Medical Anarchy, Mindful Structure

Balance-Freedom-and-ControlA colleague said, “You seem to resist uniformity. But some structure helps. Look at pre-printed orders. Docs love them!”

Good point.

Based on previous posts about bureaucracy and control, readers might assume I support medical anarchy, every doc doing his or her own thing. Not so.

Doctors love some rules and hate others. Sanity lies somewhere between totalitarianism and anarchy.

How can we find it?

Where’s the balance in healthcare?

Let’s use pre-printed order sheets (PPOs) as an example. Consider 4 types:

Medical Forms – Type I

Physicians create PPOs for common conditions. PPOs decrease effort, increase efficiency and improve quality and safety.

Front line physicians create forms to fit clinical work. The forms reflect and enhance clinical judgment. Favourite forms are so useful that physicians spend extra time looking around for them instead of trying to recreate them from memory.

Medical Forms – Type II

Often, ‘expert’ physicians will design PPOs to ‘help’ less-decorated physicians provide care. The experts generally do not work in the areas where their fancy forms get used.

Ivory tower physicians create forms for idealized environments and ideal patients. The forms cover every possibility. They are long, cumbersome and a waste of paper (or computer code). Docs sigh in relief when no one can find the PPO they were ‘supposed’ to use.

Medical Forms – Type III

Sometimes, allied health providers create PPOs and expect physicians to use them. They reflect thinking from non-medical care and demand actions physicians never take otherwise.

Docs go out of their way to avoid, undermine or directly sabotage these forms. They do not benefit patients when physicians use them.

Medical Forms – Type IV

Bureaucrats exist to bureaucratize and create forms. In fact, hospitals hire armies of administrators to respond to bureaucratic forms. As expected, bureaucrats create forms for physicians, too.

Bureaucrats’ forms contain a whiff of clinical overture but only enough to disguise their non-clinical purpose. These forms serve to ration care, audit or otherwise regulate medical work as measured against a theoretical ideal.

The worst bureaucratic forms block care unless the form is completed correctly (with copies). These forms waste time, frustrate providers and do not reflect the work done on the front lines. They limit care for other patients by the time required to complete them.

Intent

Dozens of other forms exist. Doctors like ones that make patient care safer and easier. Doctors hate forms that serve bureaucratic ends.

The difference is intent.

Healthcare innovation should always improve patient experience, efficiency, safety and quality. We should challenge change intended only to restrict freedom, save money or ‘limit variability’.

Bureaucracy, for its own sake, does not help patients.

Mindful Structure

Patients benefit when front-line providers – real-world experts – create processes and tools to improve care.

Doctors do not want anarchy. They want a healthcare system that facilitates the care they provide for patients.

Physicians need help. But helping physicians does not mean taking over. It does not mean telling doctors how to do their jobs. Too many confuse accountability with supervision.

Healthcare sanity lies in a system that supports providers in implementing solutions designed by providers for patients.

What do you think? Should central planners design ideal care and instruct doctors to deliver it? Are doctors oppositional defiant rogues?

Photo credit: productinnovationnow.com

Healthcare Ideology – Premier Stirs Debate

Premier Brad Wall SaskatchewanTommy Douglas, father of Medicare, would have spit out his coffee.  The Saskatchewan Premier said,

“When it comes to a choice between prompt diagnostics, prompt surgery … and ideology, the people of this province will choose the diagnostics and the surgery.”

What irony coming from the province that started rationed medical services.

Here’s part of what Brad Wall said on  NewsTalk650, radio call-in:

UPDATE: Premier considers private MRI clinics to decrease wait times

Reported by News Talk Radio staff

Premier Brad Wall is floating the idea of allowing access to private MRI clinics in Saskatchewan to reduce wait times for diagnostic procedures.

On John Gormley Live Thursday, Wall said it’s something that deserves “serious consideration.”

“I will not rule it out. When it comes to a choice between prompt diagnostics, prompt surgery … and ideology, the people of this province will choose the diagnostics and the surgery,” Wall said.

Wall was responding to a question from a caller on the show who said the three-month wait list for an MRI scan through the public system, could have been avoided had he been allowed to pay for the procedure at a private clinic in Regina.

“We allow more private operators on the surgery side. That’s why we’ve seen wait times come down for surgeries … can it work on the diagnostic side? These are the questions we’re asking now and I think this is something that deserves consideration,” Wall said.

The government currently utilizes the private sector for some surgeries, but Wall said the province has built in a barrier that prevents private providers from robbing front line staff from the public system.

“If we can do that with diagnostics, with MRIs does it make sense that the wait list is going to shrink because those who want to pay will come off that public wait list. And thereby shortening the wait list for all, whether they wish to pay or not.”

The NDP responded with, “We want the government to build the capacity in a public system so that all people, regardless of how much money you make, gets the care necessary in a timely fashion.”  The NDP did not comment on people travelling out of country to purchase care right now. How equitable is that? (See more media coverage from CBC.)

Healthcare Ideology

Napoleon first criticized his opponents as ideologues: those who hold rigid, inflexible opinions resisting change.  (Merriam-Webster for more definitions)

You might be a healthcare ideologue if:

  • You defend the status quo as long as “all people” get the same service regardless of quality
  • You berate patients for accessing care (“Those patients should have treated their minor illness at home!”)
  • You support sending patients away from emergency and clinics if a nurse deems the symptoms trivial
  • You criticize patients as system abusers when worry drives them to seek reassurance
  • You believe it’s okay to mislead voters with sound bites so long as it increases support for ideology
  • You disparage physicians who question the status quo
  • You march, chant and fight to protect a system that makes you fat while letting patients languish on wait lists

Without ideology, our system might change and look like the – Gasp! – German, Swedish, British, or any other patient focused system.

Positive Ideology?

Is there nothing worth fighting for?

Of course: patients; access to care that meets their concerns; safe, timely care that provides an outstanding patient experience.  But this is vague; tough to make into ideology.  It requires patient input and opinion, innovation and creativity. It demands change to improve things for patients, not just more money to patch an over-capacity lifeboat.

Ideology grows much easier from rigid legislation and crisp social planning.

Safety in High Risk Environments

A parachute that fails only a few people is worthless.  Medicare cannot just be great most of the time. It must excel at meeting patient’s greatest needs 100%.  It needs a back up, maybe many levels of back-up.  Medicare needs safety systems that guarantee patients never wait beyond what’s safe, never need to endure an intolerable care experience.

Are you a healthcare ideologue? Are you focused on patients or legislation?

photocredit: newstalk650.com

Quality Care Requires Freedom

potted plantIn 1976, researchers manipulated a cohort of nursing home patients.  They split them into two groups.

The first group got choice, control and responsibility. They learned to take responsibility and make choices. Then, researchers gave them a plant to care for and nurture as they thought best.

The second group learned that staff would take care of everything; they were in good hands. They also got a plant, but staff cared for it.

Researchers found that the responsibility-induced group were more active, happy, alert and socially involved at the end of the study.

Even nursing home patients do better with autonomy, responsibility and choice.

Quality Care

Noise about quality care echoes into every nook of healthcare today. Most agree it includes: safe, effective, reliable, patient-centred, timely, efficient, equitable care:

Yes to Quality, but how?

No one campaigns for low-quality care. Everyone loves quality despite worries that some see it only as a way to cut costs.

Planners and progressives believe quality comes when strong leadership controls a system. Most ‘experts’ focus on data, decreasing variation and increasing adherence to guidelines. They allude to engaging physicians but generally assume physicians are just a tiny part of the flawed system (Brookings centre2012 Ontario’s action planHow to improve – IHI).

A great system should guarantee that physicians behave and patients do what they were told.

Quality & Productivity

Improving quality in healthcare requires people to behave differently. Policy can help.  But people determine quality. Quality needs more than rules and protocol.

In a way, quality care presents the same challenge as productivity in industry. Workers ultimately determine productivity. Figure out how to inspire workers and you’ve figured out how to drive productivity.   Great systems alone do not guarantee great businesses.

Productivity & Autonomy

Freedom for workers means productivity for companies (Forbes).

Workers in routine jobs do not increase productivity with more autonomy, but satisfaction increases.  However, in evolving work environments, autonomy is “more important than ever” at improving productivity (BusinessNewsDaily).

Quality Care Requires Freedom

The business world knows that passionate, free, innovative workers produce higher quality work with less effort. See “Increase productivity through passion and freedom“.

Highly trained professionals fill Canadian healthcare at all levels.  Patients need the best from their caregivers.  Systems should provide structure that promotes freedom, creativity, innovation and critical thinking. Command and control will not deliver the highest quality care. It might achieve cost cutting through limited variation. It will never inspire providers to drive quality beyond basic standards.

Inspired individuals driven to achieve outstanding results deliver quality care. Regulation and control cannot produce quality in an evolving environment. We need providers who are passionate, autonomous and willing to shoulder responsibility.

What do you think?

Should government spend most of its time stamping out low-quality performers, reducing variation and increasing monitoring? Or should it spend most of its time unleashing the creative intelligence of professional providers to improve the system for patients? Can it do both at the same time?

photo credit: ikea.com