Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Guest Blog: Minimally Disruptive Health Care: Treatment that Fits

Marcus Escobedo
Thursday, April 26th, 2012


Marcus Escobedo
is a Program Officer for the John A. Hartford Foundation. He manages grants within the foundation’s Medicine portfolio, focusing on improving the education and training of physicians to provide better care to older adults. More of  Marcus Escobedo’s posts can be found/followed on the Hartford health AGEnda blog. You can follow the John A. Hartford Foundation’s Twitter feed @JHARTFOUND and find them on Facebook here.

My mom has always worked hard. As a girl, she picked cotton every scorching summer on the South Texas farm where my “wela” (i.e. grandma) kept house. In adulthood, she straddled both sides of the supposed (and silly) “mommy wars.” She worked as full-time mom to my three sisters and me before taking care of other people’s children as an aide in our small town’s elementary school (working with the most difficult, troubled kids at that). Now on Medicare and about to retire after 30 years, she will have to continue working hard, as will my retired father. I’m not talking about the time they’ll spend maintaining their home or raising grandchildren. I’m talking about the difficult work that they, like millions of others, grudgingly started as they began approaching 65 – the work of managing their multiple chronic conditions. Luckily, they can still handle the load and take very good care of themselves. But what happens if it all becomes too much?

Think about it. If you are one of the 3 out of 4 older adults like my mom with more than two chronic conditions (she has COPD, arthritis, and heart disease), you probably take at least seven different medications and your pharmacist knows your face very, very well. You have to sort through different dosing instructions. You set countless appointments with your family doctor and your specialists, then have to drive somewhere else to get your blood drawn. (Last week, my father had to take his blood sample himself to FedEx for shipment to a processing center.) You try to get to the park to walk, and you plan your grocery shopping carefully to get the right low-sodium, low-fat foods. Not to mention the time and energy (and out-of-pocket money) you spend on understanding and paying medical bills.

Yet my parents, relatively speaking, have it easy. What if they had more severe conditions like dementia, or kidney disease requiring weekly dialysis? What if they were poor or disabled, living in a polluted neighborhood with no grocery stores with fresh food, and only spoke Spanish? (Luckily, my parents are bilingual.) In those cases, I’m not sure how my parents would manage to do what’s needed to maintain their health.

Although all too common, the hard work of maintaining health and the social factors that impede it often go overlooked and unaddressed in our health system. Clinicians diagnose and prescribe tests, medications, and procedures, rightly expecting patients to take responsibility for their health. When some do not follow the doctor’s advice, they are labeled “non-compliant” or “non-adherent,” like scarlet letters pinned to the chest. We should consider that not following doctor’s orders – not sticking to that low-fat diet, not taking all ten super-expensive prescribed medications, not following up with physical therapy – might actually be a rational decision, given other competing priorities and goals, and the person’s capacity to handle their care. It may be that we overburden patients with treatments that just don’t fit.

I heard an excellent framing of the problems with self-care as issues of workload, patient capacity, treatment burden and fit at a symposium given by a very engaging Dr. Victor Montori of the Mayo Clinic. At the March summit of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, he articulated the health care context that has led us to excessive treatment burden and adherence problems: increasingly expanded definitions of what is considered “disease” and “needs treatment,” and evidence-based but single-disease-focused guidelines that do not take multiple conditions or our uncoordinated health care system into account. He outlined the different kinds and amount of work doctors expect chronic patients to undertake. If patients followed American Diabetes Association guidelines, many would need to spend almost four hours a day on self-care. There goes retirement.

As a solution, Dr. Montori offered the concept of minimally disruptive health care: health care delivery designed to reduce the burden of treatment on patients while pursuing patient goals. It takes into account the personal, medical, financial, social and contextual factors affecting a patient’s workload and capacity for self-care. It calls for moving away from provider-imposed goals like “you should lower your LDL cholesterol, hemoglobin A1C levels, blood pressure, or weight,” to “what are your goals?” which may be to feel better, live longer, or live independently.

Within this context, Dr. Montori also offered several tools for shared decision-making to find the treatment that best fits patient goals. The Mayo Clinic has carefully designed and is testing patient and provider-friendly decision-aid cards that weigh the pros and cons of different treatments for conditions like diabetes. They show patients what a regimen will mean in their real life, like whether they will gain or lose weight and how much they will have to pay. Patients can then choose what makes the best sense for them.

The concept of minimally disruptive health care and shared decision-making make great sense in the care of older adults. The concept fits perfectly with many of our grantees’ efforts to move to patient-centered goals and quality measures, as well as HHS attention to the issue. Also, with recent pushes from the field to limit the overuse of tests and procedures (not to be confused with the many low-cost geriatric assessments that are currently underused), the ideas of minimally disruptive health care and shared-decision making may be ripe for wider uptake. This would be very helpful for older adults managing multiple chronic conditions, like my very hard-working mom, who deserves treatment that fits her needs.

Related Links:

What if Your Hotel Bill Was Like a Hospital Bill?

Conversation Continues
Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Health care costs are notoriously opaque, often leaving patients saddled with unexpectedly high bills and making it challenging for them to understand their expenses. To make matters more complicated, doctors, nurses and other caregivers are seldom in a position to understand how their decisions impact what patients pay for care.

The Costs of Care Teaching Value Project aims to change this by empowering caregivers with the information they need to deflate medical bills.

Originally posted on the CostsofCare blog in the post Script Writer Shares Story of Viral Hospital/Hotel Bill Video. 

 

Guest Blog: Super Bowl Sanitation: “Washed Up” Giants Outpoint Docs

Michael Millenson
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

Michael L. Millenson, president of Health Quality Advisors LLC, is a nationally recognized expert on improving the quality of the American health care. He is the author of the book “Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age,” and he holds an adjunct appointment as the Mervin Shalowitz, M.D. Visiting Scholar at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

Is the New York Giants bathroom more sanitary than your hospital room? Could be. And that player cleanliness may even have helped send the team to the Super Bowl.

Freakonomics co-author and self-confessed germophobe Stephen Dubner, working on a Football Freakonomics segment for the National Football League, noticed that every urinal in the football Giants’ bathroom had a plastic pump bottle of hand sanitizer perched on top – a phenomenon he promptly documented photographically.

Health care-associated infections cause more than 98,000 patient deaths every year. Yet as I’ve noted previously, the guy who just used the toilet at the train station is way more likely to have clean hands than the guy walking up to your bed – or into the operating room – at the local hospital. That’s based on my comparing hospital sanitation with the results of a surreptitious survey by researchers from Harris Interactive of more than 6,000 adults using restrooms at six high-volume sites across the country.

At New York City’s Grand Central Station and Penn Station, only 80 percent of men and women washed up. However, even Atlanta’s Turner Field, where just 65 percent of men washed their hands, looked positively sterile compared to hospitals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that baseline compliance for hand hygiene was just 26 percent in intensive care units and 36 percent in non-ICUs.

This past November, suburban New York’s North Shore University Hospital reported it had raised the hand hygiene rate in its medical ICU from a truly dismal 6.5 percent to more than 80 percent by using a video monitoring system originally developed to ensure hygienic practices at meatpacking plants. Adam Aaronson, founder of Arrowsight, the company that made the system, expanded into health care after his mother and sister were both victims of serious infections while hospitalized.

Noted a New York Times blog: “What makes the system function is not the videotaping alone – it’s the feedback.  The nurse manager gets an e-mail message three hours into the shift with detailed information about hand hygiene rates, and again at the end.” There are also electronic signs that “are a constant presence in both the surgical and medical ICUs,” providing feedback to doctors and nurses what the handwashing rate was for that shift and setting up a “positive competition” between teams.

On a similar psychological theme, behavioral psychologists at the University of Pennsylvania posted different signs next to a hospital’s soap and hand-sanitizing gel dispensers to see what wording would have the greatest impact. As journalist Wray Herbert relates, one sign read: “Hand hygiene prevents you from catching diseases.” Another read: “Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases.” The third, a control sign, read: “Gel in, wash out.” After two weeks, doctors and nurses used significantly more soap and gel when the signs emphasized patient consequences, but not when the signs emphasized personal risk and benefit. Writes Herbert: “This would suggest that although doctors and nurses may believe that they themselves are invulnerable, they don’t make the same assumption about their patients.”

Kind of like the thinking behind those “Loose lips sink ships” admonitions to soldiers and civilians during World War II.

For Dubner, it’s clear that a strategy of simply “educating” doctors about better sanitation has failed, as he laid out in a Freakonomics podcast called, “What Do Hand-Washing and Financial Illiteracy Have in Common?”

And while there appear to be no video cameras trained on the Giants’ urinals – or at least none noticed by Dubner – the players did have a professional motivation to make liberal use of the germ-fighting gel. That’s because “washed up” players may have been a factor in helping catapult the Giants to the Super Bowl in the first place.

When hand sanitizers were placed in dorms at the University of Colorado, a study on infection control found that overall illness rate dropped by 20 percent and missed school days by 43 percent. Presumably, trying to keep healthy bodies on the field was why Giants management gave the hand sanitizers such a prominent position.

Note: this post first appeared on Forbes.com on January 30, 2012.

Related links:

Guest Blog: Doing Things Right: Why Three Hospitals Didn’t Harm My Wife

Michael Millenson
Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Michael L. Millenson, president of Health Quality Advisors LLC, is a nationally recognized expert on improving the quality of the American health care. He is the author of the book “Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age,” and he holds an adjunct appointment as the Mervin Shalowitz, M.D. Visiting Scholar at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

Mike Millenson and WifeMy wife was lying in the back of an ambulance, dazed and bloody, while I sat in the front, distraught and distracted. We had been bicycling in a quiet neighborhood in southern Maine when she hit the handbrakes too hard and catapulted over the handlebars, turning our first day of vacation into a race to the nearest hospital.

The anxiety when a loved one is injured is compounded when you know just how risky making things better can get. As a long-time advocate for patient safety, my interest in the topic has always been passionate, but never personal. Now, as Susan was being rushed into the emergency room, I wanted to keep it that way. “Wife of patient safety expert is victim” was a headline I deeply hoped to avoid.

In the weeks after the accident, we spent time at a 50-bed hospital in Maine; a Boston teaching hospital where Susan was transferred with a small vertebra fracture at the base of her neck and broken bones in her left elbow and hand; and a large community hospital near our suburban Chicago home. There were plenty of opportunities for bad things to happen — but nothing did. As far as I could tell, we didn’t even experience any near misses.

What went right? After all, though our health care system knows how to prevent errors that kill 44,000 to 98,000 people in hospitals each year, that death toll has remained stubbornly constant. Based on personal and professional observations, I’d simplify the formula that kept Susan safe into three variables: consciousness, culture and cash.

Consciousness of patient safety sounds easy, but it isn’t. The harm caused patients is inadvertent and often occurs as part of complex interventions. As a result, a 2009 JAMA commentary pointedly noted, “clinicians have labeled virtually all harm as inevitable for decades.”

But today, the cloak of invisibility is being lifted. Twenty-six states require hospitals to report certain medical errors; Medicare and some private insurers won’t pay for problems caused by a growing list of quality and safety lapses, and the government has launched the $1 billion Partnership for Patients to dramatically reduce avoidable harm.

Just as importantly, patients are worried. In a poll by Consumers Union, 77 percent of respondents expressed high or moderate concern that they might be harmed by a hospital infection and 71 percent had the same concern about medication errors. Inevitably, more patients and their families are speaking up — as I most certainly did, albeit as politely as possible.

When the ER nurse at Maine’s York Hospital gave Susan morphine, I asked about the dosage and timing. When she was transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, I asked each medical professional to identify themselves and what they were doing. Although it’s impossible to know if my questions had any positive impact, at a minimum they reinforced an existing safety consciousness.

Although consciousness of a problem can spur change, sustaining it requires a supportive culture. Can there be any more graphic expression of a safety culture commitment than Baylor Health Care System’s mission to eliminate preventable deaths, preventable injuries and preventable risk?  Or Ascension Health’s “healing without harm” initiative and its goal of reducing preventable deaths by 900 each year? (They’ve reached a minimum of 1,500 so far.) Both organizations have published results in the peer-reviewed literature.

Glenbrook Hospital in suburban Chicago – it’s part of the NorthShore University HealthSystem – isn’t quite as ambitious in its objectives. Still, its culture was obvious even before I peeked at the monthly infection report left sitting on a reception desk. When the orthopedic surgeon was explaining the procedure he would be doing, he talked about safety. The consulting neurosurgeon (due to Susan’s neck injury) talked about safety. The anesthesiologist talked about safety. Right before surgery, nurses fitted Susan with surgical stockings to prevent deep vein thrombosis – an evidence-based guideline followed by fewer than half of hospitals. When I challenged the surgical team on appropriate prophylactic antibiotic use, a nurse indignantly cited a study showing I was mistaken.

I backed off, happy they’d thought about the issue seriously. But I did feel emboldened to ask whether the team in the operating room took time-outs before surgery (the evidence shows it helps make sure everyone’s on the same page before you start cutting) and whether the team introduced themselves before proceeding (believe it or not, even the doctors may not be entirely certain who is behind those masks). Yes and yes, the answers came back.

Culture change at hospitals is easier these days with role models like Ascension and Baylor, and with safety checklists like the one developed by Johns Hopkins’ critical care specialist Peter Pronovost. But if consciousness is one barrier to culture change, another one of at least equal importance is cash.

There’s a link between financial stress and patient distress. A recent study in Health Affairs found the 178 “worst” hospitals in the United States care for more than twice the proportion of elderly minority and poor patients as the nation’s 122 “best” hospitals, where costs are lowest and quality highest. As one headline put it, “Bad Hospitals, Poor Patients.”

Money talks in other ways. I’ve written about how some hospitals implicitly see adverse events as a way to keep beds filled (although, of course, actual patient deaths thwart that goal). The hospitals where my wife was treated were all prosperous. Even without worrying about a reluctance to confront complications, would a cash-strapped York have transferred Susan to a tertiary care facility, or would they have assured a well-insured patient they could take care of her broken neck? Would a bottom line-driven Mass General or Glenbrook have angled for a longer hospital stay?

It’s tough enough to change culture. It’s even tougher if it you think you’ll lose money doing so. That’s why Medicare is increasingly linking payment to explicit quality and safety indicators.

We ask a great deal of physicians, nurses and other professionals. Those whom we encountered juggled multiple roles – healers attending to the ill and scared, prudent managers of health-care resources and team players in system improvement. For the skill and grace with which they performed all those roles we were deeply grateful. Thanks to them, Susan has now recovered to the point that to the casual observer there’s no obvious evidence of her multiple injuries.

Our experience showed that “doing the right thing” – appropriate care – and “doing the right thing right” – safe and effective care – can become the norm at rural, suburban and big urban teaching hospitals alike. On a personal level for the two of us, and on a system level for all of us, that’s very good news.