BackgroundConcerns about ethical conflicts, moral distress, and burnout in veterinary practice are steadily increasing. Root causes of these problems have not been rigorously identified. Little research has been done to evaluate the existence of moral distress in North American veterinarians or to explore its impact on career sustainability and poor well‐being.Hypothesis/ObjectivesEthical conflict and resultant moral distress are common occurrences in contemporary veterinary practice and negatively impact daily practice life, but may not be identified or labeled by veterinarians as such.AnimalsNo animals were used in this study.MethodsMixed methods sequential explanatory design; confidential and anonymous on‐line sampling of 889 veterinarians in North America.ResultsA majority of respondents reported feeling conflict over what care is appropriate to provide. Over 70% of respondents felt that the obstacles they faced that prevented them from providing appropriate care caused them or their staff moderate to severe distress. Seventy‐nine percent of participants report being asked to provide care that they consider futile. More than 70% of participants reported no training in conflict resolution or self‐care.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceVeterinarians report widespread ethical conflict and moral distress across many practice types and demographics. Most veterinarians have little to no training on how to decrease the impact of these problems. Ethical conflict and resulting moral distress may be an important source of stress and poor well‐being that is not widely recognized or well defined. Well‐researched and effective tools used to decrease moral distress in human healthcare could be adapted to ameliorate this problem.

Obtaining outpatient appointments with psychiatrists in three cities was difficult, irrespective of payer. RESULTS suggest that expanding insurance coverage alone may do little to improve access to psychiatrists-or worse, expansion might further overwhelm the capacity of available services.

No abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) database for patients who use it to seek buprenorphine treatment. Design and Measurements: Buprenorphine providers within a 25-mile radius of the county with the highest drug-related death rates within the 10 states with the highest drug-related death rates were identified and called to determine whether the provider worked there, prescribed buprenorphine, accepted insurance, had appointments, or charged for visits. Results: The number of providers listed in each county ranged from 1 to 166, with 5 counties having <10 providers. In 3 counties no appointments were obtained, and another 3 counties had ≤3 providers with availability. Of the 505 providers listed, 355 providers (70.3%) were reached, 310 (61.4%) of the 505 listings were correct numbers, and 195 (38.6%) of the 505 providers in the listings provided buprenorphine. Of the 173 clinics that provided buprenorphine and were asked about insurance, 131 (75.7%) accepted insurance. Of the 167 clinics that provided buprenorphine and were asked about Medicaid, 105 (62.9%) accepted it. Wait times for appointments ranged from 1 to 120 days, with an average of 16.8 days for those that had a waitlist. Among the 39 providers who reported out-of-pocket costs, the average cost was $231 (range: $90 to $600). One hundred forty of the 505 providers listed in the database had appointments available (27.7%). Three hundred sixty-five of the 505 providers did not have appointments available (72.3%) for various reasons, including the fact that 120 providers (32.9% of the 365 providers) could not be reached, and 137 of the numbers (37.5% of the 365 listed numbers) were wrong. Other reasons appointments could not be obtained included the fact that providers did not treat outpatients, were not accepting new patients, were out of office, or required a referral. Conclusion: Although the SAMHSA buprenorphine practitioner locator is used by patients and providers to locate treatment options, only a small portion of clinicians in the database ultimately offered initial appointments, implying that the database is only marginally useful for patients.