January 2nd, 2010 by David Kroll, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
1 Comment »
Steve Silberman and Rebecca Skloot just pointed out to me an editorial from science writer Chris Mooney that has appeared online and will be in the Sunday, January 3rd edition of The Washington Post.
In the essay, “On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up,” Mooney continues his longstanding call to scientists to take ownership in combating scientific misinformation, invoking the very weak response of the scientific community to the aftermath of e-mails and documents hacked from the Climatic Research Institute at the University of East Anglia.
The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when science comes under attack. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Terra Sigillata*
December 16th, 2009 by DrWes in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
I am fortunate to work at an institution that has a fully deployed electronic medical record (EMR) system that incorporates outpatient physician notes and inpatient notes under one umbrella. By and large, patient care is facilitated since both outpatient and inpatient notes appear simultaneously in the patient’s chart, along side telephone messages and clinical results. While there are plenty of kinks to work out, most of us have to admit that there are huge patient care advantages to such a system.
The system also promotes a secure e-mail service for patients to e-mail their physician and a mechanism to have their results forwarded directly to them. With the ability to empower patients directly, many would consider this as the Utopian model for heath care delivery of the future.
And what could be better? Patients get virtually unlimited access to their health care provider, 24-7. Results are whisked to the patient. Speed. Efficiency. “Green.” It’s all good, right?
Maybe. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
December 13th, 2009 by Bryan Vartabedian, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
We assume that technology will improve communication between doctors and patients.
But not always.
Look at the 2,000 word email.
While it isn’t yet the standard means of communication in our clinic (it will be soon) we occasionally take email from patients. My experience has been that they’re sometimes long and unfocused with tangential information irrelevant to the problem at hand. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at 33 Charts*
November 16th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy
No Comments »
Someone I know works at a non-profit organization (supported by health insurers) that is trying to simplify the administrative processes in healthcare. He’s tasked with finding ways to make data transfer between doctors’ offices and health insurance companies more uniform and straightforward. His work is such a success that it was promoted to President Obama as a clear example of health insurers’ efforts to reduce waste and simplify healthcare. There is even talk of his project becoming mandated.
So why is this simplification strategy now in jeopardy of being tabled rather than legislated? Vendors and clearinghouses who exist to transfer data from one disparate health insurance bureaucracy and medical practice to another are fighting to block this progress because their business model is at risk. If health insurers and physicians can safely and efficiently exchange data – then they become less reliant on middle men.
One person’s waste (non-uniform, inefficient data exchange) is another’s (clearing houses and vendors) job security.
And we wonder why it’s so difficult to reform healthcare?
Sigh.
September 6th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Book Reviews
No Comments »
Preamble
I’ll never forget the day when I argued for protecting parents against misleading and false information about the treatment of autism. I was working at a large consumer health organization whose mission was to “empower patients with accurate information” so that they could take control of their health. My opposition was himself a physician who requested that our organization publish an article that advised parents of children with autism to seek out DAN! practitioners and chelation therapy.
I prepared my remarks with the utmost care and delivered them to a committee of our lay executives. I cited examples of children who had died during chelation treatments, explained exactly why there was no evidence that chelation therapy could improve the symptoms of autism and in fact was based on the false premise that “heavy metals” in vaccines were implicated in the etiology of the disease. I concluded that it would be irresponsible for the company to publish such misleading advice/information for parents, and would in fact be counter to our entire mission.
My physician opponent suggested that it was our company’s duty to inform parents of all their options, that we should not be judgmental about treatments, and that I was part of a paternalistic medical establishment that tried to silence creative thinking.
The committee ended up siding with my opponent. I was flabbergasted and asked one of the committee members what on earth they were thinking. She simply shrugged and said that my opponent was more likable than I was.
This experience marked the beginning of my journey towards fighting fire with fire – understanding that being right is not the same as being influential, and that “winning” an argument (where lives are on the line) requires a different skill set than I learned in my scientific training.
Book Review
And so it was with great interest that I picked up Randy Olson’s book, Don’t Be Such A Scientist: Talking Substance In An Age Of Style. I was pleased to see that other scientists had experienced the same revelation – that we need to be more communication-savvy to become more societally-influential.
Olson’s book outline is simple: four “don’ts” and one “do.” Don’t be so cerebral, literal-minded, poor at telling stories, or unlikeable. Do be the voice of science. He begins his book with a captivating story: a marine biologist goes to Hollywood and is shredded by an acting teacher for being incapable of raw emotion. Most scientists will get a good chuckle out of this narrative and will relate to Olson’s culture shock.
As the book winds along, the reader is introduced to a series of the author’s former girlfriends. He reminisces:
She would listen to me talk and talk and talk to the old folks and finally, by the end of the day, she would have had enough. So her favorite thing to do in the evening was, when I was done talking, to look deeply, romantically, lovingly into my eyes and say in a soft and seductive Germanic voice… “You bore me.”… p.82
Another girlfriend developed an affectionate nickname for me, “Chief Longwind,” which she would abbreviate when I’d get going on something and just say, “That’s enough for tonight, Chief.” p.83
Unfortunately, as these ladies noted, Olson’s strong suit is not compelling dialog – a tragic irony for a book written to inspire more effective science communication. Nonetheless, since scientists are rarely deterred by boredom, I think that there are some conceptual gems worth unearthing.
These are my top 5 take-home messages:
1. Communicate in a human way – be humorous, tell stories, don’t feel as if you have to present all the details. The goal is to get people curious enough to ask more questions.
2. Broad audiences prefer style over substance – learn to be bilingual (to speak with academics versus a general audience).
3. Marketing is critical for influence. The creators of Napoleon Dynamite spent a few hundred thousand dollars on production and $10 million on advertising/marketing. The movie grossed $50 million. Scientists who wish to be influential (or get their message across broadly) must bow the knee to the marketing gods.
4. Some people are naturally good communicators, others are not. Find the good ones and make them spokespeople. “The strongest voice is that of a single individual.” p. 166
5. Likability trumps everything. People make snap judgments about whether or not they like you, and your message’s impact is dependent upon your likability factor. Likability is related to humor, emotion, and passion. p. 148
And so, Don’t Be Such A Scientist offers some great food for thought – and I suppose if it hadn’t been written by a scientist it might also have been a more engaging read! But who am I to say, I’m still trying to bend my mind around the idea that Americans don’t care about facts.
