EMedConcepts

Trust and the Serendipity Engine: Twitter

In this wonderful, 10 minute video done at the NYC Web 2.0 Conference in mid-November 2009, Chris Brogan opines on the value of Twitter, especially search on Twitter. He tells of his experience with discovering the Roger Smith Hotel, just down the way from the Four Seasons which is losing business to the Roger Smith. Why? Because colleagues responded to his twittered question about where to stay and then so did a live communicating voice (through Twitter) from the Roger Smith.

However, don't be distracted by the forgoing narrative as it's the deeper message that Brogan speaks to a commercial world using the web for commercial business that resonated for me. I've written about Brogan before, elsewhere, and urge you to read that post and Brogan's Trust Manifesto, for it is the loss of trust that so many clinicians experience--perhaps not so much with their patients--in working with all of the components of the health care system that support clinicians in the care of their patients. Brogan in this video, once again speaks to building trust, using the contemporary tool of relationship development: Twitter.

Brogan recommends using your @replies much more than most users do to this point. 80% of his tweets are replies--he suggests that users reply to others 12 times for every one original tweet and addresses many other aspects of using Twitter.

He goes on to raise a series of questions:

How do we share?
How do we extend experiences and relationships?
How do we collaborate?
How do we make new distribution?
How do we develop relationships that yield?

"The difference between an audience and a community is which way we turn the chairs."

Brogan closes with this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Do not go wherever the road may lead, but go where there is no road and leave a trail."

I'm proud to have done that in my work in Emergency Medicine; I'm just warming up for the next act.

Giving thanks for the sacrifice of those we've lost and powerful writer of "The Lost"

Moving and powerful remembrance from a leader and survivor of the Afghanistan war. Soon to learn of plans for expansion of this war, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" J. Kerry, 1971.

Engage with Grace at your Family Thanksgiving

Engage with  Grace and help your loved ones understand and act on your purpose at the end of your life even as today all celebrate and give thanks together.

HealthCamp Philadelphia--Less than a month to go

HealthCamp Philadelphia

The BarCamp movement of self-produced intense conferences reminds me of the charrettes I'd hear about from my close friend and college roommate when he was in architecture school. HealthCamp has grown out of BarCamp and on Saturday, March 28, 2009 HealthCamp Philadelphia begins at 8:00 AM in the Hamilton Building on the Thomas Jefferson University at 11th and Locust Streets. The slide show summarizes the day and its goals.

Comparative Effectiveness Research--The View from Wachter's World

Bob Wachter discusses the challenges of implementing the comparative effectiveness research results we have in hand. From the perspective of leading physicians and frequent contacts with a diverse range of specialists and sub-specialists in my tertiary care providing community, teaching hospital I find myself nodding in agreement with Wachter's observations.

Everyone but the citizen's ox gets gored by comparative effectiveness research implementations. I use the term citizen advisedly, taking my cue from Obama; for some number of patients may well feel that they lose out as individuals, even as the polity benefits.

Tough implementation ahead with lots of squabbling before we're done accomplishing a fraction of the result the policymakers are seeking.

Customer-Consumer Confusion and now Patients, too

EP Monthly's "WhiteCoat's Call Room" posts two links and discusses "Patients or Customers"?

Patient, customer and consumer have specific meanings, not accurately used in the posts from Aggravated DocSurg and Detroit Receiving's EM Blog.While I'm in general agreement with many (not all) of the sentiments expressed in the two posts, it's important to get the correct meaning of the terms.

Customer= he who pays
Consumer= he who uses

The definitions are from Princeton Wordnet, but they're the same as what I was taught at Wharton 20+ years ago.

Part of our challenge in forming relationships in the ostensible business (good or service exchanged for value) is that for many users of physician services (i.e., patients) both the patient and physician experience customer-consumer confusion with consequent misalignment of incentives.

Patients will be increasingly demanding of receiving value in their care for value given directly (fee-for-service) or through employer and tax-based services. They will find the employers holding them accountable for "smart shopping" or the government steering in other ways--or both.

My father was a proud physician, he cared only for patients. Were I to view the world as he did, I would be struggling to feed my family. In this year of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, let's remember that it is not only individuals, but also entire species and perhaps professions for whom survival is not guaranteed; one must adapt or die.

Emergency Physicians "When in doubt, they image."

Or so says Internist Robert Centor at DB’s Medical Rants. He then goes on to offer the predictable rationale of malpractice risk as the driver for this behavior. KevinMD weighs in and cites GruntDoc who advances the economic calculation which suggests there's little benefit to attention to this phenomenon. A lengthy and continuing exchange of comments can be found on DB's and GruntDoc's sites.

At least some emergency physicians order the imaging we do because other physicians want us to do so. The ED has become the defacto "unfocused factory" where the emergency physician is expected to work up the patient to the point that the patient can be admitted to or referred to the specific focused factory for definitive care.

Today our hospitals and physician practices manifest a myriad of focused factories, the chest pain-ACS focused factory, the joint-replacement focused factory, the respiratory distress-COPD-CAP focused factory and I could go on at length. This is exactly what the specalist medical environment wants--indeed insists that the hospital deliver and we emergency physicians respond.

Furthermore, hospitals have come to realize that with approximately half of revenue generated by patients admitted through the ED it makes sense to concentrate resources on the workup of these patients. Thus hospital diagnostic, treatment and support services focus on ED patients--not the least because those patients arrive to the hospital 168 hours every week. Hospitals, including my own, have installed the most sophisticated 64-detector, dual-source CT-scanner in the ED so that we will use them to better define which of our patients require which specialized services.

When physicians stop pointing fingers and start accepting the reality of industrialization of our once professional, cottage practice we may be able to generate intelligent patient-centered alternatives to the financial policy driven managerial practices we presently experience.

Trust: In Healthcare and New Media

A Twitter friend turned me on to Julien Smith and Chris Brogan's Manifesto on Trust Economies. Which got me to thinking of an early morning exchange I had with a panelist at the Health 2.0 Conference in October 2008 in San Francisco.

The panel was a second presentation of the Edelman Report on Infoentials in Healthcare which was held early the second morning of the conference after the previous day's scheduled presentation was mobbed. I found the Edelman Report quite a cause for optimism, mostly because of the observation, that on-line information coupled to expertise scored significantly higher in confidence among infoentials than did on-line information alone. "The most credible source for health information is 'my doctor or healthcare professional' (96 percent)."

This observation on value added by the trusted physician provoked me to comment to the panelist that trust is multilayered and  begins when the parties involved: practitioner (or per Edelman a website or service) and patient/consumer find one another "trustworthy". Trust evolves as the parties experience one another and grows as this experience of trusting serves those involved.

Smith and Brogan's "Manifesto" makes the point explicitly and in rather utilitarian fashion. I've also been reading Robert Solomon & Fernando Flores, building trust in business, politics, relationships, and life since Kent Bottles of the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement told me about.

I'm further prompted in these comments by Michael Millenson's comments on the Health Affairs Blog about Jay Katz. I loved Millenson's piece because with an experienced essayist's precision, Millenson lays out Katz's skepticism for the practice of medical research and medicine as he knew it in his era with its wholesale abrogation of physician trust for the patient.

Given that Katz in The Silent World of Doctor and Patient was writing during and about an era for which I still hold remnants of a romantic fantasy and confidence in the righteousness of those physicians I idolized either personally or by reputation, Millenson's essay both calls me to finally shed that fantasy and imbued me with the energy to complete this post.

In the practice of medicine, historically trust began with patient and physician finding one another "trustworthy." The sheepskin on the wall, the neighbor's recommendation and the practitioner's physical appearance ("like me" in physiognomy; "better than me" in habitus and often wealth) gave the patient reason to find the physician "trustworthy."

During the twentieh and now twenty-first century, the physician has been explicitly trained to suspend disbelief--presume the patient trustworthy. Certainly we practitioners have also learned to look beyond the bare bones narrative for what the tale may obscure or imply as much as what the patient's recounting discloses; still, the clear theme has been and continues, "The patient tells you the diagnosis if you'll but listen."

Out of this suspension of disbelief and presumption of trust, the physician and patient sought a caring and comforting relationship which in historical terms was about "Curing sometimes, relieving often and comforting always." Or as Francis Weld Peabody put it (J Clin Invest. 1927 December; 5(1): 1.b1–6.) "One of the essential qualities of the physician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient."

Writing here as a physician trained in the 1970's and the son of a physician who was trained in the 1940's I'd like to fantasize that I still maintain a strong connection to that ethos and the trust that may be developed through "caring for the patient."

Though I lead and teach physicians as my life's work and I engage this issue every day with a hopeful mien; at my core I despair: Few physicians of my acquaintance approach each patient interaction with a suspension of disbelief and a presumption of a trustworthy patient. No, fortunately such suspicion is not universal, but it is widespread, particularly in my own field of emergency medicine. If my reading of general medical journals and many websites and blogs is to be believed, others see it as well. Perhaps you think I'm suffering from the "availability heuristic"?

There are many possible contributors to this state of affairs, perhaps the medical negligence environment contributes, regulatory structures around advising victims of domestic violence, the well-founded and appropriate concern for finding and reporting abused children--complete with a penalty for the physician who fails to do so--all contribute and create an inherent suspicion around many injured patients regardless of the compassion of the practitioner. I'm sure some will dispute these suggested contributors and perhaps you identify a more critical factor I've overlooked. Please add your comments below.

In short, there are environmental as well practitioner (and patient/consumer) contributors to trust deficiencies in healthcare today and in the absence of maintenance, entropy takes over and trust decays.

It certainly has done that in practice and it is unlikely that primary physicians in 15 minute encounter will rapidly rebuild it. A troubling conundrum indeed.

Just Recertified--Am I competent, good, outstanding . . . or not so much? Bob Wachter wants to know.

In a year-old post on The Health 2.0 Blog Bob Wachter points to the activities of commercial ventures including Healthgrades, Zagat and Google to begin rating doctors right along with your favorite city magazine. As is typical for his straightforward style, Dr. Wachter puts himself in the position of seeking information for his own care and concludes that he wants all the differentiating information he can get--including Board Certification ranking of some sort. He would prefer a doctor who scored at the 87th percentile to a doctor who scored at the 5th percentile. That sounds like it makes sense--doesn't it? Seems pretty sensible--a lot of face validity in that opinion--don't you think so, too?

Not so fast; I'm not so sure it works out so well for all doctors.

In the post Dr. Wachter discusses a presentation by Dr. Kevin Weiss, the president of the American Board of Medical Specialties made to the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). Bob Wachter also reveals that he serves on the ABIM and Google's Healthcare Advisory Board; I served for nine years on the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) and I still read the periodic newsletters from the Executive Director there--I have some idea of what's going on in my own specialty certifying process. I also took and passed my recertification exam this year.

Our board, ABEM, uses criterion referenced examinations rather than norm referenced examinations. I'm not certain our specialty is still alone in that distinction, but at one time we were. While I'm not a psychometrician and I don't play one on TV, either, I've come to understand that our exam is pretty good at distinguishing a doctor who know 74% of the tested material from a doctor who knows 75% of the tested material. The latter will pass; the former will not. As I understand the nature of the exam and the scoring, while it is fair to say that the doctor who knows 100% of the tested material certainly knows more than the doctor who knows 75% of the test material, it's not at all clear that one knows a third more than the other or that the test can tell that the doctor at 100% knows more than a doctor scoring at 90%; it becomes even less certain as the differences become smaller; consequently, the American Board of Emergency Medicine probably can't put its diplomates on a percentile scale as Dr. Wachter suggests may be appropriate, at least probably not based on the testing approach in use today. Not to say that the testing couldn't be changed at some future time.

So Dr. Wachter's smell test notwithstanding and the people's desire for physician ratings very much still in evidence, it's not at all clear to me that the route to the goal is as direct as Dr. Wachter suggests.

Greater transparency in support of better decision-making for patients is a desirable, laudable goal. Reliable physician ratings is probably not coming soon, though city magazines, HealthGrades, Zagat and Google are either already or shortly to begin publishing their own ratings--user beware.

Primary Care Backlash Unfortunately begins with an Emergency Physician

I'm saddened to learn of Jonathan Glauser's column in the December 2008 Emergency Medicine News from KevinMD. He notes, "With the primary care shortage starting to gain traction within the mainstream media narrative, it's inevitable that some will lash back against generalists. (via Bob Doherty)"

Jonathan's a very smart guy and I don't doubt the experience that underlies the conclusions he's drawn and the recommendations he's making in his column, yet, he's missing the bigger picture and as Bob Doherty's blog and associated comments demonstrate the data support investment in primary care--not disinvestment. I regret that I can't support your view, Jon.