Better Health: Smart Health Commentary

Featured

A Third-Year Medical Student Discusses Her Views On Abortion In The Washington Post

June 8th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
9 Comments »

The abortion “issue” is such a hot topic that I have never written about it on this blog until today. I hope I won’t regret that decision but I felt it was appropriate to respond to this medical student’s essay – and the ~560+ comments that follow it – as a physician who has witnessed (but never performed) about 100 abortions. Let me explain.

During my Emergency Medicine training I was required to perform a certain number of intubations and abdominal ultrasound scans. My residency training program offered rotations in Ob/Gyn and at a local Planned Parenthood center. The senior residents told me that the best way to fulfill my intubation requirements was to assist with the Ob/Gyn OR procedures because the patients were young, healthy, and generally uncomplicated. At the time I was really excited by the opportunity to get the experience I needed – in as short a time as possible. I used to hang out in an Ob/Gyn operating room asking if I could assist the anesthesiologist with the intubations. Once they got to know and trust me, I could intubate about 6 patients in a day – an opportunity otherwise hard to come by as all the new anesthesiology residents were vying to practice intubation themselves.

One of the Ob/Gyns who used the OR (where I got my intubation experience) scheduled some abortions of fetuses that were at the border of viable – as old as 23 weeks. That made me quite uncomfortable, and I know that there were other staff (and several nurses) who refused to work with that physician. However, as squirmy as I felt, I thought it was important for me to see first hand what the procedure entailed… because otherwise I’d have to rely on anecdotes and second-hand opinions to draw my own conclusions. I wanted to see this for myself.

I’ll never forget the day I witnessed the first late-ish term abortion. I was preparing my intubation equipment – fidgeting with the Mac size 4 blade, making sure the light worked, when the physician brought the patient into the room on a gurney. The woman’s abdomen was very pregnant, and the Ob/Gyn was stroking her hair and whispering reassuring things to her. The anesthesiologist made small talk with the patient, explaining the nuts and bolts of the anesthesia – the oxygen mask – the propofol – the intubation. I stayed out of the patient’s line of sight and allowed the Ob/Gyn and her resident to spend some final moments with her. The scene was both tense, and yet supportive of the patient.

I initiated rapid sequence intubation with the assistance of the anesthesiologist, and then moved to get the ultrasound machine to visualize the uterus and its contents. Much to my discomfort the fetus was fairly large – and was moving around normally, even sucking its thumb at one point. I asked the Ob/Gyn resident why the fetus was being aborted since it didn’t appear to have any structural abnormalities. She responded that the mother simply didn’t want to have the baby, and had wrestled with the idea of abortion for a long time before she made her final decision.

The rest of the procedure is a bit of a blur – with details too graphic to describe here. But suffice it to say that the resident performing the dilatation and curettage had a fairly difficult time removing the fetus through the cervix, and had to resort to eliminating it in smaller parts, rather than a whole. It was very sad and it took a long time to make sure that the uterus was fully evacuated. I decided that I couldn’t watch another one of these procedures.

The rest of my female abdominal ultrasound experience was obtained at a Planned Parenthood center where very early abortions were performed. Generally, this consisted of suctioning out a tiny yolk sac (and “products of conception”) – without much of a recognizable fetus in the midst. Although these procedures were certainly emotional, they were somewhat less troubling than the later term dilatation and curettage.

What I didn’t expect, however, was that of the approximately 100 abortions I witnessed – none (to my knowledge) of the women requesting them were rape victims, nor was there a life-threatening birth defect in the fetus. Usually the reason they gave was psychological, emotional, or financial – “I just can’t afford to raise a child” or “This is not a good time for me to be pregnant” or “I don’t want this baby” or “I don’t want another baby” or “This was an accident, and I don’t want it to ruin my life.”

I did my very best to adopt an attitude much like the one that the author of the Washington Post article did – “It’s not for me to judge the validity of someone else’s reasons for wanting an abortion… They’re going to do it anyway so physicians need to make sure they’re safe… Women have the right to choose…”

But the reality was that those attitudes didn’t prepare me for the emotional turmoil inherent in the process of abortion. It’s sadder than I thought, more difficult than I thought… and the impact is farther reaching than I imagined. Studies estimate that about 1/3 of US women have an abortion at some point in their lives – that’s a heavy emotional burden that many women carry in silence.

In my opinion women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, but I’d hope that they also consider their right to choose to give their baby up for adoption as well. Some believe that an abortion is “easier” than giving up a baby for adoption – but I’m not so sure that’s the case from an emotional perspective. As far as rape victims or women who are carrying a moribund fetus – the decision to abort may well be emotionally less damaging. But for the majority of women who have abortions for less clear reasons (reasons like the ones I witnessed), I’d really encourage them to consider adoption as an option. Obviously, these decisions are intensely personal and have to be made on a case-by-case basis – and women should be supported either way.

As scientific and rational as I wanted to be about the procedure, I am still troubled by what I experienced as a witness to various abortions. Though I might have “entered the abortion conversation” as the third-year medical student did – after witnessing quite a few, I have a deeper appreciation for the emotional complexity of abortion, and a desire to help women avoid them if at all possible. I wonder if the author of the Washington Post article will change her perspective after she’s witnessed a few of the procedures?

The Real Reason Why Doctors Don’t Want To Adopt EMRs, And What To Do About It

June 5th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
11 Comments »

Have you ever been ignored by someone who was texting or otherwise engaged in a digital conversation? Did you feel that the person was being rude and unresponsive to you? If your answer to both of these questions is “yes” then you will understand the real reason why some doctors don’t want to adopt electronic medical records systems (EMRs).

As sappy as this may sound, most physicians were drawn to medicine because they wanted to help people, save lives, and improve the quality of life for those suffering from disease. Even after we’ve been beaten up by our training programs, and weighed down by debt and the mountains of paperwork required by a broken healthcare system, most of us still retain that do-gooder kernal inside us – we genuinely care about our patients.

And so because we care, we know instinctively that the human side of medicine – the attentive listening, the visual cues, the continued eye contact, and the careful history and physical exam – is critical to our profession. The problem we have with EMRs is that they often interrupt the sensitive and intuitive parts of what we do. EMRs and other digital “tools” designed to make our work more efficient, may do so at the expense of the human connectedness our patients deserve and need.

Most EMRs, as they exist today, are not designed to bring patients into the conversation. In order to maximize efficiency, the physician must type while the patient is talking – usually turning their gaze and even their whole bodies away from the individual or family. Those of us who feel that this behavior is socially inappropriate will take a verbal history from the patient and then type it up from memory later – this creates more work than if we’d simply taken notes during the conversation in a paper-record, and may introduce recollection bias if we do our typing at the end of a long day of seeing many patients.

There is certainly a generation gap in terms of EMR adoption (as my friend Dr. Geeta Nayyar has noted) – our new crop of doctors are very comfortable with EMRs and wireless tools of various kinds, while the “older” doctors are often highly resistant to adopting a digital system. But before we label senior physicians as “obstructing progress” – let’s look beyond the technology issues (yes, it takes time to learn how to do something a different way) and at some of the emotional reasons why physicians don’t like what EMRs do to their patient relationships.

Time and again I’ve heard my peers (who use EMRs in hospitals) say that they feel that they spend most of their time “talking to the computer” rather than the patient. They are wracked with guilt about this, and have actually lost a portion of their “job satisfaction” as a result. They know that the digitization of healthcare has robbed them of the luxury of full history and physical exams, conducted in an uninterrupted face-to-face encounter with their full attention on the patient. They feel like a robot – like a mere collection of algorithms used to process people in an “evidence based” framework. And the patients – they report that their doctors are hurried, uncaring, and potentially replaceable with a robot.

In my opinion, EMR manufacturers must understand the collateral damage that their products can do to the physician-patient relationship and create EMRs that engage patients in the physician encounter. I have seen at least one prototype product that is trying to do this (and there may be many more – it’s difficult to keep up with all the new innovations, so please leave a comment about other products that you know of), Microsoft’s Surface. Surface allows the physician and patient to sit together at a table with a screen embedded in its top. The physician can bring up lab results, radiology images, and medical records to discuss them with the patient so they can see it at the same time. I really like this concept, since it facilitates electronic record keeping while engaging the patient in the encounter.

When EMR vendors and civil servants bemoan the slow technology adoption rates of physicians, I urge them to recognize that there is more at play than just “resistance to change.” There is a resistance to dehumanizing doctor-patient interactions, to turning one’s back on a crying patient to type notes on a laptop, to spending more time “talking to a computer” than talking to a patient. That resistance is actually a good thing – it means we still care, we have hearts, we are human.

Now, to get physicians to adopt EMRs – don’t use a stick (“adopt our EMR or we’ll fine your practices”) use the younger generation of physicians (already comfortable with technology) to teach the older ones how to integrate digital record keeping into their workflow. During that interaction, I believe the senior physicians will be able to teach the junior ones a lot about the art of humanizing their patient interactions, while the younger ones train them about the technical process of incorporating EMRs into their own workflow.

In summary, EMR adoption is slow not just because of cost and technical skills barriers, but because of the potential dehumanizing effect they can have on medical practices. Senior physicians may understand this risk better than junior ones, and should be admired for their desire to maintain fewer barriers in their relationship with patients. EMRs created with the ability to include patients in the conversation can reduce the potential social damage they often introduce in patient encounters. Peer-to-peer training is valuable in improving adoption rates, teaching junior physicians the social etiquette important in a caring doctor-patient relationship (and to maintain the art of listening and observing), and helping senior physicians learn how to use technology to achieve the tasks they currently complete by other methods.

The Friday Funny: The Alternative To Botox

June 5th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Friday Funny
No Comments »

Science And The Game Of 20 Questions

June 4th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Quackery Exposed
No Comments »

An audience member at a recent NYC Skeptics meeting asked me how I handled conflict surrounding strongly held beliefs that are not supported by conclusive evidence. As a dentist, he argued, he often witnessed professionals touting procedure A over procedure B as the “best way” to do X, when in reality there are no controlled clinical trials comparing A and B. “How am I to know what’s right in these circumstances?” He asked.

And this is more-or-less what I said:

The truth is, you probably can’t know which procedure is better. At least, not at this point in history. The beauty of science is that it’s evolving. We are constantly learning more about our bodies and our environment, so that we are getting an ever-clearer degree of resolution on what we see and experience.

It’s like having a blurry camera lens at a farm.  At first we can only perceive that there are living things moving around on the other side of the lens – but as we begin to focus the camera, we begin to make out that the animals are in the horse or cattle family. With further focus we might be able to differentiate a horse from a cow… and eventually we’ll be able to tell if the horse has a saddle on it, and maybe one day we’ll be able to see what brand of saddle it is. Each scientific conundrum that we approach is often quite blurry at the onset. People get very invested in their theories of the presence or absence of cows, and whether or not the moving objects could in fact be horses. Others say that those looking through the camera contradict one another too much to be trusted – that they must be offering false ideas or willfully misleading people about the picture they’re describing.

In fact, we just have different degrees of clarity on issues at any given point in time. This is not cause for alarm, nor is it a reason to abandon our cameras. No, it just gives us more reason to continue to review, analyze, and revise our understanding of the picture at hand. We should try not to make more out of photo than we can at a given resolution – and understand that contradicting opinions are more likely to be evidence of insufficient information than a fundamental flaw of the scientific method.

***

I have noticed that impatient photo-gazers have a propensity to demand answers before accurate ones are available. And this leads to all manner of passionately held, but misguided beliefs both in the scientific community and beyond. We must somehow find a way to make peace with limited information, eagerly seeking more, without being dogmatic about premature conclusions. My dentist colleague should not feel pressured into choosing sides on an issue that cannot be fully evaluated yet – and will have to wrestle with ambivalence as he waits patiently for more data.

But far more worrisome than living with ambivalence is living with stagnation. I would argue that one of the greatest red flags in the scientific world is an unwillingness to learn – an unyielding commitment to a set of beliefs, despite increasing evidence that they are not accurate. I think of homeopathy and acupuncture as good examples of this phenomenon – since they have not evolved significantly since their inception, their proponents therefore must admit that they have learned almost nothing new since the dawn of their use. The lack of refinement of treatment protocol is evidence of the system’s belief-based (or placebo-based) nature. As John Cage, US composer of avant-garde music, once said,

“I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones.”

***

As I mulled over my fuzzy image analogy, an even better one came to mind: the game of 20 questions. For those of you who didn’t play this game growing up, its rules are simple: one person must think of a person, place, or thing and the other(s) have 20 questions that they can ask in order to guess who/what the first person had in mind. The challenge is that the questions have to be asked so that the response is either yes or no. If the questioners can’t devine the name of the person, place or thing within 20 questions, the respondent wins. If the questioners guess the identity of the object within 20 questions they win.

Science is a little bit like 20 questions (of course we have unlimited questions that we can ask) in that we constrain our research to answer a very specific question under a very specific set of circumstances (formulating a “yes” or “no” type question). No one question or answer is likely to unlock the solution to the larger puzzle – it’s the collection of questions, taken in context of one another, that leads to meaningful understanding. When we don’t understand the best path forward, it’s likely that we are early on in the game of 20 questions, with little information to guide us.  Occasionally we get lucky and ask the right question early – but more often than not we’re left to scratch our heads and ponder yet another question to help unlock the “mysteries” that face us.

That is the beauty and the pain of science – it’s slow, it’s methodical, it leaves the honest participant in a state of ambivalence with some degree of frequency, but in the end it yields real answers if we wait for the clarity that can come from careful analysis. Without it we are left with magical beliefs and misguided explanations… we’re left with Jenny McCarthyism.

*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*

Clay Shirky: Physicians And Patients Need To Fuse Their Online Conversations

June 2nd, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Celebrity Interviews
3 Comments »

New Media guru Clay Shirky was the keynote speaker at the Management of Change conference in Norfolk, Virginia. His recent book, Here Comes Everybody, is considered a must-read by most web 2.0 enthusiasts. Clay and I escaped the conference for a tête-á-tête at a local Starbucks where we wrestled with the thorny issues of healthcare and crowd sourcing.

Dr. Val: I’ve noticed that there is a difference between being right and being influential. Doctors are having a hard time adjusting their tone to be more compelling in a social media culture. What do you think physicians can do to be more influential online?

Shirky: The problem is that, since we all die eventually, everyone will be unhappy with their healthcare at some point. This creates a social dilemma that’s neither transitory nor small. First, there will always be snake oil salesmen peddling “eternal life,” and second, there will always be an unhappy faction who rail against the medical establishment. You should not try to stamp out that faction, but referee it. Federalist Papers No. 10 states that faction is the normal case of government – the trick is not to allow factions to gain disproportionate power. Physicians need to realize that patients have different priorities than they do, and speak to those as much as possible.

Dr. Val: What do you mean that we have different priorities?

Shirky: Take Medpedia for example – physicians are eager to write about rare types of liver cancer, but they don’t want to write about the basics of biopsy technique. For the physician, it’s perfectly obvious what a liver biopsy entails, so he/she doesn’t think to write about it. But the patient is probably more interested in learning about biopsy procedure than the scientific details of a rare liver cancer. The entries in Medpedia strongly reflect physician interests and priorities, though the resource is ultimately supposed to serve the educational needs of patients.

Dr. Val: What’s the best way to close that gap in priorities?

Shirky: We need to fuse the conversation between physicians and patients. The more they work together, the more valuable the content will be.

Dr. Val: What do you think about the trend towards “user-generated healthcare?”

Shirky: It’s important to have checks and balances. When lay people discuss medicine, their unguided conversation can degenerate into vitamin hucksterism. I think that whole movement was initiated when the FDA decided not to regulate the supplement industry – people have been used to getting input from others who aren’t scientifically qualified. Now everyone gives medical advice, and people listen.

Social media is a very new phenomenon. We have not figured out how to apply good checks and balances yet – amateurs’ opinions and voices can drown out the experts. We want to believe that everyone’s opinion is equally valid – but that’s just not the case. In the end, quality and clarity of messaging is a source of power.