of saving—and, if so, how to save it—with guests Ira Byock, Kristi Newport, and Brynn Bowman. Today, we shift focus to one actionable way to improve palliative care: through quality improvement (QI) collaboratives, registries, and benchmarking.

To guide this discussion, we've invited three leading experts in the field—Drs. Steve Pantilat, David Currow, and Arif Kamal—who bring invaluable experience as pioneers in developing QI collaboratives and registries. Together, they authored a recent paper in JPSM titled "The Case for Collaboration to Optimize Quality," which underscores the importance of these efforts.

In this episode, Dr. David Currow shares lessons from Australia's Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative (PCOC), a national model for standardized data collection and benchmarking that has driven measurable improvements in palliative care. Meanwhile, Drs. Steve Pantilat and Arif Kamal reflect on the history of the Palliative Care Quality Collaborative (PCQC), a U.S.-based initiative formed in 2019 by merging the National Palliative Care Registry (NPCR), the Palliative Care Quality Network (PCQN), and the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance (GPCQA). Although the PCQC had ambitious goals, it ultimately closed earlier this year. Together, the panelists unpack the reasons behind its closure and discuss the lessons future registries can take away from its challenges.

Throughout the conversation, we tackle some of the field's biggest questions about registries and QI collaboratives: What data should be collected to create meaningful quality indicators? How can we minimize the administrative burden of data collection on clinicians? And how do we balance the risk of becoming narrowly focused "symptomatologists" with the need to maintain holistic, person-centered care? By addressing these questions, the panel highlights the immense potential of QI initiatives to enhance palliative care while remaining true to the field's core mission: ensuring that patients and their families feel deeply cared for during life's most vulnerable moments.

Have you had one of those consults in which you're thinking, huh, sounds like the patient's goals are clear, it's really that the clinician consulting us disagrees with those goals? To what extent is it our job as consultants to navigate, manage, or attend to clinician distress? What happens when that clinician distress leads eventually to conflict between the consulting clinician and the palliative care team?

Today our guests Sara Johnson, Yael Schenker, & Anne Kelly discuss these issues, including:

• A recent paper first authored by Yael asking if attending to clinician distress is our job, published in JPSM. See also the wonderful conversation in the response letters from multidisciplinary providers (e.g. of course that's our job! And physicians may not be trained in therapy, but many social workers and chaplains are, and certainly psychologists).

• A SPACE pneumonic for addressing clinician conflict developed by Sara Johnson, Anne Kelly and others. They presented this at a recent AAHPM/HPNA meeting. See below for what SPACE stands for.

• We referenced a prior episode on therapeutic presence and creating a holding space with Kerri Brenner and Dani Chammas, and this article by Kerri.

• We talked about the role of the consultant, including this classic paper on consultation etiquette by Diane Meier and Larry Beresford.

Enjoy!

-Alex Smith

SPACE: Navigating Conflict with Colleagues

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response." -Viktor E. Frankl

SPACE: Conflict Navigation Toolkit

• Self-awareness: Pause & Notice Before Responding
• What am I feeling? Take own temperature.
• Where am I coming from? What do I need?
• Perspective-Taking: Ask-Tell-Ask
• Where are they coming from? Check your understanding with them.
• "Tell me how you're thinking about this?"
• "I hear you are concerned about…is that right?"
• Agenda: Yours and theirs, then focus on common ground
• Where are we going together?
• "It seems like we both want…"
• Curiosity: Reframe and explore to understand
• Am I missing anything?
• Why is this kind, smart & hard-working colleague thinking differently than I am?
• "To help me better understand, what is your biggest concern about…?"
• Empathy:
• For others: Empathic statements around the situation & silence
• For self: Your feelings are valid, reflect on it later.
• You will misstep in tense moments: apologize, learn from it. Eating helps.

Authors:

Ethan Silverman MD
University of Pittsburgh

Anne Kelly LCSW
San Francisco VA Health Care System

Jasmine Hudnall DO
Gundersen Health System

Cassie Shumway MS, RN, OCN, CHPN
UW Health Hospitals & Clinics

Andrew O'Donnell RN
University of Wisconsin

Sara K. Johnson MD
University of Wisconsin