More cybernetic miracles: 14,000 patients failed to receive follow-up outpatient appointments

14,000 is a lot of patients to miss followup appointments. I do not think this feat could have been accomplished via paper:

Morecambe Bay missed 14,000 outpatients
E-Health Insider.com
7 February 2012
Lyn Whitfield

University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust is working through a backlog of 14,000 patients who failed to receive follow-up outpatient appointments because of administrative and IT problems.

And problems with disappearing ink and Fido, the office canine, chewing up charts, but mostly the IT.

The report of an investigation into the backlog paints a damning picture of failures at the trust, which became the first to introduce the Lorenzo electronic patient record system as part of the National Programme for IT in the NHS.

That would be, the failed National Programme for IT in the NHS, the NpfIT that went Pffft (perhaps the world's most expensive onomatopoeia, at a mere £12.7bn).

The report says the problems go back many years and have their roots in a ‘mismatch’ between demand and capacity at Morecambe Bay, as well poor management and risk practices and a culture of avoiding blame.

However, it also says the trust missed a big opportunity to identify and tackle the problems when it introduced Lorenzo [a health IT system - ed.] in June 2010, and that staff work-arounds contributed to the ultimate size of the backlog.

That is, workarounds to system flaws and 'glitches.'

Eventually, there were 37,000 access plans on the Lorenzo system for which a guaranteed access date had been missed. Many of these plans were duplicates or had not been closed.

However, 14,000 patients needed to be seen and were divided into cohorts so the trust could deal with them. All these patients should have been seen by the end of March.

For the future, the report says the trust needs to establish better systems, find ways to make sure that the board knows what is going on, encourage staff to take responsibility for dealing with problems, and curb the “mal-use” of Lorenzo by imposing “sanctions” on staff if necessary.

Once again, blaming the IT users and punishing them for not conforming to the diktats of the IT and its designers.

It also says the findings of the report, and the importance of “electronic, standardised and systematic management of outpatient follow-ups” should be shared with all providers, in case others are suffering the same problems on a smaller scale.

"In case?" It sounds like they don't even know.

... when a backlog was identified during the data cleansing process for the introduction of Lorenzo, the trust failed to recognise it as a clinical problem.

Instead, to try and solve another administrative problem – the constant cancellation of clinics – the trust introduced a ‘partial booking’ system. Patients who needed a follow-up in more than six weeks were asked to call for an appointment.

“No arrangements were made to account for the 1,000 or so calls that the clinical clerks would receive per week, whilst still trying to man the reception desk and administer the clinics,” the report says. “This created chaos and confusion for patients and staff alike.”

Sounds like a government operation to me.

Patients were often offered late appointments – “some of which arrived with the patient only after the clinic had taken place.”

All of this caused patient and GP complaints, but because they seemed to relate to administrative problems, their real, clinical nature was overlooked.

In the middle of all this, outpatient staff complained that Lorenzo was slow – although the report says there is no evidence that it was slower than the system it replaced [ignore the users - their complaints are all 'anecdotal' - ed.] – and that it was more complicated to complete a booking.

As a result, “many staff found ways around that were quicker, but these were responsible for patients having multiple access plans, which helped to label the problem as administrative.”

You never have to work around something that is not in your way.

Floor walkers initially monitored such “inappropriate” use, but this stopped once Lorenzo had stabilised. [The computer police...how charming. - ed.]

Morecambe Bay is the first and most prominent of the ‘early adopter’ sites for Lorenzo, which was due to be implemented in the North, Midlands and East by CSC [an American management consulting firm - ed.] as local service provider.

The problems at the trust, CSC’s failure to complete the ‘early adopter’ programme, and critical reports from watchdogs and MPs on progress, have thrown a new LSP deal into doubt.

I presume they mean critical reports from MPs like this, and other reports like this from Parliament's Public Accounts Committee a few years back that stated, among many other findings, that:

... The [NPfIT] Programme is not providing value for money at present because there have been few successful deployments of the [U.S. Cerner] Millennium system and none of Lorenzo in any Acute Trust. Trusts cannot be expected to take on the burden of deploying care records systems that do not work effectively. Unless the position on care records system deployments improves appreciably in the very near future (i.e. within the next six months), the Department should assess the financial case for allowing Trusts to put forward applications for central funding for alternative systems compatible with the objectives of the Programme.

Charming.

CSC announced last week that it was going to lay off 500 staff, including 46 from iSoft, which developed Lorenzo, and which CSC bought last year.

I'm sure that will help speed up software remediation.

-- SS

Perhaps Hospitals Don't Care Much That EHRs Can Be Dangerous, Because EHRs Lets them Attract 'Good Paying Customers' And Exclude the Old and Poor

This comes as no surprise to me. I believe it may help explain hospital's cavalier attitudes towards the risks of today's commercial health IT.

It's all about money.

We already knew that (for example, see my Feb. 2011 post "Does EHR-Incited Upcoding (Also Known as 'Fraud') Need Investigation by CMS, And Could it Explain HIT Irrational Exuberance?"), but the following news adds to the pecuniary motivations:

Kaiser Health News

Critics say hospitals cherry pick best-paying patients
By Phil Galewitz
KHN Staff Writer

Feb 05, 2012

When the oversized postcard arrived last August from Provena St. Joseph Medical Center promoting a lung cancer screening for current or former smokers over 55, Steven Boyd wondered how the hospital had found him.

Boyd, 59, of Joliet, Ill., had smoked for decades, as had his wife, Karol.

Provena didn't send the mailing to everyone who lived near the hospital, just those who had a stronger likelihood of having smoked based on their age, income, insurance status and other demographic criteria.

The nonprofit center is one of a growing number of hospitals using their patients' health and financial records to help pitch their most lucrative services, such as cancer, heart and orthopedic care. As part of these direct mail campaigns, they are also buying detailed information about local residents compiled by consumer marketing firms — everything from age, income and marital status to shopping habits and whether they have children or pets at home.

Hospitals say they are promoting needed services, such as cancer screenings and cholesterol tests, but they often use the data to target patients with private health insurance, which typically pay higher rates than government coverage. At an industry conference last year, Provena Health marketing executive Lisa Lagger said such efforts had helped attract higher-paying patients, including those covered by "profitable Blue Cross and less Medicare."

Not to mention helping exclude those covered by Medicaid, or the uninsured.

Strategy Draws Fire

While the strategies are increasing revenues, they are drawing fire from patient advocates and privacy groups, who criticize the hospitals for using private medical records to pursue profits.

I don't recall anywhere on the releases at area hospitals saying they would be using their own clinical data for marketing purposes (which likely involve third party contractors). It might be in the fine print, however. I also don't recall any place to sign and give informed consent to the use of experimental medical devices such as the EHR's used to collect the marketing data, either, but that's addressed elsewhere on this blog such as here.

Doug Heller, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, a California-based consumer advocacy group, says he is bothered by efforts to "cherry pick" the best-paying patients.

"When marketing is picking and choosing based on people's financial status, it is inherently discriminating against patients who have every right and need for medical information," Heller says. "This is another example of how our health system has gone off the rails."

I would go beyond "off the rails." How about, straight to perverse? EHR data is used to attract paying customers and then expose them to risk of being maimed due to the disruptive nature of the HIT itself.

Deven McGraw, director of the health privacy project at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, says federal law allows hospitals to use confidential medical records to inform patients about things that may help them.

"If it's technically legal, we can do it, and who gives a damn about the ethics?" is what is being expressed here.

"You want health providers to communicate to patients about health options that may be beneficial to their health," McGraw says. "But sometimes this is about generating business for a new piece of equipment that the hospital just bought."

Using such information for marketing "creeps closer to the line," between what is legal and what is not, she says.

And helping recoup the costs of that hundred-million dollar EHR setup, too.

... Tess Niehaus, vice president of marketing at St. Anthony’s Medical Center in St. Louis, says the approach has been quite successful and makes no apologies for going after the most lucrative business.

"We are here to serve everybody but we market for good paying patients because it preserves our ability to serve everyone," she says. [And the ability to proffer generous executive salaries and raises - ed.]

"Good paying patients?" Does that imply there are bad paying patients? (Might those "bad paying patients" be predominantly the elderly and/or minorities?)

While the practice is legal, most people would be shocked to know their records may be shared with nonmedical personnel and outside firms to help hospitals attract business, says Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, an advocacy group based in California. "I am really bothered by the overabundance of information that is flowing that is unnecessary and risky," she says.

As I've written before, don't worry, your most sensitive data's safe in the hands of the extremely skilled health IT professionals at most hospitals.

While hospitals may profit from offering cholesterol tests and mammograms, the big payoff is in what those screenings may lead to – additional tests and procedures, including surgery.

"It's all about downstream revenue," says Patrick Kane, senior vice president of marketing at Cape Cod Healthcare in Massachusetts who used such approaches at Wellmont Health System in Kingsport, Tenn. "The old adage in business is that it’s easier to sell an existing customer new services, rather than find a new customer."

So much for medical professionalism and conservatism. At least Mr. Kane admits it's all about money.

... Provena's Lagger says the approach boosted the system's bottom line so it could serve people regardless of insurance status. "This is a means to an end," she says.

The ends don't always justify the means, but that may be a hard concept for some in today's amoral culture to understand.

... Much of the expertise for such campaigns is provided by three consulting firms -- CPM Marketing of Madison, Wis., Medseek of Birmingham Ala. and New York-based Thomson Reuters. They typically charge hospitals $100,000 a year or more.

CPM, which merged in November with Denver, Colo.-based HealthGrades, a health ratings firm, added 100 new hospitals last year to give it a total of 400. Medseek works with more than 250 hospitals and Thomson Reuters, with 150.

Remember Darrin Stevens on Bewitched? "Larry, I've got a great idea for a new campaign! Let's troll for patients using their private data! Never mind that I have donkey ears today... that darn mother in law of mine, Endora!"

The targeting worked in the case of Boyd, who called the number on the back and scheduled the CT scan a few days later. The $169 test showed his lungs were clear, but found potential blockages in coronary arteries that his Provena-affiliated doctor is monitoring.

"In hindsight, I’m glad I had the test," he says.

No mention of patients who had unnecessary testing and interventions that led to bad outcomes ... or patients injured by the very EHR systems that make such marketing possible.

-- SS

Rendering Unto Caesar - What the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute vs Thompson Says About the Loss of the Academic Medical Mission

A case, reported by the New York Times as involving an intellectual property dispute, should create a lot of cognitive dissonance about the state of the academic medical mission.

Litigation Involving the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute and Dr Craig B Thompson

Here is how the Times outlined the story:

The president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York is in a billion-dollar dispute with his former workplace, a cancer institute at the University of Pennsylvania, over accusations that he walked away with groundbreaking research and used it to help start a valuable biotechnology company.

In a lawsuit, the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute at Penn described its former scientific director, Dr. Craig B. Thompson, as 'an unscrupulous doctor' who 'chose to abscond with the fruits of the Abramson largess.'

In particular,

In the suit, the Abramson cancer institute, which has received more than $100 million from the philanthropist Leonard Abramson and his family, says that Dr. Thompson concealed his role in starting Agios, which has attracted investors with a potentially new way to treat cancer. The institute says Dr. Thompson’s actions deprived it of proceeds that could support future research, causing it damages that could exceed $1 billion.

So presumably the Abramson Institute is alleging that Thompson took its intellectual property and put it into Agios, and the Institute therefore wants compensation. Note that the Institute does not appear to be alleging either that Thompson was supposed to be its employee, but actually was working for Agios at the time he was supposed to be working for the institute; or that Thompson hid a a conflict of interest created by his financial relationship with Agios that could have affected how he fulfilled his professional responsibilities there.

Note further that certain other parties declared that they are not part of this dispute. These included Dr Thompson's current employer:

Sloan-Kettering declined to comment, saying it was not a party to the lawsuit....

These also included the University of Pennsylvania:

Susan E. Phillips, senior vice president for Penn Medicine, said that the suit had been filed not by the university but by the research institute, a separate entity. She said the university was investigating the accusations.

The nature of this dispute ought to generate several kinds of cognitive dissonance.

Protecting Intellectual Property vs Upholding the Academic Mission at the University of Pennsylvania

On one of its web pages, the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute describes its history:

The Abramson Cancer center of the University of Pennsylvania provides each patient with exemplary care though a comprehensive team approach, personalized service, education and outreach, and nationally recognized cancer research programs.

The web page describes the institute as simply part of the larger University of Pennsylvania cancer center, which came to be named for the Abramson family:

Penn's Cancer Center was renamed in 2002 as the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, recognizing the Abramson family's $100 million commitment to support comprehensive cancer research and care.

Thus it seems that the Abramson institute is simply a piece of a traditional academic medical center.

The academic mission is traditionally described as the creation and teaching of knowledge. Thus, if an academic institution creates new knowledge, its should then disseminate it, not own it. Of course, in the US, since the Bayh-Dole act was passed, academic institutions were given the ability to patent their discoveries, and began to protect and sequester the knowledge they contained, rather than disseminating it.

In this case, however, one part of a large university and a large academic medical center seems to be concentrating entirely on its right of ownership of intellectual property, not the traditional academic mission. The fact that this dispute has lead to litigation suggests that the academic organization is now intent on protecting, rather than disseminating knowledge. The dispute appears to be between a commercial research company and its allegedly errant former hired manager.

The Abramson Institute: Part or Independent of the Academic Medical Center?  

A little more digging suggests that the nature of the Abramson institute is not as clear as is described in its web-page. A GuideStar search revealed that the institute is actually legally independent from the university. It filed its own 990 form (latest version, covering 2009-2010, here.)

The filing did list various entities, including the Clinical Care Associates of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania as "related tax-exempt organizations."

However, this filing should create cognitive dissonance about what the underlying nature of the Institute? Is it part of the University of Pennsylvania and its medical center, or is independent but cooperating?

This dissonance is only enhanced by the ambiguous response of the University of Pennsylvania to the lawsuit. If the Institute is part of the University, then the University ought to be party to the lawsuit, it would seem.

This filing with the US government did underline the Institute's commitment to disseminating research. A description of its tax "exempt purposes" included:

Education - scientists at the Institute actively share their discoveries with the research community, physicians, and students.

As above, this statement of purpose appears not to fit with the filing of a lawsuit to obtain damages due to the alleged taking of intellectual property. If this really were the Institute's mission, would not they want the intellectual property liberated so it could be actively shared? The cognitive dissonance about the mission of the Institute and of the University versus the protection and sequestration of intellectual property is thus increased.

Upholding the Academic Mission vs Staying Uninvolved at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

As an aside, note that Dr Thompson is now not just working for Agios. In fact, he has been President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center since 2010 (look here). Just like the Abramson Cancer Center, Sloan-Kettering is an academic medical center with the traditional mission of teaching, research, and patient care. Here is its mission statement:

As one of the world's premier cancer centers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is committed to exceptional patient care, leading-edge research, and superb educational programs.

So one would think that people there ought to be concerned by allegations that its current president took intellectual property without authorization, and that he is "an unscrupulous doctor." If these allegations were to be proven false, they seemingly would represent a major, unwarranted slur on its and his reputation. If they were to be proven true, they would indicate that current leadership might not have the character to uphold the mission. Either outcome would be serious and have serious implications. However, at the moment, this noted academic medical institution has expressed neither outrage about possibly false accusations nor resolve to investigate the matter and then weed out any leaders not devoted to the mission.

Thus, the apparent intention of the leadership of Memorial Sloan-Kettering to stay uninvolved with this case ought to generate more cognitive dissonance.


Summary

The cognitive dissonances evoked by the case of the Abramson Institute vs Dr Thompson ought to inspire questions about what our academic medical institutions have become.  While they proclaim their devotion to research and teaching to improve health and health care, and advance science, they may increasingly act like commercial research organizations whose main goal is to generate increased revenue from products and services, and in this case, from intellectual property. 

It is hard to see how this emphasis on holding onto rather than disseminating new knowledge will be good in the long run for science, learning, or patient care.

We are now a good 30+ years into our ill-fated American experiment about the effects of turning medicine commercial and making health care a commodity. So far, it has yielded the highest costs in the world, but declining access, mediocre quality, and demoralized professionals.  Squabbling among top researchers and leading academic medical institutions over the ownership of intellectual property for the sake of revenue, not dissemination, is the latest symbol of the decline of our health care.

I can only hope that all the parties involved suddenly remember that they are supposed to be creating and disseminating knowledge, not just getting rich. 

Just Business - Employee Control Fraud, Gresham's Dynamic, and the Race to the Bottom in Health Care

Since Enthoven called for the break up of the physicians' "guild," and handing over its supposed power to managers, (see post here) managers have taken over from physicians and other health care professionals as leaders of health care organizations.  Unfortunately, most of these managers are generic, often lacking knowledge and experience in health care, and understanding of its core values.  Instead, such generic managers may rely on the current management dogma.  The perils of doing so are illustrated by an analysis of the recent expose of conditions at Apple manufacturing plants in China.

The Apple Expose

The New York Times summarized in a landmark article how bad it is to work in factories building Apple products under contract in China.  Workers endure harsh conditions, toiling up to six days a week, 12 hours a day.  Meanwhile, banners remind them to "work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow."  Workers may be exposed to hazardous, even poisonous materials (like n-hexane used to clean components).  Workers have died in explosions due to inadequate control of combustible dust. Over 18 workers at one factory attempted or committed suicide within two years.

The article suggested that while Apple managers may be well-intentioned, and "want to improve conditions in factories," the bottom line is more important:

that dedication falters when it conflicts with crucial supplier relationships or the fast delivery of new products.

In fact, because of its rigid insistence on cost control, its suppliers are sorely tempted to push their workers too hard:

Apple typically asks suppliers to specify how much every part costs, how many workers are needed and the size of their salaries. Executives want to know every financial detail. Afterward, Apple calculates how much it will pay for a part. Most suppliers are allowed only the slimmest of profits.

So suppliers often try to cut corners, replace expensive chemicals with less costly alternatives, or push their employees to work faster and longer, according to people at those companies.

'The only way you make money working for Apple is figuring out how to do things more efficiently or cheaper,' said an executive at one company that helped bring the iPad to market. 'And then they’ll come back the next year, and force a 10 percent price cut.'

So,

'You can set all the rules you want, but they’re meaningless if you don’t give suppliers enough profit to treat workers well,' said one former Apple executive with firsthand knowledge of the supplier responsibility group. 'If you squeeze margins, you’re forcing them to cut safety.'

William Black's Analysis: Employee Control Fraud and the Race to the Bottom

Writing in the Huffington Post, William K Black showed how Apple executives' relentless focus on cost could drive a race to the bottom. He began by analyzing Apple executives' explanation for out-sourcing their production:

'We shouldn't be criticized for using Chinese workers,' a current Apple executive said. 'The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need.'

He noted that it is absurd to suggest that the US does not have workers with the technical skills necessary to build Apple products. He suggests, however, that these are not the skills that matter.

The suppliers want engineers and managers who will selectively apply their substantive skills. American engineers and managers cannot be counted on to provide the necessary selectivity. Apple's suppliers' often seek managers willing to order their workers to exceed the lawful workweek, to refuse to pay them for significant portions of the wages they have earned, to unlawfully employ child labor, and even to coerce abortions.

So, in the n-hexane example,

The engineer did not order the workers to use the nerve poison because he hated the workers. It was 'just business.' The nerve poison reduced cleaning time, so an engineer knowingly ordered the workers to use it and scores of other engineers did nothing to prevent the usage.

Note that Black calls this employee control fraud, deceiving the employee that he or she is working in a reasonably safe environment, and that employee health and safety is a concern, when in truth the only concern is the bottom line.

So what Apple executives, and by analogy, other multi-national corporate executives want are underlings, particularly middle and line managers who will do anything, anything to cut costs and improve the bottom line. This will produce the race to the bottom:

What we are observing is the essence of a Gresham's dynamic in which bad ethics drives good ethics out of the market.

Two aspects of this Gresham's dynamic are obscene, and both are produced by neoclassical economics dogma. Calling this process 'creative destruction' is baseless and dishonest. It is the fraudulent destruction of honest businesses, professions, and labor.

Black concluded:

firms that are anti-employee control frauds are likely to commit other forms of control fraud. Apple and its Western counterparts have driven the creation of an Asian network of fraudulent firms that has distorted international trade, hollowed out U.S. manufacturing, and created a bizarre hybrid: quasi-communist crony capitalism. It boggles the mind that theoclassical economists celebrate the corrupt result as the essence of creative destruction. The network is corrupt. It will not play by the rules. Firms like Apple help create the perverse incentives that encourage the network to cheat. Surviving U.S. manufacturing firms are whipsawed by the powerful Gresham's dynamic that the frauds produce. U.S. firms and workers are constantly pressured to reduce wages and workforce to try to compete with the foreign frauds. This is the 'Road to Bangladesh' strategy that has caused U.S. working class wages to stall for decades. Europe is retreating along this same road at an even more rapid rate. The Gresham's dynamic tilts the world in favor of fraudulent firms operating in fraud-friendly nations.

The Race to the Bottom in Health Care
Note that we have written about numerous examples of executives of US health care organizations putting revenue ahead of the health care mission, ahead of workers' morale, ahead of patients' and the public's health. Some of these examples involve executives of nominally non-profit organizations that are supposed to have charitable purposes. (Look under our heading of mission-hostile management.)

In fact, just yesterday, Dr Carl Elliott, writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education, summarized how pharmaceutical companies have out-sourced clinical research. The resulting commercial clinical research have generated conditions as bad for the research subjects as those endured by the Chinese electronics workers above:

If the past decade had an emblematic moment for clinical research, it was probably November 12, 2005, the day when Bloomberg Markets published its cover story, “Big Pharma’s Shameful Secret.” In that issue, Bloomberg reporters laid out the story of SFBC International, a contract research organization in Miami that was paying undocumented immigrants to test the safety of new drugs in a seedy motel. The SFBC owners had converted the lobby into a large waiting area with plastic chairs, and they were housing their research subjects six to a room. The medical director of the research site was unlicensed to practice medicine; the Institutional Review Board that approved many of the studies was owned by the wife of the company vice-president; and the converted motel, which had been cited for fire and safety violations, was eventually demolished. Nonetheless, SFBC had become an astonishingly successful enterprise. Just a few years before the Bloomberg Markets report, Forbes had named SFBC one of the most admired small businesses in America. Virtually every major pharmaceutical company had tested drugs with the company. In fact, with 675 beds, the converted motel was the largest research facility in North America.

Note: see our relevant posts here on SFBC International, and on contract research organizations.

Moreover, such out-sourcing has produced the sort of race to the bottom described by Black, but this time involving one of the US most important health care institutions, academic health care:

the more important reason is money. In medical schools, faculty members are often expected to generate their own salaries, either by seeing patients or getting grants and contracts. Likewise, academic departments are often expected to be financially self-sufficient, with as little support as possible from central administration. 'Eat what you kill' is the phrase used, without irony, by medical school deans and department heads. And if you are not killing it with NIH grants, you probably need to be killing it with AstraZeneca or Pfizer.

This system has not been good for human subjects, but it has not been good for academic physicians either. According to a recent study of over 5,000 faculty members at U.S. medical schools, 51 percent of respondents said that the administration is only interested in me for the revenue I generate.' Thirty-one percent said that their institution discourages altruism; 27 percent said that it does not reward clinical excellence; and over half said that it does not value teaching. Nearly half of respondents were considering leaving their current jobs; almost a third were considering leaving academic medicine altogether. Asked if their values lined up with the medical schools where they worked, over half said no. And just in case you are wondering why these physicians are not standing outside the building with picket signs, protesting the injustice of the system, the survey offers another clue. Thirty percent of respondents agreed with the statement, 'I am reluctant to express my opinion for fear of negative consequences.' [This was from an abstract by Pololi L et al.  See our relevant post here.]

Of course, this survey does does not exactly match up with the happy propaganda disseminated by the media-relations offices at most medical schools. Instead, it offers a picture of alienated, demoralized physicians, unhappy in their jobs, pressed to work according to values that repel them in order to prop up an institution that views them primarily as instruments to generate profit. In this environment, contract research makes perfect sense. It may not require much intellectual work, but it pays the bills and keeps the authorities happy. And if medical schools don’t really value intellectual work anyway, that may well be enough.

So the pressures on medical school faculty are little different from those on corporate middle management.  Their only role is to make money, mainly so that the top leaders can become multi-millionaires, and woe unto them if they object.
Summary

What is missing in all this is any organized opposition to the race to the bottom. As long as top executives can make nearly unlimited money, as long as they can do so by making their subordinates put revenue ahead of all else, as long as there are no countervailing forces, the race to the bottom will continue.

To stop it, we need some combination of efforts by honest government regulators, professional and trade organizations, civil society organizations including non-profit organizations and NGOs that really care about patients' and the public's health, and finally an activated, and properly outraged public.

As long as we think that a laissez faire policy allowing continual market dysfunction to continue, the good times for executives will keep rolling, over all of the rest of us.

Siemens Healthcare on solving EHR usability problems: you can just call up your pal at the next hospital

In my Aug. 2009 post "Why Siemens Healthcare Fails", I wrote:

I note that I used to admire German engineering rigor, but after seeing ill conceived, misguided position ads like the following from Siemens Healthcare, I am having sincere doubts about that country's current prowess in that domain.

My admiration fell another notch. I now see this, in a Feb. 1, 2012 article from HealthData Management entitled "User Unfriendly" on the flaws in commercial health IT that present a poor user interface/user experience (at the expense, ultimately, of you, the patient). The article's browser title bar somewhat subliminally reads "Physicians gripe that EHR's are not easy to use but improvements are coming":

... There's also no mechanism for publicizing problems with EHR interfaces, unlike the FDA's process for issues with medical devices. [User interface expert Prof. Ben] Shneiderman describes a case where a physician found a bug in an EHR that created a danger to patients. "He contacted the supplier because he thought it was something other users should know about, and the response was, 'Oh, we know-we're working on it,'" Shneiderman says. "The physician said, What? You know about it and you haven't notified everyone?' Contrast that with the Federal Aviation Administration, where problems with airplanes are publicized within hours."

The IOM report calls for substantial loosening of those contractual restrictions. "The committee views prohibition of the free exchange of information to be the most critical barrier to patient safety and transparency," the report says. "The committee urges the [HHS] Secretary to take vigorous steps to restrict contractual language that impedes public sharing of patient safety-related details. Contracts should be developed to allow explicitly for sharing of health I.T. issues related to patient safety." The report also says there should be a central place to report and publicize known issues with EHR software.

Siemens apparently has a different idea on taking responsibility for the user interfaces of their products:

Siemens Healthcare Chief Medical Officer Don Rucker, M.D., says the secrecy issue is overblown. "There are trailer loads of information out there on each of these big systems, and there are so many end users that you can just call up your pal at the next hospital."

There are trailer loads of information out there, and it's up to the end user physician to find the information and sort through it?

... Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. /not/

There are so many end users that you can just call up your pal at the next hospital [for guidance on user interface complexities and errors]?

Also sounds perfectly reasonable. /not/

... Except, I think most EMR vendors and user-organizations sort-of disable Remote Assistance, Remote Desktop and similar programs. Even "print screen" is usually either disabled or forbidden from sharing with that "pal at the other hospital." Might have something to do with security and IP protection.

Ever try to guide someone through a complex computer interface over the phone, blind, with no real-time mutually viewed visuals? It's not easy, but ... physicians and nurses have PLENTY of time for such fritter, what with the little other work they have to do.

I also think saying busy physician, nurse and other clinical customers should "depend on their pals at the next hospital" for information on health IT difficulties is a rather condescending and patronizing statement to make (to be charitable), a backyard-mechanic attitude, but that's just me.

Why does Siemens fail?

This type of statement is a very good clue.

-- SS

KevinMD: How algorithm driven medicine can affect (make more dangerous, actually) patient care

Reposted from KevinMD blog on another aspect of the health IT mission hostile user experience. Emphases and comments in [red italics] are mine:

How algorithm driven medicine can affect patient care
by Jeffrey Parks, MD

Whenever someone is scheduled for an operation, the assigned nurse is required to fill out a “pre-op checklist” to ensure that all safety and quality metrics are being adhered to. Before the patient is allowed to be wheeled into the OR we make sure the surgical site is marked, the consents are signed, all necessary equipment is available, etc. One of the most important metrics involves the peri-operative administration of IV antibiotics. SCIP guidelines mandate that the prophylactic antibiotic is given within an hour of incision time to optimize outcomes. This has been drilled into the heads of physicians, health care providers, and ancillary staff to such an extent that it occasionally causes total brain shutdown.

Let me explain. For most elective surgeries I give a single dose of antibiotics just before I cut. For elective colon surgery, the antibiotics are continued for 24 hours post-op. This is accepted standard of care. You don’t want to give antibiotics inappropriately or continue them indefinitely.

But what about a patient with gangrenous cholecystitis or acute appendicitis? What if, in my clinical judgment, I want to start the patient on antibiotics right away (i.e. several hours before anticipated incision time) and then continue them for greater than 24 hours post-op, depending on what the clinical status warrants? I should be able to do that right? [No - wrong - the idiots who designed your CPOE/Pharmacy IT system forgot that robotic medicine is bad medicine - ed.]

Well, you’d be surprised. [No, actually, I'm not. I'd have been more surprised to see a system not impeding critical medical decisions tailored to the individual patient - ed.]

You see, at two different, unaffiliated hospitals I cover, the surgeons have seen that decision-making capability removed from their power. If a young patient comes in with acute appendicitis and I feel that it would be prudent to continue the Zosyn an extra couple of days, an automatic stop order is triggered [presumably cybernetically - ed.] in the department of pharmacy and the antibiotic is stopped after 24 hours, no matter what. Unless the surgeon specifically writes “please do not stop this antibiotic after 24 hours; it is being administered for therapeutic purposes, not prophylaxis [that sounds a bit like begging - ed.] ,” the antibiotic will not be sent to the patient’s floor for administration. As a result, patients end up being treated sub-optimally, and potentially harmed, due to an over-emphasis on “protocol” and “quality care metrics.”

Similarly, the 60-minute timeline for pre-operative antibiotic administration can be problematic. I have had patients come into the ER with appendicitis or cholecystitis and, in my pre-op orders, write for Zosyn or whatever, to be started ASAP, no matter what time the operation is scheduled. Not too long ago, I admitted a gallbladder over the phone at 2am. I gave the nurse admitting orders which included one for a broad spectrum antibiotic.

When I saw the patient in the morning, I added her on to the OR schedule. By the time a room opened up, it was about 10:30am. The OR nurse asked me if I wanted to give an antibiotic for the case. I told her that the patient was already on antibiotics as part of her admit orders for treatment. The nurse shook her hand. It had never been given; the floor nurse held it so that it wasn’t administered until 60 minutes before the scheduled OR time, just like the algorithm dictates — despite the fact it had been ordered nearly 8 hours prior to the case, not for peri-op prophylaxis, but for treatment of an established pathology. [This is how EHR-induced malpractice occurs, readers. Guess who bears liability? - ed.]

And there it was, the cefotetan, hanging on her IV stand. Now nothing bad happened [this time, due to luck - ed.], but here you have a situation where health care providers are so terrified of violating Quality Assurance Protocol that they end up withholding necessary treatment. It’s just astounding. [It's astounding the surgeons don't simply use a scalpel on the computer terminal network and power cables to protect their patients - ed.]

As surgeons, we have bitched and moaned. You would think that these issues would be quickly rectified. But no. It is the responsibility of the surgeon to write qualifying statements [a workaround to a 'feature' that turns medical judgment on its head - ed.] for therapeutic antibiotics because the default mode is to override a licensed physician’s clinical judgment. [Not mentioned is who is overriding that judgment through cybernetic proxy - ed.]

This is what I’m talking about when I say that blind allegiance to a top-down, systems analysis-driven algorithm can turn everyone involved in health care into a bunch of mindless drones.

Jeffrey Parks is a general surgeon who blogs at Buckeye Surgeon.

I will simply add that these issues sound like poor IT/protocol design and implementation, getting in a physician's way regarding tailoring of care to the individual patient.

An inviolable rule in health IT is - or needs to be -

"You should not have to work around something that is not in the way."

There is nothing to debate or discuss on this issue.

-- SS

Feb. 3, 2012 addendum:

Some IT person (anonymously, of course) tried to argue and debate anyway; however, they did not even do basic homework. See their comments in the comments box.

Feb. 5, 2012 addendum:

More in the comments section by someone saying they made the aforementioned comments, stating they are a hospitalist, and still trying to advance the same arguments in favor of physicians adapting to mission-hostile HIT and/or protocols rather than 'protesting too much.'

EHR Workstation Designed by Amateurs

Below is an actual workstation, in an ICU of a major regional hospital, to permit interaction with an already mission-hostile EHR system:

How many things are wrong here? (Click to enlarge)

I can charitably say this workstation, in this recent picture, was designed by amateurs. Less charitably, I would use the words 'glaring incompetents.'

How many things are wrong here? For starters (commenters are welcome to suggest additions to the list):

• Small square (4x3) monitor, when large 16x9 monitors are available quite cheaply, even at retail let alone in bulk;

• Monitor in front of window so on sunny days, glare causes eye strain;

• Monitor forces user to look away from the patient, with their back facing the patient behind them;

• Standard keyboard and mouse to help spread infection, not medical-specialty devices such as membrane-based or membrane-covered keyboards and easily cleanable trackpads;

• Very slow, small, toy-ish nettop computer, to facilitate responsiveness delays;

• Height of ledge with keyboard/mouse and of elevated monitor on ledge does not facilitate comfortable ergonomics when sitting, note chair in background (or standing as is intended, either, although I don't recall ever making entries in the permanent paper chart on my feet). It seems nobody ever heard of an appropriate moveable workstation desk;

• Tangle of wires behind setup, without any protective sheath or shield, facilitates "accidents."

There are probably a few more "issues" I'm missing.

There is nothing to argue here and nothing to debate. Combined with the mission hostile virtual user interfaces presented by health IT software itself, this is inexcusable.

Apart from designers, any physicians (and nurses) who would accept such poor choices - and the cause of this workstation's problems were, in fact, deliberate choices - are either weak-kneed victims of "physician's learned helplessness" themselves, or enjoy EHR-induced medical errors and lawsuits.

The workstations are poorly designed like this all throughout this hospital, including the ED.

This is not the first time I've observed this type of amateurism in hospitals. I observed similar issues in another ICU - over a decade ago.

Hospitals are truly an IT backwater.

-- SS