Keeping Our Eyes on the Antimicrobial Stewardship Ball: Dr. Tom Price as the next secretary of HHS

This is a guest post from Judy Guzman-Cottrill. Dr. Guzman-Cottrill is a Professor of Pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University and also an infection prevention and healthcare epidemiology consultant for the Oregon Health Authority’s HAI Program, where she serves as the Medical Director for Ebola and Emerging Pathogen Preparedness. 


Many healthcare providers ponder what the incoming 2017 administration will mean for their work, including myself. Dan and Eli have already written several blog posts about public health funding threats. As my description above says, I'm a hybrid of sorts: a part-time pediatric infectious disease clinical faculty member at Oregon Health and Science University, and a part-time consultant to the Oregon State Health Department’s HAI program.

First, we’ve all been thinking about our patients and their families. The next administration’s plan for the Affordable Care Act seems to change constantly. During President-Elect Trump’s campaign, he promised to completely repeal the ACA within his first hundred days in office. Post-election, he has suggested that the ACA will be repealed or amended. After meeting with President Obama, Mr. Trump has stated that he will maintain the continued coverage for preexisting conditions and young adult coverage on parents’ plans until 26 years of age. Most recently, however, Mr. Trump selected Dr. Tom Price to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services. What will his leadership mean for our patients, including those who rely on Medicaid and Medicare? Dr. Price has also supported changes which would not require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. Almost more concerning to me is that Dr. Price is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), an organization that vehemently opposes antibiotic stewardship legislation, has publicly opposed the IDSA Lyme Disease guidelines on several occasions, and whose executive director has publicly supported a potential link between MMR vaccine and autism as recently as 2015. Important note: It is unclear to me which of these specific stances are also personally supported by Dr. Price. It would be good to know.

What about public health, MDRO prevention, and infection prevention? I already mentioned the AAPS opposition to antibiotic stewardship legislation. Will all of our hard work be left to the wayside? Over the past decade, I've been amazed by the accomplishments our field has made in improving judicious antibiotic use. Our surgical and critical care colleagues are finally starting to feel comfortable with shorter days of antibiotic therapy, and narrower spectrum. Hospitals are starting to fund physicians and pharmacists along with the informatics experts necessary to develop and maintain effective stewardship programs. During clinical rounds, even ID consultants are asking themselves, “Does this patient really need more antibiotics? Or am I prescribing them a personal anxiolytic?!” Stewardship progress is everywhere, including NICUs across the country, partnering with the CDC, to decrease antibiotic exposure in neonates. I worry that Dr. Price, an orthopedic surgeon, will tout stewardship as needless control over physicians who should prescribe antibiotics to whomever, whenever they please.

ID clinicians and public health colleagues, let’s all keep an eye on Dr. Price. We should be strong, vocal advocates for our at-risk patients and our public health programs, to ensure that our infection prevention and healthcare epidemiology work continues into the next decade.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and ESBL

We have written frequently about the many HAI and MDRO that have been linked to PPI use including VAP, CAP, HAP in non-ICU settings, SBP in patients with cirrhosis, and, of course, C. difficile. In the US, PPIs are the third most prescribed medication, they are addictive since withdrawal symptoms can develop and are now available over-the-counter.

Researchers at Amphia Hospital, an 850-bed teaching facility in the Netherlands, completed two prevalence studies (November 2014 and 2015) on all adult patients who had stayed for no more than 2 days. The cross-section study just published in CID (free full text) linked rectal carriage of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae to pre-admission use of PPI and H2-antagonists among other factors.

Rectal cultures were available from 570 patients and 259 (45%) had a history of PPI use, while very few used H2-blockers or antacids. I have included the univariable and multivariable analyses below. More than concurrent antibiotic use or prior hospital admission, PPIs were associated with four times the risk of ESBL rectal carriage. (OR 3.89, 95% CI 1.65-9.19).  This is a very nicely completed study and provides more evidence supporting the inclusion of PPIs targets in our "antimicrobial" stewardship programs.

21st Century Cures (But Doesn't Prevent) Act

---

Soy un perdedor
I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me?

-Beck (Loser)
---

There was a lot of excitement yesterday when the US Senate approved the 21st Century Cures Act, which would increase NIH funding, address issues with the mental health delivery and alter the approval process for pharmaceuticals and devices. Unfortunately, along with the winners there are several losers in this legislation.

And the big loser is?  - The Prevention and Public Health Fund. Dan has written often (here, here, and here) about how this fund is a frequent target for cuts. And this time, it seems even worse. Per reports, "[the bill] also cuts $3.5 billion, or about 30%, from Obamacare’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which fosters work to prevent Alzheimer’s disease, hospital-acquired infections and other conditions."

So apart from the Cubs win, we can all agree that 2016 was a real loser for the HAI and public health communities.

ID Match 2017: Turning point or artifact of "all in" approach?

The dust is still settling from this year’s ID Match, but at first glance it looks like a much-needed step in the right direction. Compared with last year, the number of unfilled positions (on match day, that is, which doesn’t count positions that will be filled after the match) is down to 80 from 117, and the number of unfilled programs is down to 54 from 82. This is not to minimize the pain for programs that didn’t match—>50 is still way too many, and comparable to the number of unfilled programs in 2014.

This dramatic shift from the trend of the last three years must be due in part to the “all-in” strategy that IDSA is pursuing (requiring that all ACGME positions be offered in the match, trying to minimize those positions offered before or after). The question is how much of this shift reflects an absolute increase in the number of trainees after the post-match numbers are included. For example, there is still the chance that interested individuals opt out of the match, hoping to snag a good position afterwards (obviating the expense, time and anxiety the interview circuit). 

The challenges to attracting the next generation of ID physicians remain daunting, and this one-year change in match results (temporally associated with a new “all in” policy) shouldn’t detract from the urgency of these efforts. We’ll have a much better sense of how we are doing (at least from the training program side) after another 1-2 years of the “all in” match. If programs and applicants continue to adhere to the "all in" approach (i.e. how will it be enforced?), at least it should give us a more accurate assessment of the supply-demand situation.

I’d welcome input from other program directors, IDSA leadership, and anyone else with thoughts on this year’s match results!

Mycobacterium chimaera outbreak: A practical review

Mike recently posted a “how to guide” for centers struggling with the response to this global outbreak. Now there’s also a review available online from ICHE—Mike and I each contributed, but the heavy lifting was done by our colleagues in Switzerland (Sommerstein, Schreiber, Hasse, Marschall and Sax). Table 1 in this paper (see below) provides practical interim suggestions. Check it out—and thanks to Cambridge for making this an open access article.

On a personal note: it’s been over a month since I posted on this blog—since the Cubs won the World Series, in fact. That event, and the US presidential election shortly thereafter, has me wondering if the world has somehow shifted on its axis. This is not a political blog, but it’s disingenuous not to recognize the anxiety we feel about an incoming U.S. administration that has had such a creative relationship with facts, with science, and with the idea of the common good. I’ll admit it has been hard for me to sleep some nights, amidst justifiable concerns about what may happen to our healthcare system, and to AHRQ, CDC, NIH, VHA, etc.

At some point, though, we just need to redouble our own efforts, wherever we are, to do the work we do best, and to speak up when things happen that threaten progress toward safe, effective and accessible health care. One of my favorite songs by Paul Simon has it right: “still, tomorrow is gonna be another working day (and I'm trying to get some rest).”

The almighty influenza vaccine

A recent study in Clinical Infectious Disease that analyzed the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine for the 2014-15 season was sent to me by a colleague. Wow. Overall effectiveness (for influenza A and B combined) was a whopping 19%, but for influenza A was 6%. Honestly, placebo is more effective than that. For the 2015-16 season, overall effectiveness was 47%, and 55% for influenza A.

CDC used to cite that the flu vaccine was 70-90% effective, but more recently they have revised that significantly. I was quite surprised when I looked at the CDC website today and I made the graph below from their data.

In 12 consecutive flu seasons, effectiveness hit 60% just once. If you average those 12 seasons, the effectiveness was 41%. We are sorely in need of a better vaccine. The CDC analysis begs many questions: Should hospitals make this weakly effective vaccine a condition of employment? Should SHEA take another look at its guideline? Does anyone still believe that we should fire healthcare workers that are not vaccinated with a vaccine that provides such poor protection? How many hospitals fire employees who come to work sick with influenza? Would you rather be hospitalized at a hospital with a mandatory flu vaccine policy or a hospital that makes a serious attempt to minimize presenteeism?

CAUTI SCHMAUTI ! (part 4)

A new paper in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology takes us another step closer to reclassifying CAUTI from a healthcare associated infection to a healthcare associated myth. Tom Fraser and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic worked with their ICUs to reach consensus to limit urine cultures in patients with fever to kidney transplant recipients, neutropenic patients, patients with recent GU surgery, and patients with evidence of urinary tract obstruction. One year later, here’s what they found:

• There was no significant change in urinary catheter utilization (approximately 70% of patient days were associated with catheter use 1 year before and after implementation of changes in ordering urine cultures).
• The number of urine cultures ordered fell by ~50%.
• The CAUTI rate fell from 3.0 to 1.9/1,000 catheter days, a significant reduction of 33%.
• There was no change in the rate of healthcare associated bloodstream infections, and no change in the subset due to Enterobacteriacae, which implies that there was no increase in bacteremic urinary tract infections. The potential for bacteremia is a major reason for treating CAUTI.

A similar study from Mayo Clinic showed similar findings (50% reduction in urine cultures ordered and a 30% reduction in CAUTI).

It would be interesting to know how many cases of C. difficile have been caused by treating this noninfection, or as the Cleveland authors call it, “an artificial construct designed to reflect clinical events for surveillance purposes.” And as we become more serious about antibiotic stewardship, “CAUTI” should be viewed as low hanging fruit.

In previous posts on this blog (here and here) there have been discussions questioning the existence of CAUTI. We now seem to be reaching a tipping point where it’s becoming increasingly clear that the opportunity cost of this medicalized artificial construct outweighs the benefit of continued focus.

Annual US Deaths from MDRO: 23,000 - Deaths from Alcohol Hand Rub Fires: Zero

I just returned from the Healthcare Epidemiology Training course in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam where I had a wonderful time interacting with the students and other faculty. Thanks to Professor Le Thi Anh Thu, we had the opportunity to tour an 1800-bed hospital in the city and observed many barriers to infection control including an average daily census greatly exceeding the bed capacity; many patients are forced to share beds with other patients. However, in one area Vietnam is far superior to the United States - they allow alcohol hand rub at the bedside! You can see Joost Hopman, Andreas Voss and I touring a medical ICU in Vietnam - notice the green hand rub dispensers at the end of the beds.

In the US, fire code prevents alcohol hand rub from being placed at the bedside rendering the practice of the WHO 5 moments impossible. Healthcare workers simply don't have the time to leave the room to practice hand hygiene after each contact with the environment or patient. 

Here is the WHO's take on the fire risk of alcohol hand rubs: The benefits of the alcohol in terms of infection prevention far outweigh the fire risks . A study in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Kramer et al 2007) found that hand rubs have been used in many hospitals for decades, representing an estimated total of 25,038 hospital years of use. The median consumption was between 31 L/month (smallest hospitals) and 450 L/month (largest hospitals), resulting in an overall consumption of 35 million L for all hospitals. A total of 7 non-severe fire incidents were reported. No reports of fire caused by static electricity or other factors were received, nor were any related to storage areas.

So let's review the US situation:

Deaths from resistant bacteria? 23,000

Deaths from alcohol hand rub fires? 0

Changing state fire codes to allow alcohol hand rubs at the patient bedside? Priceless

108 years

This one is for Steve Goodman:

A few more videos of this iconic Cubs fan who died too young:

The M. chimaera How-to Guide

A few cases at a time, the M. chimaera outbreak associated with heater cooler units continues to grow. For reasons unclear to me, the response from CDC and FDA to this train wreck in slow motion has been underwhelming. We continue to field calls from hospitals struggling to deal with an approach to the outbreak. On today’s IDSA list-serv (IDea Exchange) Dr. Luther Rhodes wrote: “The silence is deafening. I call on those physicians with hands on experience in evaluating post open heart patients referred to ID for evaluation of concerns, signs or symptoms of possible NTM infection to speak up loudly and clearly. Lessons learned, protocols developed, evaluation and testing tools learned dealing with large scale regional patient notification should in my opinion be shared…”

We have posted several times on this topic, but I thought it might be useful to summarize how a hospital could approach this problem in a single post. To view older posts, type chimaera in the search box in the top right hand corner of your display.

Step 1: Determination of risk
Whether you have seen a case or not, the first question is whether your hospital has used the LivaNova Sorin T3 heater cooler unit (HCU) in the last six years. If the answer is no, there is no immediate action you need to take. If yes, then the investigation begins, as you must assume the units are contaminated, regardless of the manufacturing date.

Step 2: Risk mitigation
If you are currently using the LivaNova (Sorin) T3 unit, the most important risk mitigation strategy is to get the units out of the operating room. The molecular epidemiology clearly points to contamination of the HCUs at the manufacturing facility, which allows the units to produce an infectious bioaerosol that contaminates the operative field. Separation of this bioaerosol from the operative field is the key to eliminating the risk. Why the FDA won’t clearly state this is very puzzling.

At the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics our engineers were able to quickly (within a few days) devise a solution by creating a 6” x 6” hole (see photos) through the operating room wall on the semi-restricted side of the room. The area identified for creation of this portal was determined by hose access to the OR table with minimal interference with staff and equipment; access to power; and the ability to leave proper corridor width per life safety code. Testing demonstrated that positive pressure was able to be maintained in the OR after creation of the portal. The portal itself with a sliding door was constructed of Corian in some cases and stainless steel in others. A hose protection mat was placed in the ORs to protect the HCU hoses and to provide a ramp effect for equipment to be relocated as needed during the cases. One advantage of the T3 HCU is that remotes can be purchased that allow the perfusionist in the OR to control the HCU located outside of the room. Once the HCUs were moved out of the OR, we demonstrated no difficulty with appropriate heating or cooling. Remember, given the long incubation and detection period of these infections (maximum 6 years to date), if you do not eliminate the risk now, you will likely be chasing cases for many years with no end in sight.

Outcome bias

I grew up in Wheaton, Illinois, one of Chicago’s western suburbs, and became a Cubs fan by default. All my friends were Cubs fans, my dad took us to Wrigley for games (never Comiskey!), and the Cubs games were televised on channel 9 while the White Sox were usually on a UHF channel (44) that was hard to tune in (if you remember wiggling a dial to get your grainy local UHF signals, you are old like me). The photo above is from a game I attended in 1969 with my family. That year, and every year since 1945, ended the same way: with the Cubs failing to win the NL pennant. 

So last night’s victory is a gigantic step forward for the Cubs, who will now play Cleveland in the World Series. By now you’re asking, “yes, but that’s a game and this blog is about infection prevention, what’s the connection”?

See Cub manager Joe Maddon’s quote in this piece, about how he approaches challenges:

“When you get to this particular moment, to try to avoid being outcome-biased, just . . . continue to work on the process, which is inning by inning — score first, win the inning. Those are the kind of thoughts that get you beyond this moment.”

I think you can interpret this quote in two ways, each of which applies to infection prevention. 

First, he may have meant to say “avoid being outcome-focused”. In other words, stop wasting energy worrying about your outcomes, instead put your energy into the processes that you know will, eventually, move the outcome in a favorable direction. This is becoming increasingly difficult in infection prevention as CMS PFP programs put more and more pressure on rates. The temptation is to put time and energy into activities that might impact the outcome quickly but without doing anything to improve the safety of patients (gaming the definitions, empiric treatment approaches, changing lab practice). Counterproductive, and in many cases also bad for patients.

Alternatively, he could have been literally referring to “outcome bias”, which is an error in evaluating the quality of a decision, or the effectiveness of a practice, when the outcome is already known. This might lead one to deviate from an effective practice because a bad outcome occurred in the past when the practice was in place, or to institute a dubious practice because prior implementation was coincident with a favorable outcome. This ignores the fact that outcomes are often influenced by a myriad of factors, many of which are not understood or not under the decision-maker’s control.

The infection prevention take-home from either interpretation? Focus on those practices that have been demonstrated to improve outcomes--keep your eye on the process and the outcomes will follow. Avoid gimmicks that might move the outcome needle but for which no evidence exists that patients will benefit.

P.S. I hope to see you at IDWeek in New Orleans!  I'll be joining Debbie Goff on Saturday morning to talk about social media, and Thursday will be facing off with Cliff McDonald about the C. difficile screening issue!  We will also be presenting four-center data on the ongoing M. chimaera outbreak on Saturday afternoon. If I am mysteriously absent from any of the above, it's because I'm on a plane headed to Cleveland or Chicago, to try to sneak in to a World Series game!

Time, Power and Infection Prevention

With the increased attention to infection prevention and antimicrobial resistance globally, we now have more seats at the table. In fact, many of us are or will soon be at the table in positions of leadership (power) in our hospitals or organizations. We can include our colleagues at CDC, who are being asked to do more and manage larger research portfolios. The time we imagined 10-20 years ago, where our clinical and research roles would be appreciated is now, but with the now comes an overwhelming urgency - we are overworked.

With that in mind, I read a very interesting post by Maria Popova on UC Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner's book, The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence. Two quotes in particular struck me as they applied to our current situation as hospital epidemiologists and infection preventionists:

"The power paradox is this: we rise in power and make a difference in the world due to what is best about human nature, but we fall from power due to what is worst. We gain a capacity to make a difference in the world by enhancing the lives of others, but the very experience of having power and privilege leads us to behave, in our worst moments, like impulsive, out-of-control sociopaths"

"But in reading these alarmingly consistent studies, I had to wonder about one crucial confound(er) that remains unaddressed: People in positions of power also tend to be busier — that is, they tend to have greater demands on their time. We know from the now-iconic 1970s Good Samaritan study that the single greatest predictor of uncaring, unkind, and uncompassionate behavior, even among people who have devoted their lives to the welfare of others, is a perceived lack of time — a feeling of being rushed. The sense of urgency seems to consume all of our other concerns — it is the razor’s blade that severs our connection to anything outside ourselves, anything beyond the task at hand, and turns our laser-sharp focus of concern onto the the immediacy of the self alone."

I encourage you to read her full post and ponder how the Power Paradox might (or might not) apply to our new and larger roles in infection prevention. For example, I've noticed during discussions at national meetings and in peer-reviewed publications that we're blaming healthcare workers if they don't wash their hands or criticizing physicians if they overprescribe antibiotics. Keltner suggests that the Paradox can be handled by putting our focus on other people including empathizing, giving, expressing gratitude, and telling stories. It might seem that our focus on others (patients) might protect hospital epi folks, but what about the people we need to work with if we're to be successful - other healthcare workers?

An outbreak in slow motion

Not too many infections have crude mortality rates of 50% or more. Those that do generally inspire fear, alarm, and media coverage (see: avian influenza, Ebola). Hence my surprise that the heater-cooler device (HCD)-associated M. chimaera global outbreak has attracted so little attention in clinical, public health and media circles.

Now, over a year since Hugo Sax and his group first described the role of HCDs in invasive M. chimaera infections, this may be about to change. Why? Because today the CDC published (in MMWR) the results of whole genome sequencing from 11 patients and 5 HCDs in Iowa and two centers in Pennsylvania (the Iowa isolates were from our patients and devices). The results confirm what we’ve suspected from the beginning: this is a point source outbreak, and the likely source is the factory in Germany where the HCDs are manufactured. There are now several media outlets that have picked up the story (here's one from NY Times and one from Consumer Reports). 

In response to these findings, both CDC and FDA are making new recommendations for centers that use the implicated HCD (the LivaNova (formerly Sorin) 3T). You can read the details for yourself, but the major new recommendations are for provider and patient notification (not just for centers that have detected cases, but for all that use the devices), and from the FDA, a recommendation to remove any HCDs linked to contamination or clinical cases, and to transition away from use of the 3T model entirely (the alert states that use of 3T units manufactured prior to September 2014 “should be limited to emergent and/or life-threatening situations if no other heater cooler devices are available”). 

The problem is that the 3T has at least 60% of the HCD market, and if all hospitals stopped using them (even just those manufactured prior to September 2014), there wouldn’t be enough other units to fill the void. Also important to note: the FDA alert provides evidence that some 3T’s manufactured after September 2014 have been found to be contaminated with M chimaera. Whether the post-2014 contamination represents point-source contamination or not, it’s a huge problem and calls into question the use of the manufacture date in decision-making.

The bottom line is that the 3T is a proven bio-aerosol generator, and should not be in the same room as the operative field. No amount of focus on cleaning and disinfection, the direction of the exhaust fan, or the results of water cultures (which, as we’ve pointed out, are not actionable) changes that.

CDC Webinar on the M. chimaera outbreak

The CDC has just posted a webinar from late August on the M. chimaera outbreak, if you are interested in an overview.  It may be worth your while to look at this (or read our prior posts) this week, in anticipation of some additional information that will be coming soon (more details later this week).

The video below starts with introductions to the problem by Mike Bell and Joe Perz at CDC, than at 18:00 you can hear Chuck Daley from National Jewish discuss the clinical aspects of the outbreak, at 30:00 I discuss the local outbreak response, and at 46:00 Keith Allen provides a surgeon's perspective.

The ineradicable Mycobacterium chimaera

I’ve been on service for three weeks, limiting my blogging time—so this short update on the M. chimaera debacle is long overdue. Sorry! Two important recent “must-reads” about this global outbreak with a crude mortality rate of ~50%:

Peter Schreiber and colleagues from Switzerland report their experience trying to eradicate M. chimaera from their heater cooler units (HCUs) using an intensified cleaning and disinfection protocol (daily water changes using Pall-filtered tap water and 3% hydrogen peroxide, with biweekly 3% sodium hypochlorite (aka bleach) or paracetic acid disinfection). I’ve included part of their Figure 2 above: “No” means negative culture, “Yes” with a solid circle indicates M. chimaera growth, empty circles are other non-tuberculous mycobacteria. As you can see, M. chimaera persisted despite this intensified regimen, and cultures frequently skipped between positive and negative (and back again). This study nicely demonstrates the ineradicable nature of M. chimaera colonization in these Sorin 3T units, as well as the poor negative predictive value of a single set of HCU water cultures. Not only does a negative culture not reassure, but it takes 6-8 weeks to return—so cultures are not actionable for management of individual HCUs.

Another interesting tidbit from this article: a photo of the “housing unit” that they built to separate the HCU exhaust air from OR air and funnel it directly to the OR exhaust system (see Figure below from their article).

Finally, take a minute to read the best recent news article about this outbreak, from David Weissman at the York Dispatch. I continue to be astonished at the relative lack of media interest in this slow-motion train wreck, but in this piece the reporter clearly understands the potential ramifications of this problem, and touches on a key point: why hasn’t there been more attention to patient notification for those who were exposed to HCUs that we now know were contaminated when they left the factory?

More updates soon, as some interesting sequencing data will likely be published later this week…

Declining interest in ID: Paul Sax interviews Mike Edmond and Wendy Armstrong

Open Forum Infectious Diseases has a podcast feature, which I highly recommend. The latest installment is a very insightful discussion of the future of ID as a specialty, and how we should respond to the decline in fellowship applicants. We’ve covered many of these issues on this blog before, and I encourage you to either listen to (MP3 link) or read (transcript) this interview.

New rule

Devices that contain a fan and a water source in close proximity should not be allowed in the operating room.

You know the Mycobacterium chimaera story if you read this blog. Shockingly, this single species of non-tuberculous mycobacteria is not the only organism that can be aerosolized by heater-cooler devices.

Is the doctors' white coat evidence of physician economic decline?

We've debated ditching the contaminated white coat many times. In these discussions, I've been struck by responses from colleagues who have clung to the white coat as a symbol of professionalism. I just didn't understand it. There are clearly other, safer ways to identify yourself as a physician, if you feel that is something you need to do. Of course, there are other ways to stay warm or have pockets (cool black vest anyone?) And it's not like the white coat ceremony dates back to Hippocrates or Osler. These modern ceremonies started in 1989 or 1993 depending on your definition.

So why did the modern white coat ceremony emerge and spread across the medical school landscape like...an infectious disease?  I think the answer might be the decline in status of physicians in both healthcare and society. Within healthcare, doctors have been replaced by administrators as primary medical decision makers and in society our salaries pale in comparison to corporate leaders and other professions. Could the white coat (and white coat ceremony) be a vestige of the economic decline of physicians - a psychological defense mechanism?

I was pondering that question, when I came across a fascinating discussion by Malcolm Gladwell on a recent Ezra Klein Show Podcast. In the middle of the interview, around minute 30, they began discussing the decline of journalism. They wondered how members of a profession, who are losing their economic place, respond to this status free-fall. Gladwell was specifically interested in the psychological defense mechanisms that the professional groups adopt when in this free-fall. He says that the group becomes "very particular about who they want to let in or let out, they start to fetishize certain moral stances or positions or codes as a way of enforcing the in-group." Gladwell then discusses a parallel example:

"It is this search for, when you lose one kind of status, one kind of point of differentiation, you have to replace it with something else. A very simple illustration of this is: why are pickup trucks so much larger than they were 25 years ago? Have you ever seen a standard Ford pickup truck of 1975 up against a Ford F-150 of today? The contemporary Ford pickup is literally twice the size...it dwarfs the old one. These are the same people buying those pickup trucks, doing the same jobs, but now their pickup truck is twice as big. And the answer is: in response to the falling economic status of white working class jobs, people have chosen to assert their status in another way. I may not make the kind of money or have the kind economic status that I had 25 years ago, so I'm now going to compensate by having a truck that is twice as big."

It seems that the white coat (ceremony) could be a response to a loss of status of physicians in society. Perhaps this compensatory mechanism would be OK if unwashed, contaminated white coats didn't increase the risk of pathogen transmission in hospital settings. Similarly, large pickups would be OK if they weren't associated with poorer gas mileage and global climate change. Given that physicians have not lost as much power (yet) as journalists or the working class, it might be better to develop strategies to increase our role in medical decision making and maintain our economic status, rather than cling to a cold dirty white coat.

image source: jalopnik.com