PVI Advisory Group Member Casey Quinlan gives us her take on Dartmouth’s 2014 Summer Institute for Informed Patient Choice Conference.
The following contains excerpts from “Keeping Patients in the Dark”, from her Patients for Clinical Research Blog. For the complete text, please click here.
I had the privilege of being awarded a seat at Dartmouth’s 2014 Summer Institute for Informed Patient Choice, or SIIPC14 for short, in late June 2014 (last week, as I write this). The purpose of the conference was to chew on topics and issues related to not keeping patients in the dark when it comes to making informed decisions about their health, their healthcare, and their relationships to the medical care teams they work with to gain or retain “best health.”
I’m not going to walk you through the whole program, because who wants to read 15,000 words, really? What I will do is walk you through a very short list of the presentations that cast the longest memory shadow, for me at least, in the conference aftermath.
Dr. Jack Wennberg
His presentation drilled in on what he calls the “Glover phenomenon,” referring to the research of James Alison Glover, a British physician who studied medical practice variation region to region in the UK, with some interesting results that essentially boil down to (my paraphrase) “everyone’s doing it, so I will, too.”
Dr. Wennberg’s talk was the perfect scene-set to kick off the conference, because his work, inspired by Glover’s, points up the price of keeping patients in the dark about why their medical care team is recommending any particular course of treatment for [whatever]. Simply “because I said so” – which was the prescriptive rule in medicine for … ever – is a really bad idea if you’re trying to reduce unnecessary treatments, control costs, or create a healthcare system that runs on scientific evidence, not patriarchy. Shared decision making requires that all participating in that decision have a grasp of all the facts, including possible outcomes.
Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.
Dr. Al Mulley
“The care they [patients] need and no less, want and no more.”
That’s a quote from Dr. Mulley’s involvement with the Salzburg Global Seminar in 2012, and is a pretty good anchor for his message at SIIPC, which was titled “The Silent Epidemic of Misdiagnosis.” That misdiagnosis can come from misattribution of the patient’s outcome preferences (do doctors even ASK most of the time?), which then puts both patient and care team on a trip down the rabbit hole. This approach causes everything from unnecessary surgery to unwanted extraordinary measures at the end of life to who-knows-HOW-many unneeded pharmacological “interventions.”
One quote from Mulley’s talk really stands out for me: “Doctors talk about the science of medicine to preserve their authority and the art of medicine to preserve their autonomy.” Shifting that boulder will take some persistent pushback from patients who want to work with participatory medicine practitioners. (Alliteration-itis.)
Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.
Dr. Elliott Fisher
As an MD with deep experience working to build Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Fisher has a 3D view of the healthcare delivery landscape. He rings all my favorite changes, particularly in the areas of cost and quality of care delivered to patients. My favorite slide from his deck said, simply, “No outcome, no income.” In the gold rush that US healthcare has been since … forever, now sucking up close to 20% of GDP – and making the defense lobby look like homeless people in the process – tying money to outcomes, and to the patient preferences that define those outcomes, seems downright revolutionary.
Since I am myself a revolutionary when it comes to pushing for healthcare system transformation, I’m thinking of Elliott Fisher as a brother from another mother, on this topic at least.
Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.
BUT … (and there are many buts in this story)
If the smart folks running the Dartmouth thinkiness on healthcare system transformation are smart enough to invite the wide panoply of players who attended this conference to listen, and to talk about, how that transformation might be driven … where’s some outcome there? Bueller, Bueller … anyone?
There was much conversation traffic on Twitter throughout the conference, anchored by the hashtag #SIIPC14 (clicking that link will take you to Symplur’s Healthcare Hashtag Project, where you can parse the SIIPC conversation). Much of the undertone of that conversation was “OK, so what’s going to be DONE here?” From the e-patient perspective, that’s a perpetually unanswered question at ALL healthcare related conferences, even our own.
This is IN NO WAY meant to snipe at the great folks who put on the Dartmouth conference, and who invited me to attend. I was delighted to be there, and am deeply grateful for the experience. I met some great people, and connected with some others that I already knew.
But … I’ve been doing this for a while now. When will the number 210,000 (the number of avoidable medical error deaths in the US annually) go back to being just another number? When will the cost of care stop being a game of Where’s Waldo? When will expert patients be seen as equals when it comes to getting paid for the work we do to drive system transformation?
We all have to work on this. The outcome is still uncertain, because institutionally, healthcare seems to be dedicated to “business as usual” in spite of all efforts to shift that thinking. We – the change agents – are arrayed against some powerful forces with very deep pockets.
