Why Doctors Should Write

Books in Office 2015Most people dream of writing a book: 82% of Americans according to one highly quoted, but unavailable, study.

At least 6 docs in the last few weeks have asked me about starting a blog.

A quick check of the MD blogroll in Ontario includes: Drs. Barron, Beck, Elia, EllisFreedhoff, Fullerton, LarsenLougheed, Profetto, SingalTepper and Dhalla, Waghmare, Wooder (tell me if I missed you!). Additions: Dr. Menon.

This doesn’t include all the docs who post regularly on the Canadian Healthcare Network (gated).

But it’s not enough. Doctors need to write more.

Why Doctors Should Write

Doctors should shape the public’s understanding of medical care, not non-physician experts. If doctors do not write, others will.

Non-physician experts have interesting ideas about how MDs should work. Physician silence leaves these ideas unchallenged, untested by those the ideas impact.

Doctors should write books, articles, op eds, short stories, letters to the editor, memoirs, history, and more. Academic writing helps, but not enough. Academia freezes around a paradigm and forces writers into an igloo of peer review, editorial independence, and journalistic themes.

Victors write history. Doctors used to rule supreme in medicine. That changed and, in a number of ways, patients are better for it.

But pendulums can have very long arcs. The pendulum continues to accelerate away from physicians defining medical care. It might not change direction for a generation. Maybe it’s a trajectory, not a pendulum?

Planners view doctors as just one actor in a cast of providers. Medicine does not stand alone. Primary care includes everyone from pharmacists and nurses, to social workers and dieticians. Doctors need to stand in line to speak about patient care.

Still Unique?

And yet, patients still want to see their doctor. Someone needs to serve as most responsible ‘provider’. Everyone wants to give orders, but no one wants to take the blame.

Confidentiality shrouds medical care. Even when a team works on a patient, it happens behind the curtain; those outside see only blurry images around a stretcher. Policy experts attempt to put flesh on the shadows, but they never get behind the curtain.

Doctors should write in an attempt to reveal the heart of medicine. Writing shows how medicine looks compared with experts’ visions of a perfect system.

How to Write?

It has never been so easy to create content. Even if you hate typing, voice recognition transforms an hour of rambling into a short chapter. You can dictate, copy, cut, paste, and rewrite a short chapter in less time than it used to take to hand-write a 2 page letter.

Unfortunately, content creation is not writing.

“Re-writing is where the game is won or lost; the essence of writing is rewriting.”

– William Zinsser On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: An Informal Guide to Writing Nonfiction 

All writers need to read this short book, at least twice.

Writing is hard. It forces us to think harder than we want to. It feels like a tough clinical problem, which shouldn’t surprise us: writing and thinking fill medical practice.

Where to Start?

Start with what you know. Pain, frustration, and loss make powerful prose. Steal themes from great novels and make your writing fit the pattern. Write every day. Treat it like a serious job. Do not quit when times are good.

Patients notice doctors in the news, when negotiations fall apart, but rarely otherwise. This must change.  We need strong communication from doctors, even more in between contract talks.

While 82% of people want to write a book, only 15% do it. Doctors should write to help people understand what clinical care means, to offer insight on how solutions fit with the heart of medicine, and to shape the future of care around patients’ needs, not political designs.

Necessary Ignorance

3 stoogesOne of the smartest men I knew had a grade 3 education.

He followed politics and current events. He toyed with bookish pastors who dropped by to convert him. He could build a house, fix a car, grow and store anything edible, and much more.

He embodied Heinlein’s vision:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects.

Never Enough Measurement

We discussed measurement in Medicine is Relationship, Not Quality Metrics.  It sparked a thoughtful guest post: It’s Not a Choice, Good Quality Requires Relationships and Measurement.

Measurement hogs the microphone in healthcare. Anyone who questions measurement gets labeled a Luddite. They must favour ignorance, or anarchy.

Before we dismiss the Luddites, listen to their question:

Can we trust our capacity to measure everything we need to make great decisions?

Each day, 320,000 patient visits produce millions of data points in Ontario. In one day.

Measurement starts to look like a teacup scooped from an ocean of information.

Those who question the role of measurement want more information, not less. They do not disagree with measurement per se.

Necessary Ignorance

The economist Hayek said that everyone has a necessary and irremediable ignorance.

Rational decision-making demands knowledge of available and relevant facts.

But it is impossible to know all the ‘millions of facts, which in their entirety are not known to anybody,’ Hayek said.

Hayek believed we make better decisions using widely dispersed fragments of knowledge, not better quality knowledge for a few smart controllers.

( Ref. T. Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles).

Brilliant Elites vs Ignorant Plebes

“How much measurement do we need?”

Heretics question the primacy of measurements in decision-making. Spreadsheets and scatter-plots leave too much unmeasured.

No one is smart enough to control a whole industry using primarily measurement and audit. We need the billions of data points from all patient care decisions.

Millions of decisions made every day offer a better source of information. Front line doctors and patients possess and create information with every choice they make.

A small group of elites will never know this ocean of information, no matter how big their brains are.

We all want a great healthcare system. True greatness comes when system leaders embrace their necessary ignorance.

Certainly, keep measuring. But we should put more trust in the unmeasurable information guiding patient care at the front lines.

Doctors and patients are uneducated in policy and politics. But they are not stupid. Perhaps we should listen to them. Let them make more decisions using information that system planners will never know.

photo credit: en.wikipedia.org

Two Kinds of Doctor & Two Kinds of Politician

Two Kinds of DoctorWe find two kinds of doctor: fixers and servants. Both consider themselves healers.

One makes problems go away. The other makes the best of chronic disease. Maintenance and chronic issues frustrate the fixers. Quick fixes, while necessary, feel like Band-Aid treatments to the servants.

Fixers believe in final solutions. On the one hand, they make a living fixing acute issues.  On the other, they wish the issues did not exist in the first place.

Servants know that, no matter how much care they provide, chronic disease is unending. Even the best diet and exercise program will not stop decay. Servants resist decline; they fight to improve function. But servants accept that their patients will wear out and die. Servants seek to make the journey as good as possible.

Public Service

Fixers and servants work in government, too. Fixers believe that the right program will make everything better. They look for silver bullets. They crave utopian designs.

Servants have more modest goals. They realize their efforts can make things good, at best, but never perfect. Their ends are limited and indistinct, whereas the fixers’ ends are grand and crisp.

Healthcare is more like a chronic disease than an acute illness. We should not expect a cure for healthcare in the way some people expect a cure for cancer.

Jeffrey Simpson lamented that healthcare is a chronic condition, in his book by the same name. It shouldn’t be so hard. Why can’t delivering healthcare be more like delivering the mail: crisp, measurable, and suited to bureaucratic solutions?

Assumptions

Solutions start with assumptions. Healthcare frustrates with variety and individualism. While we’ve discussed it many times before, it bears repeating with an example:

We can generalize about the health impact of poverty. But there’s an enormous difference between the poverty of a homeless person in Toronto and a single mom in Northern Ontario. They both might face similar health concerns, but solutions must look very different.

This frustrates planners. We should be able to treat hypertension with strict guidelines regardless of income or location.

But doctors know different. Local, individual problems make a huge difference.

Healthcare requires local, individualized solutions for a chronic condition. The search for grand solutions to fix most healthcare problems will continue to irritate reformers. Their frustration makes them look for someone to blame: often ‘uncooperative’ patients and doctors.

Cause or Effect

Are doctors more like public health workers, looking for the one pump that spews bacteria into the community? Or are we more like old fashioned GPs, who treat acute injuries and palliate chronic disease?

Of course, we need fixers and servants. Doctors must be good at both. But new fixes aren’t as common as before (see The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine). We spend more time caring for chronic disease, less time fixing it.

We need a system designed to care, and support local service, instead of creating grand solutions. We need the public service to serve patients, not fix them.