Time with the Doctor

Scientific American publish an article titled "Are Doctors getting slower or are patients getting sicker" that was based on a paper written and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine: Primary Care Visit Duration and Quality: Does Good Care Take Longer? Chen et al. Arch Intern Med.2009; 169: 1866-1872. (unfortunately subscription required). Apparently people are going to the doctor's office more often and for longer visits than 9 years ago. Whether this is because we need more medical attention or because there are more treatments available, the end result is the same as it is for imaging and radiology. Fewer resources spread over more work. In radiology the explosion of images (imagine the effect of single slice CT to 64 and more slices CT exams) has created less time to review per image for the number of radiologists available.

In medicine in general, if we the patient are consuming more time with more visits and for longer consultations - assuming the number of clinicians stays constant this should result in a decline in time per consultation. This represents a challenge in achieving the goals of modern healthcare

Two of the most pressing goals for the U.S. health care system are to deliver higher-quality care and to lower costs

Since most studies suggest that better care is linked to time spent with the clinicians - especially in complex cases. It turns out according to this study that

(they) found no evidence for the commonly held belief that physicians are spending less time with their patients or that quality of care has diminished

Time spent had increased from 18 minutes per consultation to 20.8 minutes. The investigators discount clinicians inefficiency as the reason for the increase:

Although it is possible that physicians are becoming less efficient over time, it is far more likely that visit duration has increased because it takes more resources or time to care for an older and sicker population

And while I think the complexity has increased in care delivery I think it is far more likely a combination of both (complexity of care and inefficiencies in the clinical care system) contributing to increase in time necessary to spend with the patient. Unfortunately much of this inefficiency is the new clinical systems and the complexity of capturing the information that has added significantly to the time required. No doubt we will see more studies that segment the time in more detail. In fact in some results published in this article in the Healthcare Ledger (Medical Transcription Relevance in the EHR Age - warning pdf) a study suggested that documentation time had quadrupled adding more than 110 minutes per day!

There is consensus on the value of clinical systems and digital information in particular the opportunity of providing more useful data at the time of the doctor-patient interaction. But it was clear from recent discussions that there is a divide in the way in which doctors and clinical staff should interact with these systems to capture and record information. There are those who view additional resources appropriate for assisting (Moving Transcription Back into the Hospital). And there are those that see a need for a change in approach and style to adapt to this process and incorporate into the doctor-patient interview. My own personal experiences support both answers. In some instances the interaction with the clinical system forces a change in the way doctors interact with patients and the process, work flow, methods and materials suit a new way of working. But in a recent experience at a clinician specialist's office (in this case a pulmonologist) it was very clear watching the interaction and in particular the flexibility and dynamic nature of the paper based note taking that any imposition of a digital system would not only slow the consultation to a grinding halt but would reduce the information captured dramatically. This is not to suggest that there is not (or will not be) a solution to this problem but the "standard" digital note capture system would be hopeless in this setting and be quickly rejected.

The comments to the article demonstrate some of the strong feelings - those of doctors overwhelmed with administrivia

Patients are NOT sicker and Doctors are slower, but only because of the inordinate amount of documentation required. My office note 40 years ago might have been: Sore throat-----Penicillin. We all knew what a sore throat was and that Penicillin was prescribed. In contrast Today's visit must include all vital signs, past history, a history of the presenting complaint, history of allergy, plus a rather extended physical exam, otherwise we do not get paid by the insurance companies or the Government. I used to see 50 or more patients a day and see them very well. Now, with all the rules I"m lucky to see 30 and am exhausted after doing so.
Dr. Michel Hirsch, FP, FAAFP (1967-present)
Donaldsonville, LA.

and the patients who feel they are getting less at a higher cost

I must live on another planet. Nurses have always performed all of the routine stuff like vital signs etc. I am 54 years old and have type 1 diabetes. I have never had a doctor spend more than 10 minutes with me, ever. It's usually 5 minutes and $70.

Both are right - doctors are required to do more in less time and patients are getting less. I like many others buy the vision of electronic medical records but perhaps not exactly as they exist today. The current large scale implementations and clinical systems struggle to account for the variations in specialties and their needs and while there is some element of best of breed approach many shy from this concept given the historical challenges of integration and intelligent sharing of information between systems from different providers. Things have improved - Healthstory (using HL7 CDA) as an example of an open standard that allows sharing of clinical data. This is a journey not a destination....and if there is a destination Ill bet that will be constantly changing! The challenge in the coming months and years will be guiding the beleaguered, over worked and underpaid clinicians through the maze of systems, their features and functions and helping them adapt their technology to their practice and vice versa.

How important is the digital record and if given the choice of doctors with and without what would you choose. For the practicing physicians that has an electronic medical record - is it a good or bad experience. For doctors still working in the paper world - can you see this changing or are your needs met currently and cannot be sustained in any of the digital models you've seen?

Moving Transcription Back Into the Hospital

What's old is new again......A recent article in USA Today (High-tech 'scribes' help transfer medical records into electronic form) highlighted the latest innovation in healthcare documentation - "High-Tech Scribes" who help "transfer medical records into electronic form. Is it just me or does that sound like something that is already going on in the electronic documentation industry with medical transcription and editing for the last 20+ years?

The challenge of capturing clinical documentation in digital format have remained the same and the continued struggle of adoption is highlighted by the poor adoption rate of electronic medical record systems

Today, only 1.5% of hospitals have a "comprehensive" electronic health record, and 8% have a basic version, according to Jha's March study in The New England Journal of Medicine. Most hospitals are intimidated by the cost, which can range from $20 million to $200 million.

Pretty poor given how long the industry has been working on this and despite the length of time still no clear exchange format or standard to facilitate the sharing of information

because there are no common standards for these records, doctors who do implement electronic charts may not be able to share them with a hospital across the street

But the value of digitizing medicine and implementing these systems has been clearly established and the terrifying level of errors that do occur as detailed in the landmark "To Err is Human - Building a Safer Health System" published in 2001 and many follow on reports and studies including he 2005 Health Affairs study that reported:

The country could eliminate 200,000 drug mistakes and save $1 billion a year if doctors in all hospitals entered their orders on computers

Despite these drivers we are still languishing in single digits of adoption and continue to struggle to roll out healthcare technology that effectively improves quality and safety without crushing efficiency and effectiveness of clinicians. So the University of Virginia Doctors elected to employ "scribes" to document the clinical encounter and these individuals such as:

Leiner, 22, a University of Virginia graduate who plans to apply to medical school

Who follow the doctors around and capture the clinical interaction on laptops. The consensus appears to be this will not catch on although a recent debate on the AMDIS list server offered some differing opinions that included some potential to reduce mistakes given the second set of eyes reviewing the documentation and the capture of the information real time with the patient. There is complexity in this approach made worse with gender conflicts (female patient and male scribe for example) but this approach appears to represent a modification of the current documentation process that uses dictation and transcription and perhaps offers some potential to free up clinicians to interact with patients rather than focusing on the clinical documentation and the electronic health record.

Moving the medical editor out of the bowels of the hospital just formalizes one of the well known methodologies in many transcription departments that attempts to link doctors to the same transcriptionists so they learn to "work together" (albeit remotely). This would make the bond stronger, the connection greater and the opportunity for error reduction using a trained and qualified "scribe" to document with the clinician. The medical editor is qualified, experienced and a highly knowledgeable resource that is currently disconnected from the clinical process.

Technology just becomes a facilitator in this process with speech understanding and speech recognition providing tools that can be used by one or both of the documentation team. The electronic medical record becomes integral to the documentation process. And although the real time aspects of alerts, evidence based medicine and the application of real time clinical knowledge to the interaction is still once removed from the physician the real time team documentation can provide direct access to the clinician through a combined approach to the capture and recording of the patient encounter.

How would you feel about a scribe being part of the clinician patient interaction - as the patient, as the clinicians or as the scribe?

Self Service Medicine

No doubt the title will raise a few eyebrows but there is a growing trend of self service in many other industries as detailed in this posting last month by Tim Egan at the NY Times - The Self Service City and also in this posting by David Strom - Surviving the Self Service Internet. In each of these pieces the authors describe the slow erosion of personal service in favor of automated systems and technologies. In almost all cases this is not for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the service provider. In the case of cameras "it turned out to be a revenue-generator" and the local government "took to it with a vengeance":

Who needs a human being when you can write ten times as many tickets without overtime pay?

But in fact as Tim points out

Numerous studies have found that robo-cams make intersections less safe. People panic knowing the camera is on them, trying to beat the recording click of their license plate. In Alexandria, Va., one study found that accidents increased 43 percent at intersections where cameras were used to enforce red lights.

But you won't find easy links to those studies as the governments have found a new way to tax the citizens thinly disguised in the name of safety. In fact this is subject to a concerted effort in my home state to combat the rising tide of cameras (you can find out more here)

And the story has been repeated with frightening frequency from the original trail blazer of ATM cash machines to check in desks at air lines. How about the local little league baseball match, even professional games umpired by cameras. Perhaps that is good news for healthcare as the industry is certainly currently in the face-to-face contact world. But there are moves to change this - this the latest in self service healthcare in the PBS piece - Bill of Health: Self Service Medicine. The concept is still in its infancy and centered around capturing registration and basic details but we are seeing the idea moving into the healthcare realm. It is hard to assess this and there are of course concerns expressed over the safety of such an enterprise since no "professional" will have reviewed or checked the information and diagnostic process. Equally the application of a good data base could actually apply more information to a consultation given the limited capacity of the human mind to recall all relevant information. In fact in a recent posting on online symptom checkers that took a look at a few of the same tools being offered in a self service world. No question there are challenges but some of the tools I have seen show great promise and even the potential to bring more data analysis to each and every consultation. Today your success and treatment choices are very much driven by the first touch. This is well demonstrated in oncology where your the likelihood of your treatment being surgical is much higher if the first person you see is a surgical oncologists. Similarly for radiation (radiation oncologist) and chemotherapy (medical oncologist) - yet we know that there are some clear benefits to the correct sequencing of treatments for best possible outcomes with minimal side effects

So is self service medicine a good or bad thing......I'm going with good. But for it to be effective patients need to have complete detailed health records that they own and have full and ready access to. Part of that ownership includes the need to provide useful translation of complex terms into more readily understood information that can be read, understood and processed by automated clinical tools. In other words patients need the full healthstory that they can read and feed into these systems.

Imagine the circumstance where you have an incidental finding on a routine x-ray that is ignored because it does not fall in the typical patient profile for the clinicians specialty that you are visiting. But feeding that information into an online personal health record provides additional background and alerts that make you a better more informed patient that can discuss the findings and determine the best next steps in conjunction with a clinician.

There are challenges of privacy, insurance and even excess investigation but like your airline flight.... wouldn't you rather know why the aircraft is sitting on the ground or should the pilot just assume that he knows best and keeping you informed is unnecessary until such time as he is certain on the reason and the possible outcome. I know which one I prefer - full and complete disclosure. Unpleasant news is always hard to take but prevention is a key element to successful treatment and outcomes and without full disclosure getting to that early diagnosis is will be that much harder and take longer.

Do you have personal experiences good or bad. Do you agree - online checkers or self service medicine is good - or perhaps you disagree and you think this should be stopped at all costs. Let me know

Proportional News Coverage - Skewing Health Perception

Our perception of health and risk is all wrong and instantly accessible media is one of the key reasons. The recent coverage locally in the Washington area demonstrates the point well. A quick Google search of "Metro Crash" in the news reveals a total of 6,132 results (no doubt this will increase over time). A tragedy occurred on the Washington DC Metro when one train collided with one car riding up and over the other. There were several fatalities (9 at the time of writing this post) and a range of injuries from severe to minor. Coverage in the hour long evening news on the night of the tragedy could be summarized as follows:

• Evening News Length: 60 Minutes
• Advertisements Time: ~20 mins
• Time dedicated to the Crash: 35 mins
• Time dedicated to remaining news: ~5 mins

This disproportionate level of attention skews our perception of risk. Anyone watching the news last night would find themselves focusing on the safety of the Metro system. A quick search for statistics (interestingly the Wiki Page on the Washington DC Metro's Security and Safety had already been updated with details of the latest crash!) reveals a list of accidents but no suggestion of significant problems or challenges facing this system. In fact the overwhelming commentary suggests "The DC Metro has a very good safety record". When compared to data on Traffic Fatality Rates for DC:

• Traffic's most recent data for 2007: 44 fatalities (US total fatalities 41,059)
• DC Metro 15 (subject to change based on the most recent crash) over the last 20 years

Healthcare is the same and our perception of risk is skewed based on media coverage and our own personal experiences. If the news media gave proportional coverage based on risk and causes of death it might look something like this

• Evening News Length: 60 Minutes
• Advertisements Time: ~20 mins
• Time dedicated to the Heart Failure and Cancer: 20 mins
• Time dedicated to Cerebrovascular Disease: 4 mins
• Time dedicated to remaining causes of death 6 mins
  

How can technology help - in this instance it appears not to be. The instant availability of news, our ability to blog and tweet the latest information and the way in which information can take on a life of its own (can anyone say Swine Flu H1N1). We need to filter information and it is the link to our clinician that helps provider that input and balance. Id be the first to encourage everyone to be their own primary care practitioner - in fact I said so last week but this has to be balanced with appropriate input from trained experienced professionals. There are a range of tools to help diagnose problems including some online symptom checkers and they have a place in the range of choices available to us. But this is not about replacing the education and experience of your clinical team. This is about supporting them with appropriate information.

In a recent discussion with a clinical colleague he was adamant that clinicians must use technology and clinical systems to be able to deliver better and safer care. I agree that technology must be used to help support the decision making - in fact I think it is as much about information as it is about technology. Technology just helps bring the information closer to the decision making point. This can be as simple as patients searching for information and bringing in printed material to the consultation (I know to some clinicians this is their nightmare but I remain convinced that there is no stronger more dedicated advocate for the successful outcome than the patient themselves).

But getting to this data and providing it not only in digital form but better yet in a form that can be consumed and processed by electronic systems takes this to the next level. Linking this information to the full Healthstory allows for some automated processing and relevance mark up that will help in filtering useful from distracting data.

Personal health management includes the capture of information and the intelligent sharing of this between the patient, the clinician and clinical systems. This is a team approach and the team will help balance the perception of risk. Finding balance is one of the keys to navigating through life. Have you found balance and if so how. What's your perception of coverage, risk and the media coverage distorting our perception of risk.

Digital Medicine Not Fulfilling Promises

The electronic medical record and the digitization of the health care system is entering more main stream media and coverage as evidenced by the article in Business week - "The Dubious Promise of Digital Medicine". As they put it the companies are:

in a stimulus-fueled frenzy, are piling into the business

Neal Patterson from Cerner is quoted likening this to the

19th century land rush that opened his native Oklahoma to homesteaders

If that analogy is correct then much of the activity is individuals and companies tuned to their favorite radio station WIFM...What's in it For Me? There are some interesting quotes including the suggestion from GE that they will "Leapfrog the competition" by not only replacing paper but "guiding doctors to the best, least-costly treatment". Now this is an interesting concept tied to Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) that has been around for centuries dating back even to Greece but has more recently attracted attention given the greater availability of data and the tools to process it. But as the piece highlights this rare consensus in Washington conceals the

checkered history of computerized medical files and (is) drowning out legitimate questions about their effectiveness. Cerner, based in Kansas City, Mo., and other industry leaders are pushing expensive systems with serious shortcomings, some doctors say. The high cost and questionable quality of products currently on the market are important reasons why barely 1 in 50 hospitals has a comprehensive electronic records system, according to a study published in March in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only 17% of physicians use any type of electronic records

In fact the 17% probably over states the actual usage as other reports suggest that while 17% of clinicians have purchased these systems there is a further gap in actual use bringing this down to a lower 7-9% in actual use.

In fact as David Kibbe points out

"Most big health IT projects have been clear disasters. This [digital push] is a microcosm for health-care reform....Will the narrow special interests win out over the public good?"

And nowhere has the challenge and in particular the failures been more apparent than in the UK's National Health Service (NHS) that has spent billions on the NPfIT program but has little to show for it.

But the attraction of large sums of money are hard to avoid, especially in the current economic climate and Allscripts CEO Glen Tullman like many, but perhaps with better access given his established relationship with President Obama, are vying for their share of the cash. McKesson have a slew of lobbyists to push their agenda and "building on existing technologies". Epic inevitably promotes the one system from one vendor with the corresponding price tag.

But implementation of these systems remains a challenge and the paper from 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association: Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors (abstract here - full article requires subscription) linked errors not to fatigue but to the order entry system. Many subsequent studies support this and even suggest that once the error is introduced these systems have a tremendous effect on perpetuating and proliferating these errors into more health records. The most recent article from the New England Journal of Medicine hammers home the point on the adoption of these systems - "Use of Electronic Records in US Hospitals" (it's available here in full as a pdf) and reports that 1.5% of hospitals have a comprehensive EMR!

So where is this all going - uphill but with multiple interested and vested parties pushing. Part of the push has to come from the users and making these systems intuitive and easy to navigate should be a basic requirement. Requiring days or weeks of training suggests design problems in my mind. Creating interfaces that engineers like does not necessarily translate into a busy clinical setting. Usability, data capture methods and tools and above all workflow optimization that fits into our current future clinical practice will be critical. Just implementing the technology never delivered the value and it has been this historical method that we must recover from and show a smarter more user friendly system.

Anyone should be able to navigate and use an EHR, clinical knowledge resources and these healthcare systems but using them for greatest effect will require more understanding on the part of our current clinicians and support from the plethora of ancillary services and staff who contribute to the functioning healthcare delivery system. To borrow from one of my favorite innovative and error free industries - the airline industry: It is the whole team from design, construction, build, maintenance and ongoing support of airlines that makes the captain do a fantastic job. Take Capt Sully Sullenberger - his actions were truly awe inspiring but without everything around him doing what it was supposed to do and all the hours of training and support he received the outcome might have been very different. As a true hero and consummate professional while accepting praise he has been quick to credit others.

Healthcare is similar and in the old adage - "there is no I in team". We must all do our part in enabling the delivery of high quality healthcare - EMR's and Healthcare IT is one part of that which we do need to get right.