Archive Page 120

Self-Driving Cars are Like Most EMRs

Drivers are distracted klutzes and computers could obviously do better. Self driving cars will make all of us safer on he road.

Doctors have spotty knowledge and keep illegible records. EMRs with decision support will improve the quality of healthcare.

The parallels are obvious. And so far the outcomes are disappointing on both fronts of our new war against human error.

I remember vividly flunking my first driving test in Sweden. It was early fall in 1972. I was in a baby blue Volvo with a long, wiggly stick shift on the floor. My examiner had a set of pedals on the passenger side of the car. At first I did well, starting the car on a hill and easing up the clutch with my left foot while depressing and then slowly releasing the brake pedal with my right forefoot and at the same time giving the car gas with my right heel.

I stopped appropriately for some pedestrians at a crosswalk and kept a safe distance from the other cars on the road.

A few minutes later, the instructor said “turn left here”. I did. That was the end of the test. He used his pedals. It was a one way street.

Three times this spring, driving in the dark between my two clinics, I have successfully swerved, at 75 miles (121 km) per hour, to avoid hitting a moose standing in the middle of the highway. Would a self driving car have done as well or better? Maybe, maybe not.

Every day I get red pop up warnings that the diabetic medication I am about to prescribe can cause low blood sugars. I would hope it might.

Almost daily I read 7 page emergency room reports that fail to mention the diagnosis or the treatment. Or maybe it’s there and I just don’t have enough time in my 15 minute visit to find it.

For a couple of years one of my clinics kept failing some basic quality measures because our hasty orientation to our EMR (there was a deadline for the incentive monies to purchase EMRs) resulted in us putting critical information in the wrong “results” box. When our scores improved, it had nothing to do with doing better for our patients, only clicking the right box to get credit for what we had been doing for decades before.

Our country has a naive and childish fascination with novelties. We worship disrupting technologies and undervalue continuous quality improvement, which was the mantra of the industrial era. It seems so old fashioned today, when everything seems to evolve at warp speed.

But the disasters of these new technologies should make us slow down and examine our motives. Change for the sake of change is not a virtue.

I know from my everyday painful experiences that EMRs often lack the most basic functionalities doctors want and need. Seeing a lab result without also seeing if the patient is scheduled to come back soon, or their phone number in case they need a call about their results, is plainly speaking a stupid interface design.

I know most EMRs weren’t created by doctors working in 15 minute appointments. I wonder who designed the software for self driving cars…

Getting it Right

There are many days in primary care when you feeel like you are treading water; nobody gets substantially better as time and disease progression seem to always win over your own and your patients’ efforts.

But sometimes you hit a winning streak. The past few weeks seemed to bring me one diagnostic or therapeutic coup after another.

There was the depressed man who came in smiling and said “I’m shaving again”.

There was the woman who was obviously doubting my assessment that the lip rash she had struggled with for two months was just a simple yeast infection.

I remember another woman with a moist, burning rash in every skin fold of her body. Because she also had some rough patches on her elbows, I suspected she didn’t have yeast at all but a bad case of inverse psoriasis. My seemingly counterintuitive choice of systemic steroids worked like a charm.

I thought back to the man with a stubborn back pain, who couldn’t even tolerate the simple exercises his physical therapist had suggested. Because he admitted to feeling depressed, at least about his chronic pain, I had given him a low dose of duloxetine. The other day, he told me he had felt better already after the first dose; he was spending time with his family again and his back hardly bothered him at all.

Then there was the woman who had fired the doctor who took her off hydrocodone. She certainly had a fair number of orthopedic issues, but her pain was really everywhere. This, along with tender trigger points and her history of poor sleep and profound fatigueabilty, led me to believe most of her pain was actually from fibromyalgia. On two capsules daily of the lowest dose of gabapentin, she had half the pain and double the hours of useful sleep. She was beaming at me the other day and shook my hand with he power of a lumberjack.

I also remember the man who came in depressed and angry with a tale of how everyone around him was withdrawing because of his pricklishness. He fit the criteria for Bipolar disorder, type 2, and between his new mood stabilizer and low dose antidepressant, he was back at work and back in his relationship.

All these small victories added up and gave me a renewed sense of being an effective catalyst through the basic application of observation, knowledge and, for lack of a better word, salesmanship.

It’s not enough to know what to do. How we present facts and formulate treatment plans is part of the therapy. A half-hearted “you might try this” is a lot less likely to work than explaining the diagnosis, describing the mechanism of action behind the symptoms and the medication and even the history behind the treatment.

I believe I made some very good treatment choices, but I also know that what we disparagingly call the placebo effect is always present to a degree, just like the opposite force, the nocebo effect.

I believe that presenting a medication as a very powerful tool that can both help or hurt, and emphasizing the need for skillful dosing and monitoring, you can create expectations and instill hope that helps build the neurobiological foundation for healing. There is more and more literature on that.

And as a doctor with a recent winning streak, I was at least a little bit emboldened over the last few days.

I remember talking with a new patient with longstanding anxiety, who didn’t want medication but seemed at least lukewarm to cognitive therapy. I explained quite a bit about how it works and what the evidence has shown about its effectiveness compared to unstructured forms of talk therapy. Near the end of our visit, he revealed his original intent: He wanted a letter for his landlord so he could get a dog, because he believed that would quell his anxiety.

I love dogs and I worry about people wanting dogs more for their own needs than the dog’s.

I leaned back, looked him in the eyes and said:

I’ll make a deal with you. You start therapy, and I’ll write you a note.

He was silent for a moment, then answered “okay”.

I was on a roll.

Primary Care Needs a New Business Model

Primary Care visits are never quick; we don’t give much advice over the phone or online; and we prioritize the Government’s and insurance companies’ public health agenda over our own patients’ concerns.

Imagine healthcare as a retail customer experience for a few minutes:

Imagine you’re going to Walmart to buy a bag of dog food, a new coffee maker or to equip a small kitchen in your newly built mother-in-law apartment.

1) You’ve bought dog food there before, so you know exactly where it is. You just want to quickly grab a bag and get out of there.

2) You have a rough idea of where the coffee makers are; you know some brands you trust, but you might have one or two questions before you select one, and if they don’t have one you like, you might get it somewhere else. Or, you might even check their website to see which models they carry.

3) For the new kitchen, you have a list, but know you probably haven’t thought of everything, so you plan to walk down the aisles in the kitchen and home departments. You plan to spend a fair amount of money, so you might be on the lookout for special sales or promotions. But, you definitely don’t want someone else to choose all the items for you.

Can Walmart meet your needs in all these situations? Probably yes.

Now, think about how your doctor’s office works:

1) Can you quickly get in and out if you have a simple problem like conjunctivitis?

2) Are they able to give you information on what your options are for a recurring shoulder dislocation; could they refer you to a shoulder specialist without first waiting weeks to see your primary care doctor?

3) You have lots of issues and try to get an appointment to deal with them all at once; you think of it as a physical, but last time you had a physical, your doctor brought up all kinds of things you don’t particularly see as priorities for yourself.

Here are the existing realities of Primary Care:

We can’t afford to just see you for something quick. Our quality indicators, which more and more will determine how we get paid, will go down if we don’t screen you at every visit and offer interventions for depression, smoking, alcohol misuse, hypertension, weight management, immunization needs and much more.

We won’t refer you without seeing you, and we often hesitate giving you medical advice over the phone. Our providers are not scheduled for anything else besides seeing patients, because the rules of how we are paid still emphasize face-to-face visits over “population management”. So our providers are busy all day long seeing patients for visits that could have been simple but are loaded up with mandatory screenings and interventions and our medical assistants, besides being busy with all our screening questionnaires, are discouraged from giving medical advice they aren’t formally trained to provide.

Is there a doctor shortage?

We are said to have a doctor shortage. We have an aging population with more and more chronic diseases, like diabetes and heart disease. The need for skilled and experienced medical providers is continually increasing.

We have no Public Health system to speak of in this country, so the Government, through Medicare and Medicaid, has mandated that health care providers do the things the Public Health system does in other countries.

This is, plain and simple, what is clogging up the works in healthcare today: Too much non-doctor work is crammed into each patient visit, and we can’t charge for giving advice or directing care except in a face-to-face visit.

You don’t need to go to medical school to give immunizations, tell people smoking is bad for you, explain that “low fat” foods cause obesity, or promote regular exercise. You don’t even need to be a doctor, PA or NP to screen for high blood pressure – only to treat it. (Some pundits, in utter desperation, have suggested we send pharmacists to school to learn how to treat hypertension, but there are of course plenty of licensed medical providers who are able and willing to do that if we get freed up from the less-skilled tasks I just listed above.)

Patients and doctors have no control

Now, why are we doing all those things we do if they are so inefficient? Quite simply, whoever pays us has the power to define our work. We call that “Health Insurance”, but that is not exactly what we are dealing with. Insurance, for home, auto or employer liability, has nothing to do with predictable events or minor issues. Your car insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes or tire wear, not even for a minor paint scratch. But somehow that is what we expect health insurance to cover for our bodies. In terms of auto insurance, most people probably figure an insurance job carries an inflated price tag and lots of paperwork. The same is true for health care, which should not be a surprise to anyone.

For example, years ago the overhead cost of insurance billing for each primary care doctor was reported to be $80,000. That, put very plainly, is money that patients and employers are ultimately paying through premiums and deductibles.

And all the mandated screenings are there because Medicare in particular has the right to micromanage doctors’ work because they are paying for healthcare visits, which could be quicker and less costly if patients had control over their healthcare spending.

How could we do better?

We do three things in primary care, each with its own workflow and, really, each with its own economics.

1) We could do our part of Public Health more effectively. Allow us to promote immunizations and other primary preventions outside our already crammed fifteen-minute visits. Pay us a per patient per year stipend to reach out to target populations through mail, phone web or, when appropriate, in person about general health issues. Stop imagining we can do all of it and still treat diseases, acute and chronic, in our measly fifteen minutes. Right now, that is just clicking boxes with little actual substance. Use some of the Government money that should have been spent on a working Public Health system if you want us to step in and do the Government’s work.

2) Make it economically feasible for medical providers to oversee patient care by acknowledging that reading incoming reports, answering phone or web inquiries and coordinating care with specialists and hospitals are essential parts of being a medical home for patients. Such activities should not be unpaid services eked out at the expense of lunch, bathroom breaks or dinner with our families.

3) Allow us to define each office visit together with our patients. It is insulting to everyone involved to have to interrogate someone with a splitting headache, twisted ankle or bleeding laceration about their diet and alcohol habits. I could see many more patients if I could delegate those things to outreach staff or simply not do it every visit. Right now we are made to act as if we will never see that patient again. I was trained to provide care over time, in a relationship based practice. That is proven to be an effective and fiscally sound way to deliver healthcare.

The third task is the only one that makes sense to pay us for on a per-visit basis, whereas the first two deserve their own payment method. Personally, I wonder if the first few hundred dollars worth of Primary Care visits are worth churning through the expensive bureaucratic insurance machinery, or if it wouldn’t make more sense to just allow each patients a set amount of spending at their discretion.

I am not writing about privately financed, Direct Primary Care or Concierge Medicine. Those obviously exist, and may work well for many people, but the healthcare payment options for most Americans are what desperately need fixing.

Only if we acknowledge that Public Health, Population Health and Face-to-Face visits are three separate aspects of health care can we move forward in reforming Primary Care. And only if we recognize and reimburse physicians’ non-face-to-face work fairly will we see the improved customer service and doctor-patient communications we are now only paying lip service to.

(This would also help reduce physician burnout, in case anyone didn’t realize that!)

Where would Google be if we had to make an appointment to sit down with a search consultant and pose our questions, fifteen minutes at a time? It may be an outlandish analogy, but healthcare needs some shaking up…

My Neurology Professor’s Migraines

He spoke with an aura of superiority, in a slightly nasal voice, and his topic was migraines. It was in the late 70’s, a time when there were few options to treat migraines.

“Most people who claim to have migraines just have simple tension headaches”, he scoffed. And in a move that seemed unorthodox at the time, he disclosed that he himself suffered from “real migraines”, so he knew all about this exclusive disease. He made it sound almost desirable by virtue of how rare it was.

At a Continuing Medical Education course in Boston twenty five years ago, I heard a different neurologist, this one a Dutchman, pronounce that most headaches are in fact migraines.

Today I read in The New York Times that, according to a study (published in Headache fourteen years ago) “primary care providers who diagnose a patient’s headaches as something other than migraine were usually wrong”.

The same article also points out that “sinus headaches” are not a medical reality, and are never diagnosed in Europe. Now that I think of it, I never did hear about this type of headache until I came here.

The whole notion that one explanation for a symptom is somehow more prestigious than another is bizarre, but I see this phenomenon here and there. Also, Americans seem to delight in using technical diagnostic terms instead of describing symptoms to each other or their doctors.

People come into my office all the time with “colitis”, “vertigo”, “eczema” or “bronchitis”, not just diarrhea, dizziness, rashes or coughs. It’s like somehow they don’t need me to do anything except release my power and prescribe for the condition they already know they have. Never mind that the real explanation may be giardiasis, a cerebellar stroke, psoriasis or lung cancer.

One of the reasons for the seemingly increasing prevalence of certain disease is, of course, the drug company ads for medications that come to market for rare or previously untreatable conditions.

Ironically, as an example of that, back at Uppsala University, I remember a cursory mention of Restless Leg Syndrome. “You can prescribe a little diazepam, that usually helps”, was the take-home message. Nobody mentioned that our own neurology professor, Karl-Axel Ekbom, who had retired he same year I started medical school, had described the syndrome, which had been alluded to by Willis in the 1600’s, and nobody seemed to make much of its association with iron deficiency.

It was with the introduction of medications like Mirapex and Requip that RLS rose from obscurity to everyday parlance.

Over the past few months I have encountered several patients who, even though they knew they had migraines, had never sought or been offered preventive treatment. There is much awareness of the many medications that treat attacks, and several of those have been cash cows for the pharmaceutical industry, whereas the preventative medications are generally old and inexpensive generics, which require patience and persistence to work.

With many diseases, and very much so with migraines, knowing the diagnosis and the names of some famous medications to treat it is not enough. How to select and titrate them is what we call the Art of Medicine.

Facial Recognition in My Own Practice?

After a Harvard Endocrinology course several years ago, I walked out into the weak afternoon spring sunshine and crossed the street to the Boston Public Garden. Among the multitude of faces of the other flaneurs I was certain I saw scores of people suffering from endocrine diseases – probably undiagnosed, I thought to myself:

I saw tall men with big jaws, typical of acromegaly; stout women with skinny extremities and flushed, puffy cheeks so typical of Cushing’s syndrome; hirsute, heavy set younger women sure to have polycystic ovary syndrome; long-legged beardless men, who seemed classic for Klinefelter’s; and other people I suspected to have Graves’ disease, Turner syndrome, hyperaldosteronism, Addison’s disease, and, oh, so many other obvious endocrinopathies.

Then back home, as the months and years passed, and as the never ending presentations of Chief Complaints continued, my internal search for and classification of possible endocrine diagnoses began to take second place in my hierarchy of what I needed to do.

Yes, Ellen W. does look like she might have Cushing but she has so many issues that it feels a little esoteric to bring this up, too, when her diabetes and mood are out of control, her mother is dying and her husband is still unemployed and her insurance isn’t paying for any of her medicines.

And even if Doreen Fish has primary hyperaldosteronism, she’s already on spironolactone for her low potassium and her blood pressure is okay; a CT scan would cost her so much out of pocket, never mind surgery, and what are the odds she has surgical disease – an adenoma and not just adrenal hyperplasia?

But then I read the news and I get curious again:

Artificial Intelligence and facial recognition are being used to diagnose or screen for genetic syndromes like DiGeorge and Williams; people are claiming to have identified facial features linked to autism spectrum disorders; psychiatry and general practice colleagues are sending out cheek swabs to help them prescribe psychiatric medications where I am “just” going by experience and intuition; and patients themselves are now looking into their own genetic profiles.

Shouldn’t I try to be more precise in this era of “precision medicine”? Definitely, with all the extra, mandated, ingredients in the primary care visit – screening for depression and alcohol use, clicking off BMI management and tobacco cessation counseling (not just doing them) – it is easy to slip away from just looking at your patients carefully into just glancing at them while also paying attention to the computer screen.

It takes some effort to consistently really look away from the computer, to clear your mind of all its distracting requirements, and to just observe the person in front of you – as if you just walked out of an Endocrinology lecture and looked at the faces of strangers, wondering:

What makes you look the way you look? Do you have a syndrome that guides your health and your appearance? Wouldn’t you, and your doctor, benefit from knowing that?


I just realized none of the posts show on an iPad or a computer, but they do show on an iPhone. WordPress is working on this. In the meantime, please visit my Substack.

 

 

Osler said “Listen to your patient, he is telling you the diagnosis”. Duvefelt says “Listen to your patient, he is telling you what kind of doctor he needs you to be”.

 

BOOKS BY HANS DUVEFELT, MD

CONDITIONS, Chapter 1: An Old, New Diagnosis

Top 25 Doctor Blogs Award

Doctor Blogs

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Mailbox

contact @ acountrydoctorwrites.com
Bookmark and Share
© A Country Doctor Writes, LLC 2008-2022 Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given.