Thanks Loree, Questionnaire surveys are always plagued by this problem
of wanting to know (prove or disprove) what they already know rather
than what more they may need to know.
This is i guess because they are painstakingly (for both questioned
and questioning participants) working step by step to disprove/prove
their hypothesis.
The other approach as hinted at by Dan would be to not ask but make
sense of what is being documented daily by all stakeholders. Much of
this today is being done openly on the web giving rise to newer
definitions of 'health-care-transparency' as well as that of 'patient
privacy.'
regards,
rakesh
On 7/30/11, Kalliainen, Loree K <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In my system, we use Picker: a survey mechanism with about 30 questions sent
> randomly to patients about all aspects of care. It isn't as helpful as you
> would hope. It's really expensive, time intensive, and provides data of
> debatable utility. "I would have liked it better if they had cookies." was
> one comment I read. One of my patients said that they would not use the
> office again "because i have no intention of breaking my hand again". We
> have been able to get some helpful data and each quarter we puzzle over what
> it all means without blinding realization.
>
> Sent from my HTC smartphone
>
> ________________________________
> From: Djulbegovic, Benjamin <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Patients worse off with more-experienced docs? In a study that
> flies in the face of common sense, sicker patients turned out to fare worse
> under the care of seasoned doctors than when newcomers to medicine looked
> after them.
>
> Rakesh, I could not agree more. And, further to your point, I think primary
> outcome in the studies like these should be decision(s), not hospital length
> of stay ( influenced by zillion factors, but particularly by caregivers who
> may have more sympathetic ear when talking to more senior people) or
> in-hospital mortality ( also influenced by many factors, including patient's
> co-morbidities or his/her preferences ).
> Ben
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 5:22 AM, "Rakesh Biswas"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ben, Clearly we need more data to understand what really happened
> with those who had poorer outcomes. What were those micro-level information
> transactions between all the stakeholders involved that led to those
> decisions which generated a poorer outcome.
>
> Currently i guess one approach ( presently apparent on this list) is to
> speculate, form hypothesis and plan to test them individually at a later
> date but wouldn't it have been more insightful if we had all the
> micro-information data generated ( but not recorded?) between patients (what
> did they or their relatives think of their caregivers particularly about the
> care that they were receiving?), various levels of caregivers ( even patient
> relatives are a level of caregiver and may have influenced outcomes by small
> omissions or commissions?), system administrators who are supposed to be
> monitoring processes ( other than researchers?)?
>
> regards,
>
> rakesh
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Djulbegovic, Benjamin
> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> I doubt that any of the postulated mechanisms operate here. This does not
> appear to be an issue of knowledge vs. judgments (experience, wisdom)
> although the main assumption of the paper is that there is a relationship
> between decision-making and outcomes.
> Even one assumes a perfectly balanced groups (always a problem for non-RCTs
> studies), and a well done statistical analysis (which appears to be a
> questionable here as the authors did not appear to have applied the
> hierarchical models to take account of dependency in the co-variates between
> the team members) the major hypothesis addressed by the paper is that the
> senior, attending physicians (in charge of HIERARCHICALLY organized teams
> that consist of 5 junior doctors) is responsible for all hundred decisions
> that are being made when his/her team takes care of patients. While
> attending physicians are morally and legally responsible for what happens to
> the patients, in actuality the decisions (and procedures) are all done by
> the junior doctors. But, the style among attending physicians dramatically
> vary- some are very hands-off and reluctant to micro-manage while others are
> very engaged, wishing to exert as maximum control on decision-making
> process as possible. So, even if I believe that this is a well done and
> analyzed study, the way I interpret the results is that the outcomes in
> patients taking care by the junior doctors who had the oversight by more
> senior attending physicians were inferior to those who were overseen by less
> senior attending physicians.
> I wonder what were educational experience (satisfaction) of these two groups
> of the junior doctors?
> Ben Djulbegovic
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 5:13 PM, "Jim Walker"
> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not an expert, but I believe the literature in cognitive psychology
>> demonstrates beyond serious question that humans don't learn when they are
>> tired, and especially when they don't get sleep. For that reason, one of
>> the critical factors to try to correct for in studies like the one we're
>> discussing and in any plan for addressing the problem (that goes beyond
>> exhorting people to be life-long students) would be to understand how work
>> hours and sleep affect physician performance long-term.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James M. Walker, MD, FACP
>> Chief Health Information Officer
>> Geisinger Health System
>>
>>
>>>>> "Kalliainen, Loree K"
>>>>> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>> 7/29/2011 4:15 PM >>>
>> Stephen;
>> Sad and possibly true. I remember being told ad nauseum during training
>> that physicians are life-long students and that what we learned in med
>> school would inevitably change. Looks like not all of us learned this,
>> remembered it or took it to heart. Being a student is challenging, and
>> changing established practice patterns even moreso. it will be
>> interesting to watch how (if) the necessity to maintain board
>> certification to retain hospital privileges affects the ability of
>> physicians to be life-long learners, and, by extension, allows patient
>> outcomes to be consistent no matter the age of the physician. One could
>> hope that, with the addition of wisdom, outcomes could improve with the
>> duration in practice!
>> Loree K. Kalliainen, MD, FACS
>> St. Paul, MN
>> (9 yrs in training, 11 in practice)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Evidence based health (EBH)
>> [mailto:<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> On Behalf Of Stephen Senn
>> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 3:00 PM
>> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Patients worse off with more-experienced docs? In a study
>> that flies in the face of common sense, sicker patients turned out to fare
>> worse under the care of seasoned doctors than when newcomers to medicine
>> looked after them.
>>
>> It may not be true but if true I think that there is a simple explanation.
>> Medics don't learn by interacting with patients because the feedback is
>> not quick enough. To learn would require them to make extensive notes and
>> regularly analyse and compare. The last time they had a chance to learn
>> was in med school, hence the younger the more up to date.
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> Stephen Senn
>>
>> Professor of Statistics
>> School of Mathematics and Statistics
>> Direct line: +44 (0)141 330 5141
>> Fax: +44 (0)141 330 4814
>> Private Webpage: <http://www.senns.demon.co.uk/home.html>
>> http://www.senns.demon.co.uk/home.html
>>
>> University of Glasgow
>> 15 University Gardens
>> Glasgow G12 8QW
>>
>> The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Evidence based health (EBH)
>> [<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> On Behalf Of Paul Elias
>> [<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> Sent: 28 July 2011 21:13
>> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Patients worse off with more-experienced docs? In a study that
>> flies in the face of common sense, sicker patients turned out to fare
>> worse under the care of seasoned doctors than when newcomers to medicine
>> looked after them.
>>
>> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-patients-worse-off-idUSTRE76E62T20110715>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-patients-worse-off-idUSTRE76E62T20110715
>>
>>
>>
>> According to findings in the American Journal of Medicine, patients whose
>> doctors had practiced for at least 20 years stayed longer in the hospital
>> and
>> were more likely to die compared to those whose doctors got their medical
>> license in the past five years.
>>
>> no doubt this raises serious questions and supports the evidence based
>> approach
>> and the need for doctors to remain seasoned and in touch with not just the
>> needs
>> of the patient but the updated science.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Paul E. Alexander
>>
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual
>> responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be
>> advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use,
>> dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
>> prohibited.
>>
>> If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the
>> HealthPartners Support Center by telephone at (952) 967-6600. You will be
>> reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us.
>> HealthPartners R001.0
>>
>>
>> IMPORTANT WARNING: The information in this message (and the documents
>> attached to it, if any) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It
>> is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone
>> else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
>> disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken, or omitted to be
>> taken, in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
>> received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of
>> this message (and the documents attached to it, if any), destroy any hard
>> copies you may have created and notify me immediately by replying to this
>> email. Thank you.
>
>
|