| Susan Scholey |
| Susan Scholey, Physician Organizational Physician Willing to Risk Dire Consequences For Patients for Profit or Personal Vendetta Sacramento, Californ |
| 27th of Jun, 2011 by User942606 |
| Dr. Susan Scholey is currently a Kaiser Permanente physician who, in her career, has sought large medical organizations or medical processing environments that protect her from public scrutiny by appointing her to supervisory or desk roles at which posts she persecutes physicians attempting to provide thorough patient care. Bottom-line oriented, Dr. Scholey is known throughout the Sacramento community as anti-patient when, in fact, she is both anti-patient and pro-profit. Most organizations in a profit oriented society hire individuals to promote the bottom line. However, as a licensed physician practicing in Sacramento, California, Dr. Scholey is particularly offensive in that she presses her subordinates to such an extent that the very best physicians seek other employment, so as to continue to live with their consciences or are driven to health breakdowns by Dr. Scholey's conservative second guessing of their performances. Dr. Scholey is particularly sensitive to any patient who might object to her treatment of their own physician, tending to "discover" ways of cutting back on essential medications or otherwise disadvantaging the patient by transferring him or her to a more "docile" physician, one who will honor her wishes despite the medical consequences. Dr. Scholey is consistently in potential trouble with the California Medical Board. However, in the close knit society that is California medicine, the Board is reluctant to remove licenses except for demonstrably heinous incompetence. Dr. Scholey's activities tend to be less obvious than removing incorrect limbs. She works mostly behind the scenes wreaking havoc upon the Hippocratic Oath, while promoting balance sheet ethics. She is a notorious Workers' Compensation physician, again in large organizational processing environments, for example, a Department of Physical Medicine, in which to deny claims is to protect a bottom line. In that capacity, Dr. Scholey denies benefits to all but those who are so incapacitated so as to be near death's door. For those administrators seeking fiscal performance first and foremost, Dr. Scholey is a perennial star. |
|
|
|
|
There are all sorts of people who become physicians, for all sorts of reasons.
Once they are on the job, those reasons gradually come to the fore.
Susan Scholey, as a woman, has been very popular for affirmative action purposes, and thus proves the point that affirmative action can be dangerous when used to promote people who are psychologically unfit to supervise.
Leadership courses evidently are not considered very important at Kaiser Permanente. No tests are given for fitness to lead, and the crew they have leading at South Sacramento is testimony in terms of what can happen when just having an MD behind one's name, and a willingness to cut corners for fiscal reasons, is sufficient to be given the nod.
It's one thing to be smart. It is quite another to be able to create a work environment conducive to top performance by staff, and, in the medical field, of course, when people are stressed because of a person placed above them for reasons other than competence to lead, patients and staff pay the price.
Physicians who have worlds of experience will be humiliated by Scholey. For example, let's say you have performed 1, 000 appendectomies, all successful. But, in one case, because of the small frame of an individual, you decide to perform the operation in a nonstandard way to increase safety for the patient.
Perhaps entry is a little different or some other factor.
Scholey, if she disliked you, would then pull that file and point to it as non-standard and sign you up for a class which takes several days to complete, all the while not backing off on a heavy booking schedule, threatening all the while both fines and loss of compensation if the normal work is not completed.
These kinds of things look perfectly normal from above. That is, Scholey trying to make sure her doctors do a good job. But, at the same time, as the doctor who performed the operation in a non-standard way attempts to explain, this make no difference in the penalty. Reason: Scholey is not interested in the right or the wrong or the explanations. She is simply attempting to demoralize.
Call it catty. Call it abusive. Call it what you will. But, if the chain of command above her isn't smart enough or if they are willing to go along for whatever jaundiced reasons they use to justify their behaviors, Scholey has been enabled to destroy an underling who actually did a better job than normal on the appendectomy, but is being humiliated anyway. In an environment like that, no person can live and work unscathed.
Of course, Scholey's department doesn't do appendectomies. That was just an illustration.
This lady really needs to both enter a counseling program, and take at least a graduate year on effective management. The rest of the leadership team at South Sacramento are also in dire need of leadership training. Their performances have been abysmal thus far, at least from the word we have in the lunch room, at, thank God, another location. |
|
|
|
Dr. Susan Scholey, from personal experience, is a lady with a vicious heart.
She is, as far as I can determine, anti- Semitic.
How people like this can be graduated from a school and be expected to give a damn about practicing the healing arts when personally they are so damaged is a mystery.
Perhaps the damage comes from others supporting her in her narcissism. Perhaps the damage originates in failed personal relationships. Who knows.
What we do know is that this unhappy woman is creating pain in her environment, and needs to seek counseling or leave the profession. |
|
|
|
When a doctor gets where she is because of being clever in a catty sort of way, there are lots of problems ready to happen.
When a physician gets where she is because she is able, like Gracie Allen, to change faces when she turns around, but nobody is laughing, there are lots of problems ready to happen.
When a healer gets where she is by playing to the box seats while ignoring the crowd, there are problems ready to happen.
When a person is in trouble at home and brings that conflict to work, there are problems ready to happen.
And, when no one steps up to oppose such a person, as happens all the time in large health care organizations where people are not promoted because of their strength of spirit but because of their paper credentials and willingness to follow procedures exactly, there are patients who will die. |
|
|
|
Let me share with you a real experience I had with Kaiser Permanente that may shed some light on Dr. Scholey's behavior.
It is true that she could have been so much more proactive, and there is no excuse that she wasn't.
However, in my case, when I had a "Kaiser" problem, as soon as it was escalated any distance at all up the chain of command, I received a contact from an attorney ordering me not to contact anyone further at Kaiser to solve my problem.
In other words, the attorney wanted me not to contact the very people who had the power to solve the problem.
It sounds as though Dr. Scholey really didn't want to solve the problem. That is, she sounds like a person who is anti-patient. There are doctors like that. They hate their jobs. Doctors have a very high suicide rate because many of them have gotten trapped in a profession that, if they had it to do over again, they wouldn't choose. Those kinds of people either punish themselves or others or both.
But, back to my story: Lucky for me, I ignored the attorney. He kept threatening me, if I didn't stop trying to solve the problem, and I kept ignoring him.
Finally, I found a fellow working in the chain of command with a heart, and the problem was solved.
My point here is that I think a lot of the problems created at Kaiser Permanente are due to bad advice from lawyers.
They really don't want to solve the problems, especially if they are paid on a billable hour basis as this attorney mentioned above was. I know that because he worked for a private firm under contract with Kaiser.
That is what is called a HUGE conflict of interest.
So, in this case, as soon as Dr. Scholey refused to take care of the problem at her level, and as soon as the physicians above her failed in the same way, a contract attorney was consulted, and this whole situation was lost.
No longer was an amicable solution possible, since the attorney's advice would almost certainly have been to be silent and let the problem fester.
I can still remember this lawyer threatening me over and over again about not trying to solve the problem out of court. It was such an evil message, and I think we have lots of that in America.
I am a Japanese citizen, and have relatives in Japan. They were thinking about expanding their law schools a while back, and the reason that was defeated was that they didn't want to have lawyers ruining their culture as they do in the United States.
How many speeches I heard in Japan saying things like, "Do you want to be like the United States with greedy lawyers by the millions trying to stir up trouble." Of course, the people of Japan didn't want that. (By comparison, the US has one lawyer for every 265 citizens. Japan has one lawyer for every 10, 000 citizens. And, every lawyer in American thinks he or she should be rich. What a mess lawyers have made of this Country. I' surprised we don't have a law about how to brush our teeth. But, wait, it is coming.)
So what I am saying is that Dr. Scholey probably had a chance to solve the problem early on, but, after a short while, Kaiser contract lawyers would have simply told everyone who had taken the Hippocratic Oath to shut off communication.
Of course, that's the worst possible advice. It just begs for more conflict when one side is being given terrible advice. But there it is. Failing to communicate with a person who is suffering is just asking for that person to become both very angry and very frustrated.
You want to take a shot at real evil, I can give you the name of the Firm representing Kaiser that, had I listened to them, we would probably still be in court. As it was, the problem was solved at the physician level, where it should have been all along. |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
