It’s Not About The Box

April 30, 2012

Don Berwick presenting the Birnbaum Lecture

Filed under: Policy — Matt Handley @ 9:25 am

A great way to start a week in spring - Don Berwick is presenting at the Birnbaum lecture at the Convention center in Seattle.  Really looking forward to Don’s talk – take one of the foremost innovators in Health care and season him with time leading CMS, and you get a remarkable perspective.  Don has inspired me for years – I have had the opportunity to learn from him in many ways over many years, including having him shadow me in clinic.  His introduction includes many honorifics, including Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Love that one.

To save notification Emails for those subscribed I will blog happily along and then just post the piece rather than live-blog the event.  ITs a great story, so a long post.

One of my favorite mantras is “No stories without data, and no data without stories” – and Don is the master of storytelling with data.  Today’s talk (not transcribed – but a good faith effort to relate the story):

Midway through residency in 1974 in a NICU rotation, he is awakened at 3 AM to perform an exchange transfusion (a procedure no longer necessary thanks to Rh testing) for a small baby, call her “Baby Gray”.  A sleepy resident, a lot of tubes and stopcocks and a bag of O neg blood.  Basically, in an exchange transfusion blood is taken out of the baby’s umbilical vein, a stopcock is turned and the blood is thrown away, the stopcock is turned and blood is taken out of the O neg bag, the stopcock is turned again and the blood is pushed into the umbilical vein of the baby.  Repeat this many, many times, to basically change out the baby’s blood cells and serum (which contains Mom’s antibodies).  But something went wrong that night.  It was hard to push the blood into the baby, and the baby didn’t look well.  Both the baby and our pediatric resident are tachycardic.  Don stops the process, called for lab tests and help.  A neonatology resident came in as the blood test came back.  The baby has a hematocrit of 90 (normal about 35 – 40).  Crisis.

The hospital where Don has done the procedure before delivered whole blood in one bag.  A different blood bank supplying the hospital where Baby Gray is used a different strategy for delivering the blood.  The red cells were separated from the plasma and red blood cells and plasma were delivered in two different bags.  Don had been using red blood cells without the plasma for the exchange transfusion.  Don sees the clear bag with the plasma dangling below and recognizes that he has been part of an error that has put the baby’s life at risk.  The neonatology resident saved the day (after some complication the baby does well) and reassured Don that this could have happened to anyone.

Don responded as most all of us would have (especially then).  He did not come forward and talk about the error so that it could prevent other patients and doctors from the same error and harm.  Don did nothing.  He carried the pain privately.  His internal dialogue has not kind. “How could I have done anything so stupid”.

Our knowledge of safety and error are now pretty good.  One of the first books about safety, “Human Error” by James Reason may be the best of its kind – the source of the “Swiss cheese model” – laying out the idea that latent causes of error (sleepy resident, non-standardized blood bank procedures, etc) happen to line up like holes in Swiss cheese.  Safety science has enabled us to build safer systems, including more just cultures.

Shift frames – Don Berwick as the self-described amateur ethicist.  Surely it is unethical to allow any other baby to be injured.   It is more than the error itself, it is in the silence that follows.  The silence that makes it so that the error is still possible for other patients, and that keeps the error from the family.  We are now all aligned around safety, just culture, disclosure and quality.

The ethical answers to this case scale to the question of our health system.  The fist locus is that the ethics of quality lie in the professionals that practice medicine.  The second locus of the ethics of quality is leaders.  Imagine that the next day, wracked by guilt, Don brings the cause to leaders so that things can be made safer.  ”You are not a superhero, and you can make mistakes – but the well being of your patients and of other patients depends on your sharing what goes wrong so that we can build stronger systems of support to minimize the errors humans make”.

There is an inescapable connection between the ethics and actions of individuals and leaders.

Segue (the one that Don’s wife believes is hard to follow)

There are many dimensions of quality that we know well – safety, effectiveness, patient centeredness, timeliness, efficiency and equity.   And some of these stories, especially safety, are compelling.  The story about the baby and the exchange transfusion “has us at hello” – heartstrings are tugged, and we feel for both the patient and for the caregiver.

But we can and need to expand the ethical call beyond just safety and effective care, to all of our quality goals.  Now the particular aim that needs to be driving us is Efficiency – the issue of cost.  We need to grapple with the premise that we have an ethical duty to address cost, for the sake of individuals and for society.  Our ability to do everything else that government might do for good is hanging in the balance.  We will not be able to fund schools or maintain support for the disadvantaged unless we address the costs of our health care system.  And we know that this burden is not necessary if we cease our concessions to waste.

We can use an analogy to environmental models (Dons’ recent article in JAMA) where no single strategy can fix our carbon problem, but many different strategies (“wedges” like solar power, more efficient cars, carbon sequestration, etc) can work together to get enough reduction to prevent catastrophic global warming.   In health care, there are 6 wedges of waste:

  • Overtreatment
  • Failures to coordinate care
  • Failures in care delivery
  • Excess administrative costs, excessive health care prices
  • Fraud and abuse.

The minimum estimates of the sum of health care spending for these categories is 21% of all health care spending, the median is 34% and the highest estimate is 47%.  Scary as those estimates are they should bring us hope – if we tackle waste we can continue to provide all the care we should and save considerable resources.  Over 9 years we are looking at $11,000,000,000.  There is a “T” involved in that number.

At the individual level, it is easy to see that the next “Baby Gray” will die unless leaders in health care accept their accountability to learn from error.  We are well down the road to making care safer, but the analogy to affordability has not achieved engagement.

The harm from the health care system on our society will not cease unless the leaders accept their responsibility for the waste in our system.  It is easy to see that while there are a set of excuses for all of the wastes, the analogy to safety is inescapable.

Health care leaders need to assume the responsibility without excuses to tackle waste.

Harm to an individual patient by medical error is different than the harm from waste.  With waste, you can’t name who is hurt.  No one wasteful act harms an individual.  But waste is theft and theft is wrong.  Waste threatens healthcare as a human right.

Don’s Principles for a Framework for action.

  • Put the patient first
  • Protect the disadvantaged
  • Start at Scale
  • Return the money
  • Act Locally

One step further to an ethics of improvement

  • Professionals have an duty to help improve the systems in which they work
  • Leaders have a duty to make #1 logical, feasible, and supported
  • No excuses for inaction on #1 and #2 are ethically acceptable.
  • The duty to improve across all five, and that includes waste
  • Those who educate professionals have a duty to prepare them for this important work

There is a lot of anguish over how we can get things on track – the public is looking for sanity to come out of this.  While politics and policy matter, they are insufficient to fix this.  It will necessarily fall to those who provide care, and those who make it possible for them to provide great care, to lead change to reduce waste and improve value.

Hard to listen to Don and not run out of the room and take action.  I know that my meetings later today will some different focus.

October 24, 2011

Care Management Institute Annual Meeting

Filed under: Uncategorized — Matt Handley @ 7:39 am

Yesterday kicked off the annual meeting for the KP Care Management Institute (CMI), KPs collection of talent from around the program for co-inventing and spreading innovation.  That is innovation defined as “A good idea well executed”.

Yesterday there were stirring words from Robie Pearl and Jack Cochrane, and the teams are ready to tackle the two topics – obesity and cancer care.  What would it take to provide patient centered care in these areas that lead to the best outcomes, as defined by patients?  I think that the major differences between work that has gone on previously and this effort are a patient centered design approach, and the recognition that the greatest levers we have may be the patient and their communities.  There has been a lot of pre-work from the staff at CMI, and we are breaking into two groups to tackle the topics, and then getting back together to challenge each other to think bigger and go farther on behalf of our patients.

Should be an exciting two days

September 23, 2011

Shared Decision Making in DC

Filed under: Shared Decision Making — Matt Handley @ 4:59 am

I am at a shared decision making conference in DC  - day 2

Shannon Brownlee, great writer and speaker and author of “Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer” – is leading off the day.  A compelling writer, she started with a story.  A patient with panic attacks that eventually ends up with an angiogram to “just be sure”, despite a very low pretest probability, and after her angiogram looks fine she has a serious complication that leads to cardiac arrest and now serious long term health problems.  A high price to pay for reassurance.  The combination of a passive patient, physicians who did not listen to her whole story, and an over-reliance on technology.

OK – so everyone in the room is hooked

She shared a report that I was not aware of – The California Healthcare Foundations analysis of variation in procedure rates across California.  Important work that extends the idea of the Dartmouth Atlas (which uses Medicare data) to younger populations.  No surprise that there is dramatic variation across the state in most everything.  The researchers have also adjusted for income, race/ethnicity, and CVD risk (using MI and DM as proxies).  There is a great interactive map that you should check out.

This is really an effort to inform three audiences – policy makers/payors, doctors and patients.  We will have to invest in all three groups to work to diminish the variation and have it be driven mostly by clinical circumstances and patient preference

September 19, 2011

New Developments in our Electronic Medical Record

Filed under: Electronic Chart, MyGroupHealth — Matt Handley @ 9:10 am

I am in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Epic User Group Meeting (UGM).  It is always a great event, mostly because it brings together innovative leaders from most of the highest performing group practices in the US.  Today is the Physician Advisory Council (and there are many concurrent council meetings, including nursing and pharmacy, with overlapping topics) and one theme has already emerged throughout the AM talks.  Involving patients more actively.  Great to see!  I am in a session now about having an online questionnaire linked to well visit checks, that makes things easier for both patients (well, their parents) and for clinicians.  Moving work to the time and place it fits best, rather than forcing everything to happen at an in-person visit.

Imagine having pre-visit questionnaires for well visits and for selected visits for chronic illness.  More participation, more convenience.  And then imagine people being able to access their medical record – and their doctor – through their smartphone – oh – we already do that through our iPhone app!

July 28, 2011

A Different Kind of Checklist Experience

Filed under: Safety — Matt Handley @ 3:25 pm

I think that personal experiences reinforce theoretical concepts much more powerfully than readings, lectures or the stories of others. No matter how many great anecdotes Atul Gwande included in his excellent book “The Checklist Manifesto” , a personal experience will always drive home the point more effectively.

My checklist experience wasn’t relating to a medical adventure – I did not experience the use of a checklist associated with a medical procedure.   My checklist experience was a part of a family adventure.

My daughters have wanted to go bungee jumping since they watched me bungee jump in New Zealand many years ago. This summer my youngest turned 18, and we decided that the best celebration would be to take the family bungee jumping (with my wife just watching, the sensible one). We went to a great site in southern Washington state and had a marvelous experience there.  A 191 foot drop over a small creek.   The crew there does everything right. The roles and responsibilities of every one on the team are clearly understood, the check list for harness and attachment to the bungee is independently checked by 2 different crew members before you’re ready to jump, and then double checked again prior to the jump. They are unabashed about calling out the specific items they’re checking, naming and touching and testing each part of the harness and attachment.

My daughters had a great time, each jumping twice, first facing forward and and then facing backwards.  Weighing considerably more than my daughters, I followed after the bungee cord was switched to one of more considerable heft.  They went through the checklist with the same rigor, and I had a great time leaping far out on the first jump.  There are two remarkable feelings when you bungee jump.  The first is the feeling of having your adrenal glands become the size of raisins – lots of adrenaline. The second is when the body starts to slow and your mind recognizes that you are not going to hit the bottom and you bounce back up, at this location probably 70-100 feet back up.  It’s a marvelous feeling.   After I had been winched back up after the first jump, they asked me to step over the railing rather than do my second jump.   The supervisor had heard something that might indicate a problem.   They ran through everything again, including checking through every bit of the bungee cords to make sure that things were sound.  I was surprised to find that this interruption was reassuring rather than worrisome.   Nothing was wrong with the bungee or the attachments, but because someone had heard something that might have indicated a problem they stopped the process and rechecked the equipment completely before proceeding.    Then back to play – I got to do the backwards jump, which was pretty incredible.

It was an interesting experience from a safety perspective.   While there were some jokes made about adventures sports and the risks we were taking, it was clear from their processes that this was really the illusion of danger, and all of the activities of the crew were organized around safety.   No one thought that the participants  needed to be insulated from the crew’s concern about safety, and they led with that (although they did accompany it with a healthy dose of entertainment).  Substitute care and concern for entertainment, and that’s a great model for us in medicine.

I can’t post about bungee jumping without adding two photos of the adventure.  The leap out, and the moment of unweighting as you are heading back up after the first “bounce”.

The Jump

The Happiness of Floating

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress