Tagged: medicine
Things they didn’t teach in medical school: Part 17 Stuff nobody taught the patients
So this is a bit of a spin on the health literacy and communication problems I’ve previously commented on. One of the things that wasn’t taught in medical school is what the patients don’t know. Now at one level this seems obvious – I went to medical school to learn the stuff that you need to know to be a doctor and that separates the doctors (& nurses) from the patients. In fact we get taught all of the medical stuff but we aren’t taught what the patient’s understand.
Here are some comparisons:
Patient: A no sugar diet will starve the cancer
Doctor: Your body will put whatever you put into your mouth into sugar
Patient: Does freezing or drying deplete the anti-oxidant powers of blueberries?
Doctor: There is no evidence that anti-oxidants are beneficial – and they might be harmful
Patient: The cancer still might be curable (even though the patient is bed bounds and is on 3rd line therapy and has widely metastatic disease)
Doctor: The cancer isn’t curable and we can hope to provide good palliation
Health literacy is a big problem and it goes beyond reading the label on a prescription. Understanding illnesses, understanding the information on the internet, navigating the health system (making appointments & paying the bills) are all part of health literacy. Doctors need to know what their patients (& carers) don’t and help teach them.
Things they didn’t teach in medical school: Part 15 Resilience
1 in 5 physicians experiences emotional, psychological and physical damage related to burnout. The corollary to this is that many don’t experience burnout and manage to prevent it – why might consider these individuals to be resilient. Resilience should be taught in medical school and doctors need to recognise burnout in their peers and other staff.
Resilience can be defined as the “capacity to respond to stress in a healthy way such that goals are achieved at minimal psychological and physical cost”, i.e. in other words resilient individuals have the capacity to bounce back after stressors and set backs and potentially be stronger.
The current issue of Academic Medicine 2013 (88) has a nice article by Zwack and Schweitzer and an accompanying editorial by Epstein and Krasner that respectively identify and discuss the characteristics of the resilient physician:
– mindfulness
– self-monitoring
– limit setting
– & attitudes that promote constructive and healthy engagement with difficult challenges at work (rather than withdrawal or avoidance)
Some of these characteristics are teachable or coachable and should be considered as manatory in medical school.
Things the they didn’t teach in medical school part 14: the job interview
OK, so this isn’t specific to medicine.
People are bad at interviewing for jobs. Doctors are probably especially bad…because expectations are too uniform but the criteria are becoming harder.
The fact is, when you interview for a job in medicine you aren’t especially “special”. You think you are special, one in a million, but in China there are a thousand of you with the same skills.
If you want the job remember:
every day is a job interview.
Finding out what the employers want if half the interview.
Being adaptable is the other half.
Things They Didn’t Teach in Medical School Part 13: Understanding How Teams Work
Well this is a half truth. Teamwork is emphasized at medical school. But is it really taught the way it works in the real world. It is more theoretical than real In medical school you do team based exercises but these are largely with peers. In hospitals and other healthcare settings there is a mix – doctors, nurses, allied health and all of differing levels of seniority. And particularly in the hospital system there is pretty constant turnover of junior staff.
We examine the competency of individuals but not of teams or competency within a team.
Teams can become dysfunctional if there is one bad player or sometimes they continue to excel despite a poor team player – nobody really knows why.
For me the key issues are clear roles, inter-team member support (the buddy system) and a common purpose.
The Australian Local Health District Paradox or How Does One Assess LHD Board & CEO Performance
National Health Care Reform, and in fact all of Australian government, is built around the principle of subsidiarity – i.e. that delivery and implementation of services, and decisions concerning services should be made as close to the ‘coalface’ as reasonably possible. This has resulted in the creation of local health districts or LHD. The LHD receive a mixture of State and Federal funding that is predominantly administered through State ministries. The LHD governance consists of a Board and a CEO with his/her executive team.
The remit of the LHD Board is to ensure good management of the district and philosophically the Board must protect, and indeed pursue, the interests of the local community. At inception the CEO were appointed by the States rather than by the Boards and the Chairmanship of the Boards, albeit voluntary, was also essentially at the discretion of the States.
The CEO has in effect two masters – the State Ministry of Health and the Board. The CEO is bound to try and achieve the performance targets set by the State. At the current time these are largely around activity based funding. The CEO and Board and hospitals must bring the budget in on target.
The problem for hospitals and their Boards is that hospitals new improvement, renovation and redevelopment. States tend to do little to cater for recurrent infrastructure related capital expenditure so the LHD must compete politically and make the case why their institutions are more deserving than others (that might be in more politically sensitive electoral seats). The Board has a responsibility to the community it serves to try and advocate for its’ cause. The CEO should support the actions of the Board but must also accommodate the bidding of the State and not cause embarrassment for it.
We must be recognize these issues but also manage them. The Board must not let the the CEO control its’ agenda. The Board must manage the performance of the CEO and be prepared to penalise him/or for failing in either management of the LHD budget or in advocacy for the LHD.
Information Service Denial (ISD)
Some of my blog posts are titled “Things they didn’t teach in medical school”.
Well I’m tempted to start another series entitled “Things my IT department won’t do for me”.
Years ago a colleague, A/Prof Matthew Links @cancersolutions tried to introduce the Moodle LMS for our oncology unit. It was blocked. No internal hosting and then no access to the external site through a firewall. Ironically – Moodle became the LMS of choice for our organisational learning unit and it is now accessible remotely.
Now we have two new problems – you can’t access any web-service (e.g. an online reference manager)that links to social networking. You can’t Facebook or tweet on hospital time……unless of course you own a mobile phone. Hmmm, I think the number of smartphones per person in our hospital is 1.2 so chances that there isn’t use of social media that is more disruptive than doing it from your hospital desktop are zilch.
The other problem is we can’t use Skype or similar services to support or clinical and educational activities. We have a registrar seconded to a satellite hospital which is 20 mins away by car. We can’t simply video-link them for a journal club. Skype or similar would be the simple solution. The alternatives – full Telstra-based video link or Webex and teleconferencing seem too hard and too expensive. And nobody want to help. Yet, if I were sitting in Tampa I could fly-by-wireless my drone into a bombing strike somewhere in Afghanistan.
It’s time the technology departments of the Australian public hospital system worked out what was happening in the outside world and caught up very quickly…..maybe in a Moore’s Law propotionality.
Things they didn’t teach in medical school: Part 11 Public Speaking
This will be a brief one: they didn’t teach public speaking in medical school.
I did toastmasters in high school and then after doing the college exams and losing all humility I thought I was OK at public speaking. The a couple of years ago I gave a talk at a conference I was all nerves – it was the International Liver Cancer Association Meeting and I think it was the first and only presentation from an Australian. The room was one of those in which you were blinded by lighting and couldn’t see the audience well. All of the ‘gods’ were either on the stage panel or got up to ask questions afterwards. For the first time in ages I got ‘nerves’.
Speaking in public is something I actually have to do all the time but it is not always straight forward.
Here are some tips – both practical an perhaps tongue-in-cheek:
Accountability, Blame and Empowerment
A lot is being made at the moment about the growing patient/consumer empowerment movement. Empowerment and engagement is seen not only as a step to improving the health of individuals but also lowering total health care costs.
It is interesting to see these two contrasting views re-posted on the KevinMD site:
Stop blaming patients for not doing enough to stay health
&
Make patients more accountable for their health
These views highlight the complexity of empowerment. Yes people should be responsible for their health. At the same time incentives and penalties for taking/not taking responsibility should not be discriminatory.
One way to approach this is to de-emphasise the individual and look more at cultural and societal factors. If we look at the obesity epidemic for example – we’ve got here because of the marketing of myths about diet and metabolism and industries built around encouraging us to eat foods that predispose to insulin dysregulation irrespective of the total caloric intake. To address this needs changes in food policy and re-education. We aren’t going to cause a reversal in the obesity epidemic by penalising people for being fat.
The other thing is empowerment shouldn’t be burdensome. Empowerment should be about creating habits that people don’t have to think about. As I saw on twitter yesterday – what we need is to get people addicted to health.
“I don’t know where to start” – Studying during medical specialty training
Perhaps the commonest complaint of my trainees when they are in the first year of their specialty (medical oncology) training is that they just don’t know where to start. In one respect this is understandable – the party-line is you need to know everything.
These are my tips:
(1) study stuff that will make your job easier. If you don’t know how to prescribe anti-emetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea then read up on this.
(2) study stuff you see in clinic or on the wards that you didn’t know anything about. This entails keeping a list – get a notebook, send yourself an SMS or email, use Evernote or a similar app to remind yourself what you need to look up.
(3) do sweat on the small stuff. In this case the small stuff is the basic science behind treatments. By knowing this you will be able to do the higher level activities better.
(4) have a plan. Set yourself a goal about knowing about a particular topic by a certain time.
(5) have a template of questions. Really – it is not possible to go and learn about ‘colon cancer’ without a targeted plan. Think of questions that that apply across disciplines e.g. is systemic chemotherapy useful for metastatic colon cancer, in monotherapy better than polychemotherapy, what is the optimal duration of therapy, etc, etc???
(6) study stuff that interests you – the other stuff will fall into place naturally
(7) volunteer to present at meeting or to teach – then you will be forced to study
(8) pick something you think you already know and revise it – get up-to-date
(9) close your eyes and drop your finger on a contents page
Things they didn’t teach in medical school: Part 10 Talking to patients about sex
It’s always the last thing that comes up in the consultation. You’re sort of winding up and your patient says “I’ve just got one more, um, question”……followed by a pregnant pause. “Well it’s been 3 months since the operation and I haven’t been able to get an erection”. This is basically how recent conversations with some of my rectal cancer patients has started. Unfortunately for many of these patients – after cancer, chemoradiation and then pelvic surgery there might never be a recovery and pharmaceutical aids like Viagra may not help. Some get a slow recovery over time as their pelvic nerves recover. The problem affects both young an old.
The reasons for sexual dysfunction are many and varied and range from physical incapacity to altered body image. In my peritonectomy patients has shown that men can experience erectile dysfunction and women can experience pain, difficulty lubricating an achieving orgasm. Many patients are concerned about sex when they have a stoma bag and women are often concerned about urinary leakage. In some cases patients have heard myths about it being unsafe to have sex after cancer or their health carers have given them overly cautious instructions about intercourse whilst on chemotherapy.
My communication skills training never covered this scenario. It’s even worse when the discussion is not just about the ability to perform sexual intercourse but also the issue of fertility. For younger people we do often discuss implications for fertility and might recommend sperm banking in men or various fertility treatments for women but more often than not sexual ‘side-effects’ are an afterthought. We aren’t actually taught much about how to treat these side effects nor are we instructed how to deal with the issues between couples. I’m sure part of the problem is society as a whole isn’t great at talking about these things so doctors are behind the eight ball to start with.
Talking to patients about sex is something we have to learn after medical school and the best way to do it is just try and relax and be frank about the issues.
For more on this topic see the NY Times blog post by Suleika Jaouad Life, Interrupted: Crazy, Unsexy Cancer Tips