For some reason, posting a lot of stuff from the WSJ recently, but it's all good. Check out this piece about the need to innovate in healthcare.
"Unlike many other industries, health care has remained highly fragmented, with a hierarchical culture resistant to change, and a payment system that rewards providers for quantity rather than quality of care. It has been slow to adopt technologies like electronic medical records that have the potential to make care more efficient and safer for patients. Even when new practices have been shown to improve care and reduce error, hospitals and doctors have been slow to adopt them."
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. GB Shaw
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Pronovost
Great piece in todays Wall Street Journal, an interview with Pronovost, well worth reading.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Europe's Failing Health (Systems)
Great piece in todays Wall Street Journal. Discusses the challenges facing healthcare systems, from the funding perspective, throughout Europe. My favourite line,
"In 1995 the cost of a hip replacement was the equivalent of buying a flat-screen TV in Germany," he says. "In 2008 you could get 10 flat-screen TVs for the amount of money you paid for a hip replacement."
"In 1995 the cost of a hip replacement was the equivalent of buying a flat-screen TV in Germany," he says. "In 2008 you could get 10 flat-screen TVs for the amount of money you paid for a hip replacement."
The conclusion? Healthcare funding and design must change, and change radically.
Does improving quality save money?
The instinctive answer is, "yes, of course." If only it were that easy. I am more and more coming around to the view that to change a complex system like healthcare will require radical restructuring, which will only happen in the Western World when we realise we can no longer afford to deliver our current service. It wont be easy, it wont be pleasant.
Levette has sent me a paper which suggests that improved quality and lower costs may not go hand in hand. Bottom line;
"The evidence suggests that there are ways of saving money at the same time as improving quality. But doing so on a large scale requires changes in how services are financed, and increasing the capability of ordinary services to make changes. Approaches that look effective in theory rarely seem to have the same impact when implemented in practice and on a large scale. In this respect, the challenges of achieving real finan- cial savings by improving quality and reducing waste are no different from any other attempt to change a complex system."
Levette has sent me a paper which suggests that improved quality and lower costs may not go hand in hand. Bottom line;
"The evidence suggests that there are ways of saving money at the same time as improving quality. But doing so on a large scale requires changes in how services are financed, and increasing the capability of ordinary services to make changes. Approaches that look effective in theory rarely seem to have the same impact when implemented in practice and on a large scale. In this respect, the challenges of achieving real finan- cial savings by improving quality and reducing waste are no different from any other attempt to change a complex system."
Training for the future: from 20th century medicine to 21st century healthcare delivery
Check out this great piece from Peter Lachman. Nicely aligns with what I wrote about yesterday.
Disruptive Innovation
Hope to write a bit today about disruptive innovation in healthcare. Just to get into the mood. Thanks Lils.
From Apple Computers Think Different (R) campaign.
"Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
From Apple Computers Think Different (R) campaign.
"Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Medical Education; Fit for the 21st Century?
My personal view is that the current model of medical education is no longer fit for purpose; it is too heavily oriented to rote learning, is excessively hospital focused, pays little attention to the overwhelming needs of disease prevention, is excessively focused on providing healthcare as opposed to health, does not have a word to say about systems thinking and pays lip service to the concept of teamwork. There is no emphasis on the need to provide value, it does not provide the tools that allow professionals to continuously improve their service and has nothing to say about the economics of health and importantly our obligations as professionals to ensure money is spent to ensure that society receives the maximal benefit.
A very clever intern spoke to me recently, and I was discussing the concept of safety and quality. She told me she had never heard anyone in 6 years of medical school discuss these concepts. A shocking state of affairs.
Which brings me to the purpose of this post. A paper was recently published in the Lancet, and I will let the authors speak for themselves. Fundamentally, it is a call to arms, laying out the clear need to radically reform the model of medical education, in similar fashion to the Flexner report 100 years.
"Professional education has not kept pace with these challenges, largely because of fragmented, outdated, and static curricula that produce ill-equipped graduates. The problems are systemic: mismatch of competencies to patient and population needs; poor teamwork; persistent gender stratification of professional status; narrow technical focus without broader contextual understanding; episodic encounters rather than continuous care; predominant hospital orientation at the expense of primary care; quantitative and qualitative imbalances in the professional labour market; and weak leadership to improve health-system performance. Laudable efforts to address these deficiencies have mostly floundered, partly because of the so-called tribalism of the professions—ie, the tendency of the various professions to act in isolation from or even in competition with each other.
Redesign of professional health education is necessary and timely, in view of the opportunities for mutual learning and joint solutions offered by global interdependence due to acceleration of flows of knowledge, technologies, and financing across borders, and the migration of both professionals and patients. What is clearly needed is a thorough and authoritative re-examination of health professional education, matching the ambitious work of a century ago."
A very clever intern spoke to me recently, and I was discussing the concept of safety and quality. She told me she had never heard anyone in 6 years of medical school discuss these concepts. A shocking state of affairs.
Which brings me to the purpose of this post. A paper was recently published in the Lancet, and I will let the authors speak for themselves. Fundamentally, it is a call to arms, laying out the clear need to radically reform the model of medical education, in similar fashion to the Flexner report 100 years.
"Professional education has not kept pace with these challenges, largely because of fragmented, outdated, and static curricula that produce ill-equipped graduates. The problems are systemic: mismatch of competencies to patient and population needs; poor teamwork; persistent gender stratification of professional status; narrow technical focus without broader contextual understanding; episodic encounters rather than continuous care; predominant hospital orientation at the expense of primary care; quantitative and qualitative imbalances in the professional labour market; and weak leadership to improve health-system performance. Laudable efforts to address these deficiencies have mostly floundered, partly because of the so-called tribalism of the professions—ie, the tendency of the various professions to act in isolation from or even in competition with each other.
Redesign of professional health education is necessary and timely, in view of the opportunities for mutual learning and joint solutions offered by global interdependence due to acceleration of flows of knowledge, technologies, and financing across borders, and the migration of both professionals and patients. What is clearly needed is a thorough and authoritative re-examination of health professional education, matching the ambitious work of a century ago."
The Great Crack Up
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."
F.Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Crack-up, 1936
I think the quote above will resonate with many of those who faced with the daily challenge of improving a health service still believe it is possible.
F.Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Crack-up, 1936
I think the quote above will resonate with many of those who faced with the daily challenge of improving a health service still believe it is possible.
Is informed consent bad for your health?
A letter in this weeks Lancet is worth considering. Having been involved in a number of clinical studies in paediatric intensive care units, this resonated with me. The purpose of seeking informed consent from an individual enrolled in a clinical study is to ensure that they are protected in so far as possible and are fully aware of any possible risks entering this study may entail. The benefits of enrolling in a study, apart from the societal good of increasing knowledge is that there is some evidence that patients in a clinical study, regardless of whether they receive the experimental treatment or conventional treatment receive better quality of care. There is also the possibility that they may benefit from the experimental intervention.
Using data from the CRASH trial, researchers estimated that in hospitals which sought consent from relatives, there was a 1.2 hour delay in initiating treatment compared to those hospitals in which no consent was sought. Applying these data to an analysis of the CRASH-2 trial, the researchers estimated that a one hour delay in commencing treatment resulted in a reduction in the percentage of patients responding to treatment from 63% to 49% with a likely increase in death and disability being the result.
There are two consequences; first the delay results in an increased risk of poor outcomes, second, the delay may obscure benefits that accrue from administering a time sensitive treatment.
This has important ethical and scientific implications.
Using data from the CRASH trial, researchers estimated that in hospitals which sought consent from relatives, there was a 1.2 hour delay in initiating treatment compared to those hospitals in which no consent was sought. Applying these data to an analysis of the CRASH-2 trial, the researchers estimated that a one hour delay in commencing treatment resulted in a reduction in the percentage of patients responding to treatment from 63% to 49% with a likely increase in death and disability being the result.
There are two consequences; first the delay results in an increased risk of poor outcomes, second, the delay may obscure benefits that accrue from administering a time sensitive treatment.
This has important ethical and scientific implications.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Are you better off flying with a trainee pilot, or being operated on by a trainee surgeon?
One of the concerns that some people have relates to the way we train our doctors, essentially an apprenticeship system, with a trainee learning from a senior doctor. While I have some concerns about other aspects of this system, one of the unavoidable consequences is that trainees have to practice upon a patient. Is this safe? Surely being operated on by someone with less expertise increases the risk of something going wrong?
A study has just been published seeking to answer that question. The American College of Surgeons examined patient outcomes in more than 600,000 operations. They found that having a resident, (junior surgeon in training) while associated with a slightly higher risk of developing (usually minor) complications, was also more likely to be associated with a slightly reduced risk of death. The reasons obviously are unclear, but this important paper does provide some reassurance.
A study has just been published seeking to answer that question. The American College of Surgeons examined patient outcomes in more than 600,000 operations. They found that having a resident, (junior surgeon in training) while associated with a slightly higher risk of developing (usually minor) complications, was also more likely to be associated with a slightly reduced risk of death. The reasons obviously are unclear, but this important paper does provide some reassurance.
Wow, Oh Wow
That was Muir Grays Twitter post on seeing this weeks BMJ. Apart from the papers referenced below (Reducing Variation March 24th), there are a number of other papers worth checking out. A report from the Netherlands again finds a marked variation in utilization of medical interventions. An editorial on variation in the NHS; a look at how to redevelop care for long term conditions, and a lot more.
Why such emphasis on variation? Surely the areas with low utilization will balance out the high users for a zero sum game. This is unlikely to be the case, there is mounting evidence, mainly from the US, but also from other countries, that outcomes are not affected by the amount of care given above a certain amount. Therefore there are huge opportunities for reducing waste, saving money, and a lot more good stuff.
Why such emphasis on variation? Surely the areas with low utilization will balance out the high users for a zero sum game. This is unlikely to be the case, there is mounting evidence, mainly from the US, but also from other countries, that outcomes are not affected by the amount of care given above a certain amount. Therefore there are huge opportunities for reducing waste, saving money, and a lot more good stuff.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Eliminate Variation, Part 2
A piece in the BMJ by John Wennberg summarizes much of the knowledge around variation in medical practice. He breaks unwanted variation into three categories, effective care, preference sensitive care and supply sensitive care.
- Effective care. This is care that is the right treatment for the vast majority of patients, and variation in this element relates to underuse, e.g. vaccination
- Preference Sensitive Care. This is care provided when there are more than one effective treatment, and choice of therapy should be dictated by patient preference; in fact, physician choice often determines this. Mastectomy rather than lumpectomy plus radiation for breast cancer for example.
- Supply sensitive care. This is care that is dependent on the supply of services in a region. Roehmers law is one example of this; this states that in an insured popualtion, a hosoital bed is a filled bed. Dartmouth have found no corrleation between the amount of care received and outcomes, suggesting that there are areas with massive overuse of resources. Gawande in a brilliant article two years ago examined this discrepancy.
Also check out the NHS health Atlas. There are huge variations in care evident. Likely that this occurs everywhere.
Eliminate Variation
One of the godfathers of determining the extent of variation in medical practice and founder of the Dartmouth Health Atlas, Jack Wennberg, has recently published a book, "Tracking Medicine", available here. I have just downloaded it, will review it when finished, but it gets a great review here.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Future of Nursing
Medicine is excessively hierarchical. That is pretty obvious. While there may have been some benefit to this in the past, (though I am at a loss to think what that might be), clearly healthcare must be seen as a team effort. The role and contribution of nurses in delivering more and more effective healthcare has not been utilized to anything like its full potential. From the Future of Nursing, comes the following recommendations;
- Nurses should practice to the full extent of their education and training.
- Nurses should achieve higher levels of education and training through an improved education system that promotes seamless academic progression.
- Nurses should be full partners, with physicians and other health professionals, in redesigning health care in the United States.
- Effective workforce planning and policy making require better data collection and an improved information infrastructure.
Reform of Public Service
This is the subject of a special survey in this weeks Economist. While looking at public services generally, criticizing (rightly in my opinion) the growth and low productivity of services worldwide, it has a specific mention of health. Well worth reading.
Amongst the figures given; "McKinsey points out that American spending on this has grown at an annual lick of 4.9% over the past 40 years, whereas GDP per person has grown by just 2.1%. Pessimists are convinced nothing can be done to restrain it. A refreshingly different perspective is provided by Sir John Oldham, a British doctor who is clinical lead for productivity in the National Health Service."
"America, which currently spends 16% of its GDP on health care is theoretically on track to spend 100% of its GDP on health care by 2065."
"America, which currently spends 16% of its GDP on health care is theoretically on track to spend 100% of its GDP on health care by 2065."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)