Tag Archives: health care

The case for a cowboy.

For the last several years, I have been using Dr. Atul Gawande’s graduation speech to the Harvard Medical School Class of 2011 (“Cowboys and Pit Crews) in teaching about the evolution of health care delivery I have witnessed over my years in practice.

When my medical career began (during Reagan’s first presidential term), hierarchical “parallel mono-disciplinary” care was the typical patient’s experience, where a patient was passed between specialists and hospitals until someone (hopefully) took the time to sit down and listen to their journey, piece together the story, mine the available paper records and validate the patient’s concerns with a reasonable differential diagnostic and therapeutic plan. This pattern of care delivery continues in many settings today.

In the closing decades of the last century we moved forward considerably with multidisciplinary (multiple specialties looking at the same patient at the same time, often in the same clinical space) and interdisciplinary teams (multiple specialties looking at the same patient at the same time, including the voice of patient and family, and agreeing on a single patient and family-centered set of treatment goals).

More recently, we have increasingly recognized that health is more than the absence of disease. The true drivers of health are determined by the 8,759 hours a year our patients spend at home in their community rather than the roughly one hour a year the average American spends in a provider’s office. In the future, the individual and population’s health will be addressed by a new model of integrated, community-care teams that include health care professionals but also community navigators and service providers as equal partners who are able to address issues like housing, food security, employment and economics. (But that’s the subject for another post.)

Time has proven that Dr. Gawande was right. The future of health care depends on our ability to function like pit crew teams with broad, horizontal, flexible, situational leadership structures.

But for the past several weeks, I wish we had a cowboy.

Not long ago, a close family member was diagnosed with an aggressive, fatal condition. Unfortunately, we had to derive some of that diagnosis and prognosis from our own research, from combing through the on-line patient portal, using search engine AI and by reaching out to physicians through the “doctor-to-doctor” informal communication system.

The ambulatory provider who had cared for this family member for decades was not a part of the hospital team. The inpatient health care team members were attentive and empathetic. The leader of every team—nursing and physician—met with us. But no one seemed to be willing to address the bigger picture.

I know from my many years practicing pediatric intensive care that there is no joy in delivering terrible news. I recognized in myself long ago the subconscious tendency to avoid this unpleasant, uncomfortable task. I doubt I am alone. And so, we are all at risk to abrogate (“evade a responsibility or duty”) and thus abdicate (“fail to undertake a responsibility or duty”) when it comes to sharing bad news.

This can be compounded by aspects of team-thinking, including a tendency to defer to other specialties when higher-level conversations are needed. The trend towards “super-specialization” may contribute to the practice of leaving some of the tough conversations surrounding death and dying to the palliative or hospice care teams. But they should be invited into the treatment team after these difficult conversations have taken place and not before.

As strangers to the hospital and staff, what we needed was one person.

What we were missing was a cowboy.

We did not need the old-school bluster, swagger, arrogance or patriarchal condescension that occasionally characterized physicians of my era and before. For example, I was told that just before I started my first job in the seventies as a hospital technician in a coronary care unit, the nurses were expected to stand when the senior physician walked onto the unit. That’s not the kind of “cowboy” we were looking for.

We needed a consistent, straight-shooting clinical leader who helped prepare us as a family to make difficult decisions about our loved one’s treatment and outcomes; one voice to whom we knew we could turn over the weeks that this disease took its toll and perhaps even beyond, when the inevitable second guessing becomes an element of grieving. It could have been a person from any specialty. While the hospital inpatient physician and nursing teams justifiably rotated on a daily and weekly basis, we needed someone whom we saw every day, who checked on us and helped us understand the evolving clinical situations in the context of the bigger picture.

Hospitals are infinitely safer, more compassionate, and better organized than when my medical career began in the eighties. The evolution, promulgation and proliferation of healthcare teams has without question been a key driver of these improvements. We would no more go back to the stoic, isolated, aloof physician as sole decision maker than we would give up the electronic medical record to return to paper and pen.

Health care teams are the future of medicine, in clinical settings and in the community.

But sometimes, at specific points across the span of life, we still need consistent, visible leadership.

I think we still need cowboys.

Chuck Callahan Henry V 4.3 – Lead from the Front   https://henryv43.com/

7 Comments

Filed under health care leadership, Organizational Leadership

The Bat-Phone and Leader Presence

Recently I had the opportunity to speak to the mother of an infant hospitalized with respiratory illness in a hospital in another state. She was the daughter of a friend of a relative but it was a joy to speak to her, talk through some of her concerns and reassure her that from what she was telling me, she was in good hands. (Her baby did well!)

In the course of the conversation, I remembered that I knew a senior physician at the hospital and I send him a quick text. By the time I caught up with him a little while later, he had already been to the patient’s room. He missed the baby’s mother but left his card with his cell-phone number in case she needed anything.

His generous gesture reminded me of the “Bat-Phone” we instituted when I was a hospital CEO (Commander) a decade or so ago. I am relatively sure that I stole the idea from Quint Studer or another of the quality and patient experience gurus to whom we owe so much of the great things we were able to do at that facility while we were shaping a “Culture of Excellence.” We shared the Bat-Phone cell phone number with all of our staff, our hospitalized and ambulatory patients – probably thousands of people. I carried the phone with me every day. It was a visible symbol of our efforts to be accessible to our staff and patients. In addition to the phone number, we also had a link on our public and internal websites where people could reach out to the CEO by email directly. Continue reading

6 Comments

Filed under General Leadership, Personal Leadership, Uncategorized

Population Health: Capital and Lower Case “P”

The term “population health” entered my vernacular in the late nineties when I was a new pediatric department chief and our hospital director of quality introduced me to the term. Like most clinicians I was a pretty good medical “tactician” in the ICU, the clinic, and on the hospital ward. But I didn’t consider the bigger “strategic” outcomes of groups of patients often enough. This changed.

The department and hospital took on pediatric asthma in our population and saw the hospitalization rate for our patients drop by two thirds. (In fairness, it was also the beginning of the era of “asthma control” so there were more tools available.) We championed telemedicine systems that provided pediatric subspecialty consultation for children six time zones and thousands of miles away and monitored children with asthma in their homes over the relatively new Internet. After helping to run health care facilities and systems for the Army and working in a few health care systems overseas, I was fortunate to begin work as a hospital executive focused on population health in an urban medical center.

These past two years I have been mentored by health care and community leaders regarding the impact of the social determinants of health (e.g. housing, education, food security, jobs, transportation) on the health and well-being of those living in the communities surrounding our hospital. These social determinants comprise up to 80% of the factors influencing health outcomes. In many cases the journey to ill-health in adulthood began for our adult patients in infancy or even earlier with insufficient or absent prenatal care.

Infant mortality for babies born in one neighborhood a half-mile from our hospital is ten times what it is five miles away in another part of town. Life expectancy is nearly twenty years shorter. Efforts to affect the long-term outcome of the two-dozen or so babies born in our city every day over the course of their lifetime include addressing their health care access and quality and the disparities that drive these outcomes. Even more importantly, efforts must address the social determinants that impact their health: Population Health with a capital “P.”Pop Health Triangle 15 Oct 17 b

But in my new position I soon became aware of a tension in the understanding of population health. Early in my tenure someone referred to the patients frequenting the ER and hospital wards as “PAUers,” (“potentially avoidable utilization”). Other names that I continue to hear for these patients include “high-utilizers,” “frequent-flyers,” and even very recently “train-wrecks.” There is no question that health care facilities, payers and practices must address the high health care utilization of these patients who struggle with a tremendous burden of complex, chronic disease. By some estimates, 5% of our population consume 50% of health care resources.

What has become clear is that many discussions of population health in healthcare facilities center almost exclusively on the peak of the risk/care consumption pyramid: population health with a lower case “p.” While the health of these individuals is as important as that of anyone else on the pyramid, a focus on small “p” population health can sometimes become centered on how this population affects the healthcare institution. In this case solutions are driven by investments in the healthcare system and tend towards short-term goals and short-cycle return on investment. Small “p” population health is generally seen through the healthcare system lens and its effectiveness is measured using system-based interventions and metrics (e.g. readmission rates, ER utilization, etc.)

In contrast, Population Health with a capital “P” focuses on the base of the risk or utilization pyramid where people are not accessing health care but where they are making decisions that will ultimately impact their health. At the base of the pyramid the focus should be on how healthcare organizations – particularly those that serve as anchor institutions in urban or rural settings – can through intervention and influence positively affect the health & well-being of the population.

The expectation is a strategy that affects multiple generations over multiple generations; long-term goals and long-cycle return on investment that require community leadership and prioritization. With efforts seen through the lens of the health care recipient rather than the system, it is measured by the effectiveness of community-based interventions and metrics. And where small “p” population health tends toward blaming the patient and being pejorative, capital “P” Population Health with its focus and resources invested in the community has the potential to be restorative.

There is no doubt that American healthcare must address both small “p” and capital “P” population health. But we must be careful not to allow the economic urgency of the peak of the utilization pyramid to hijack our opportunity to invest in the health and well-being of those who are yet at the pyramid’s base.

They may not remain at the base of the pyramid.
But for their sake, for our communities and for our health care systems, we must do all we can to see that they do.

Chuck Callahan Henry V 4.3 – Lead from the Front      https://henryv43.wordpress.com/

6 Comments

Filed under Organizational Leadership

Litter and Lists: the forest from the trees

This Christmas season I am learning my leadership lessons at an Ebola Treatment Unit (ETU) in Sierra Leone.  It has been a privilege to be caring for wonderful people with brave national medical staff and a cadre of international health care professionals.  It is a horrible disease and the medical system in this nation has been strained as any health care system would be.  For those of us who have joined the fight it has been an exercise in delivering care in crisis.

The ETU where I work is a relatively new center as are most of the facilities caring for patients with Ebola in this country.  There was no care delivery center here two months ago. The site was developed and staffed rapidly and patients began coming right away.  Although there are limited resources available, the pocesses and procedures are evolving even as the center cares for increasing numbers of patients.

It has been an exercise in examining our natural response to crisis.

These thoughts came to me as I was picking up trash.

Trash in the hospital or on the hospital grounds is an obsession for me.  Even today when I visit hospitals I find myself picking up litter from the ground. My wife reminds me quietly, “This is not your hospital” but it seems that I can’t help myself.  I notice it.  What is on the ground to me is a reflection of what the hospital staff think about themselves and what they do.  It is one of the “cultural indicators” that I have adopted for assessing a new organization.  When I arrived in Sierra Leone at the ETU one of the first things that I noticed was litter.  And my need to address is led to an observation about myself.

My reflection came in the context of noticing that a significant number of my new colleagues began making patient lists on their computers.  There are several score patients in the unit but none of us are responsible for all of them.  Still, a number of staff members generate complete computerized lists and update them daily.  One colleague poured himself into a policy on standardizing an emergency procedure.  Another worked hard on specific nursing policy.  Each effort represents a tactical exercise; a task we can do and feel that we have completed something.  Medical professionals are inherently tactical by nature: we tend to see our practice one patient, one hospital or operating room bed, on examination room at a time.

It struck me that we naturally revert to our tactical natures when we attempt to exercise leadership in crisis.  It is not necessarily bad.  As soldiers we were taught to enhance our fighting positions (aka “foxholes”) continually.  And frankly the only fight that we really needed to pay attention to was the one that took place right in front of us.

But leadership requires us to be aware of a bigger picture.  Our tendency to “be tactical” will trump our need to see and operate strategically.  If as leaders we don’t think and plan strategy it won’t get done.  I have seen that too many times.

Emerging from our foxholes may start with a general recognition of the battle beyond them.  In medicine, each patient has a family, the family is a part of a “clan” or extended family that is in turn a part of a community.  The patient also has a professional or social “clan,” a network of unrelated contacts. Together they represent regional and even global populations all potentially touched by the decisions we make about an individual patient.  This is very clearly true in the battle against this epidemic disease in Africa. But it is just as true in our hospitals and health care systems at home.

The absence of strategy is a strategy.  “Strategy abhors a vacuum.  If strategic function is lacking, strategic effect will be generated by the casual accumulation of tactical and operational outcomes” (Colin Gray). We will have a strategy in every endevour.  It is only a matter of whether we shape the strategy, or it shapes us.

Strategy begins with the regular discipline of looking beyond mere litter and lists.

Chuck Callahan – Lead from the Front – https://henryv43.wordpress.com

 

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized