Dr Robert Wachter - NY Times Op Ed yesterday

robert bell rmsbell200 at YAHOO.COM
Tue Jan 19 18:01:03 UTC 2016


Thanks Michael,

Nice points you make.

However, with the numbers that die in healthcare we could initially well over compensate and have more metrics than we need until all the systems are worked out. That, by the way, will happen with the EMR and the ACA as a whole. Other advanced countries point to that. 

The concern that I have is that with the current environment it is unlikely that we keep good records nationwide in hospitals for fear of any data being discovered in litigation law-suits.

Could the issue be brainstormed by the ImproveDX consortium of specially societies and come up with a program that would perhaps provide some protection to hospitals and HCPs. And particularly those who participate in EFFECTIVE National Safety programs, as mandated by legislation.

Only then with good metrics will anything worthwhile be accomplished in errors in medicine. 

Knowing the exact number of Operating Room explosions (like airline crashes) each month/year in the country will be the only way to track improvement. Two to three years ago I heard the number was 600. I have no idea how that was calculated.

If we want to do something significant to save lives the revolution has to come - and quickly. 

I would think that the first thing to be done is prioritizing what needs to be done, and litigation issues would seem to be very, very high on the list. 

Onward with the measurement movement!

Rob Bell, MD, PhC.





> On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Bruno, Michael <mbruno at hmc.psu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
>  
> This is a very nice article, thanks for sharing it. 
>  
> To your question, are figures essential to know we are improving, I would say “yes,” and very much so.  But there is need for caution – since having the wrong metrics is clearly worse than having none.  
>  
> When I read Dr. Wachter’s article, I can’t help but think we're seeing a "clash of the cultures” here.  Medicine's historical character / core culture is a bit more fluid than the "performance improvement" culture that many of us espouse.  There are good and bad things about that, but I think that those of us in the “measurement” camp are of the mind that there was more bad than good in the old culture, such as its blamefulness and unrealistic ideas about error and how to eliminate error.  On the other hand, we can look to other industries, like aviation and manufacturing, to see how the performance improvement culture has actually delivered quite well on its promises.  
>  
> I think all of us will agree that the caring, personal touch of a physician cannot be replaced, nor can it be measured very well.  Like the value of the H&P—which is argued in some circles because it doesn’t produce measurable outcomes—we doctors understand it and know that it actually has great value to us and to our patients. 
>  
> But there are a great many things that can be measured, and some of them, nearly all of them perhaps, badly need to be improved!  And one of the tenets of our “Quality & Safety Religion” is the adage that, ‘if you can't measure something, you can't improve it,’ which succinctly states my own personal bias.  I actually believe that Dr. Wachter is one of “us,” an improver.  But I get what he is saying about how poorly chosen metrics will actually do more harm than good, since they inevitably create perverse incentives.  Probably everyone knows that Wachter wrote a great book about the perils of the Electronic Medical Record, for example, pointing out how that whole project seems to have gone horribly wrong. 
>  
> My answer to this NYT article is just that there is a real imperative in asking WHICH metrics actually matter—using those and de-emphasizing or ignoring the rest, which I believe is his underlying point.  Not all metrics are created equal, because everything measurable is not truly important.  And indeed there are a few un-measurables which matter a great deal.  But the process of measurement, iterative change and re-measurement is a process we can rely on to improve our performance.
>  
> My faith in measurement is unshaken!  Measurement doesn’t always fail, in fact, I think the evidence shows that it mostly succeeds.
>  
> <image001.png>
> Michael A. Bruno, M.S., M.D., F.A.C.R.   
> Professor of Radiology & Medicine
> Vice Chair for Quality & Patient Safety
> Chief, Division of Emergency Radiology
> Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
> ( (717) 531-8703  |  * mbruno at hmc.psu.edu <mailto:mbruno at hmc.psu.edu>  |  6 (717) 531-5737
> <image002.jpg>
>  
> *****E-Mail Confidentiality Notice*****
> This message (including any attachments) contains information intended for a specific individual(s) and purpose that may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to applicable law.  Any inappropriate use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalty.  If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender indicating this error and delete the transmission from your system immediately.
>  
>  
> From: robert bell [mailto:0000000296e45ec4-dmarc-request at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG <mailto:0000000296e45ec4-dmarc-request at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>] 
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 5:21 PM
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Dr Robert Wachter - NY Times Op Ed yesterday
>  
> Do we need figures regarding Errors in Medicine (including Diagnostic Errors) to be able to know if we are improving?
>  
> Is that essential?
>  
> Rob Bell, MD
> On Jan 18, 2016, at 1:52 PM, David L Meyers <dm0015 at COMCAST.NET <mailto:dm0015 at COMCAST.NET>> wrote:
>  
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/how-measurement-fails-doctors-and-teachers.html?action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&moduleDetail=most-emailed-0&pgtype=undefined <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/how-measurement-fails-doctors-and-teachers.html?action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&moduleDetail=most-emailed-0&pgtype=undefined>
>  
> 
> Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
> 
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1 <http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1>
>  
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG <mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
> 
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX <http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX>
>  
> 
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/ <http://www.improvediagnosis.org/>
>  
>  
>  
> <Wachter - Where Measurement Fails.pdf>

Robert M. Bell, M.D., Ph.C.
P.O. Box 3668
West Sedona, AZ  86340-3668
USA
Tel: Fax: 928 203-4517









Moderator: David Meyers, Board Member, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine


HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20160119/36f87fc5/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list