November 8th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Celebrity Interviews, Expert Interviews
8 Comments »
 |
|
Dr. Gawande
|
Kaiser Permanente sponsored a special event in DC today – Charlie Rose interviewed Dr. Atul Gawande about patient safety in front of an audience of physicians. Dr. Gawande is a young surgeon at Harvard’s Dana Farber Cancer Institute, has written two books about performance improvement, and is a regular contributor to the New Yorker magazine. I had heard many positive things about Atul, but had never met him in person. I was pleasantly impressed.
Atul strikes me as a genuinely humble person. He shifted uncomfortably in his chair as Charlie Rose cited a long list of his impressive accomplishments, including writing for the New Yorker. Atul responded:
I’m not sure how my writing became so popular. I took one fiction-writing class in college because I liked a girl who was taking the class. I got a “C” in the class but married the girl.
He went on to explain that because his son was born with a heart defect (absent aortic arch) he knew what it felt like to be on the patient side of the surgical conversation. He told the audience that at times he felt uncomfortable knowing which surgeons would be operating on his son, because he had trained with them as a resident, and remembered their peer antics.
Atul explained that patient safety is becoming a more and more complicated proposition as science continues to uncover additional treatment options.
If you had a heart attack in the 1950’s, you’d be given some morphine and put on bed rest. If you survived 6 weeks it was a miracle. Today not only do we have 10 different ways to prevent heart attacks, but we have many different treatment options, including stents, clot busters, heart surgery, and medical management. The degree of challenge in applying the ultimate best treatment option for any particular patient is becoming difficult. This puts us at risk for “failures” that didn’t exist in the past.
In an environment of increasing healthcare complexity, how do physicians make sure that care is as safe as possible? Atul suggests that we need to go back to basics. Simple checklists have demonstrated incredible value in reducing central line infections and surgical error rates. He cited a checklist initiative started by Dr. Peter Pronovost that resulted in reduction of central line infections of 33%. This did not require investment in advanced antibacterial technology, and it cost almost nothing to implement.
Atul argued that death rates from roadside bombs decreased from 25% (in the Gulf War) to 10% (in the Iraq war) primarily because of the implementation of check lists. Military personnel were not regularly wearing their Kevlar vests until it was mandated and enforced. This one change in process has saved countless lives, with little increase in cost and no new technology.
I asked Atul if he believed that (beyond check lists) pay for performance (P4P) measures would be useful in improving quality of care. He responded that he had not been terribly impressed with the improvements in outcomes from P4P initiatives in the area of congestive heart failure. He said that because there are over 13,000 different diseases and conditions, it would be incredibly difficult to apply P4P to each of those. He said that most providers would find a way to meet the targets – and that overall P4P just lowers the bar for care.
Non-punitive measures such as check lists and applying what we already know will go a lot farther than P4P in improving patient safety and quality of care.
Atul also touted the importance of transparency in improving patient safety and quality (I could imagine my friend Paul Levy cheering in the background). In the most touching moment of the interview, Atul reflected:
As a surgeon I have a 3% error rate. In other words, every year my work harms about 10-12 patients more than it helps. In about half of those cases I know that I could have done something differently. I remember the names of every patient I killed or permanently disabled. It drives me to try harder to reduce errors and strive for perfection.
Atul argued that hospitals’ resistance to transparency is not primarily driven by a fear of lawsuits, but by a fear of the implications of transparency. If errors are found and publicized, then that means you have to change processes to make sure they don’t happen again. Therein lies the real challenge: knowing what to do and how to act on safety violations is not always easy.
 |
|
Charlie Rose
|
Charlie Rose asked Atul the million dollar question at the end of the interview, “How do we fix healthcare?” His response was well-reasoned:
First we must accept that any attempt to fix healthcare will fail. That’s why I believe that we should try implementing Obama’s plan in a narrow segment of the population, say for children under 18, or for laid off autoworkers, or for veterans returning from Iraq. We must apply universal coverage to this subgroup and then watch how it fails. We can then learn from the mistakes and improve the system before applying it to America as a whole. There is no perfect, 2000 page healthcare solution for America. I learned that when I was working with Hillary Clinton in 1992. Instead of trying to fix our system all at once, we should start small and start now. That’s the best way to learn from our mistakes.
November 7th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews, Health Policy
7 Comments »
There is a critical shortage of primary care providers in the United States. The public’s perception is that there is no shortage, and politicians have spent very little time talking about how to address the shortage. The American Academy of Family Physicians has been carefully studying this issue and strongly recommends incentives for physicians who would consider primary care: increased reimbursement for non-procedural work, and medical school debt-forgiveness are two of many.
The universal coverage system in Massachusetts immediately unmasked the problem of the primary care shortage. Newly insured citizens have been astonished to discover that they cannot find a primary care physician even though they want one. Wait times often exceed 6 months, and very few physicians are accepting new patients.
I have had the privilege of listening in to various healthcare reform discussions among politicians and advocacy groups here in Washington. Every time I raise the issue of “what will you do about the primary care shortage?” they offer the same tepid response: all providers will need to “work together” to provide primary care services, and innovative programs like retail clinics and nurse-driven care models will help to fill the gap in physicians.
My friend and fellow blogger, Dr. Rich Fogoros recently wrote an amusing (and cynical) post about how physicians should simply “hand over” primary care to nurses. (The same argument that many politicians seem to be making). The only problem with this reasoning is that nurses may not be willing to provide primary care services for the same reasons that physicians aren’t too keen on it: the pay is low, the workload is grueling, and there are other career options that offer better lifestyle and salary benefits.
I spoke with a group of nurses on a recent podcast about this very issue and their view was that, “we’re not suckers” – primary care is not as appealing as ICU work, for example.
Gina (Code Blog): Not every nurse wants to go back to school for additional years and shell out a lot of money to become a nurse practitioner and then not make a whole lot more than we’re making now. I’ve worked with nurse practitioners who have come back to work in the ICU because they can’t make enough money in primary care to support their families.
Strong One (MyStrongMedicine): We don’t have enough educators to teach nursing at our nursing schools. Nurse educators are paid about a quarter of what they’d make at the bedside. There are long waits to get into nursing school because we don’t have enough instructors to handle the influx. Until that problem is solved we aren’t going to see in increase in nurses entering the market.
Terri Polick (Nurse Ratched’s Place): I have a friend who’s a nurse practitioner and she had to borrow over $100,000 for her education. I’m a three-year diploma nurse so technically I don’t even have a college degree – but I’m making a lot more than nurse practitioners and I don’t have all that debt. Politicians need to know that nurse practitioners can’t just “pick up the slack” from physicians. Nursing and medicine are two different specialties and we’re trained to do different things.
So for those of you out there who may have shrugged at the primary care shortage and figured that when the docs are gone, someone else will just pick up the slack – think again. Any national universal coverage system will simply unmask what many physicians have known all along: equal access to nothing is nothing. Without making primary care a more attractive career option for providers of all stripes, don’t expect an influx of any sort into the field.
Long wait times for basic healthcare will probably become the norm in America.
November 6th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
3 Comments »
Wyeth vs. Levine is an important legal case being tried before the US Supreme Court. You may have read about the lawsuit in the New York Times, NEJM, JAMA, the Wall Street Journal, or my own blog. It revolves around the tragic story of a woman (Ms. Levine) who experienced an extremely rare side effect (severe tissue damage resulting in the amputation of her right arm) because a drug was administered improperly (into an artery rather than a vein). Ms. Levine is arguing that her injury could have been avoided if the drug label had stronger warning language, and the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in her favor, awarding her $7 million. The court ruled that a jury in the state of Vermont had the right to hold Wyeth accountable for a different labeling standard than the one approved by the FDA.
The plot thickens, however, in that Wyeth’s FDA-approved label very clearly discourages injection of their drug into or near an artery, and it also describes the potential consequence (including gangrene) of such an action. The FDA approved Wyeth’s label in full knowledge of the potential risks and benefits of the drug. In fact, Wyeth asked to strengthen the language of the label before Ms. Levine was injured, and the FDA declined to make the change because label changes are based on new information about a drug’s frequency or severity of risks. Wyeth had nothing new to disclose. Read more »
November 5th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Medblogger Shout Outs, News
3 Comments »
This news from Gary Schwitzer’s excellent blog:
Dr. Nancy Snyderman of NBC News appeared on the Today Show with Matt Lauer last week, profiling a physician-author who has written that the best science does not establish a causal link between childhood vaccines and autism. 
Lauer, in a followup question, mis-spoke and called it a “casual” link – not causal. One wonders whether he truly knows what the words mean.
Snyderman talked about how the physician-author, Dr. Paul Offit (author of “Autism’s False Prophets”), has received death threats. Snyderman herself said she had been physically ambushed by those who contend that vaccines cause autism.
As Snyderman was wrapping up the segment, Lauer said – in typical anchor throwaway language:
“Controversial subject …”
Snyderman immediately shot back, “Not controversial subject , Matt. …It’s time for kids to get vaccinated. The science is the science. It’s not controversial.”
You can see the video here or here.
Kudos to Snyderman for educating her big-bucks anchor colleague live on-the-air.
For a full review of Offit’s book, please check out this link.
