Health for life

You read the Disease Management Care Blog and use its literature-based links.  As a result, you know a lot about shared decision making (SDM).   Based on the randomized control clinical trial data that are regularly linked by the DMCB, youre ready to implement it in your network of primary care clinics.  You call your physicians together for a meeting, explain SDM is the best thing since the invention of the Woods lamp and ask them to er patients to the program.

Except for the part about the DMCB, thats what basically happened at the eight highly regarded medical institutions: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, MaineHealth, Massachusetts General Hospital, Mercy Clinics in Iowa, the Oregon Rural Practice–Based Research Network, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the Stillwater Medical Group in Minnesota and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  The decision aids covered approximately 50 common conditions such as knee arthritis and prostate enlargement

And it didnt work out.

To investigate what happened, investigators at RAND interviewed 23 "key informants" from the 34 primary care sites that had implemented the Informed Medical Decision Foundations shared decision making program. The interviews were conducted between December 2010 and March 2011.  Their study is published in the February issue of Health Affairs.

Three barriers were identified:

Overworked physicians: given all the other health care needs of their patients, it was difficult to count on physicians to distribute the decision aids.  As a result, only 10%-30% of eligible patients participated.

Overconfident physicians: many doctors felt that they were already providing sufficient patient education or that their patients would not benefit from the decision aids.  Just telling the docs that this worked was not enough.

Underperforming EHRs: the state-of-the-art information technology could not flag potential patents, remember which individuals had been exposed to the decision aids or record the patients perences.

The answers?

Well, if the someone from the eight institutions had simply called the DMCB and asked, it would have told them about the many times it explained stuff to a roomful of physicians and had zero impact.  There also good peer-reviewed literature on why its so difficult to change physician behavior. 

The DMCB ultimately found the answer is to take physicians out of the work flow.

Thats what the RAND researchers found.  Based on their interviews, they recommend that if youre going to implement SDM in your clinics:

 Automate the process as much as possible and remove human decision-making from the process the triggered the decision aid.  That could be done on the basis of pre-existing clinical criteria or when a specialist erral had been arranged.

 If automation was not feasible, rely on non-physicians to trigger the decision-aid.  For example, office assistants could offer SDM to patients in the course of check-out.

Image from Wikipedia

Talk about a no win situation.  After seeing his "red line" go rudely unheeded, the President is facing the prospect of appearing weak if he does nothing or warmongering if he launches an attack.

Medical decision scientists ask: how did it come to this?

Mr. Obama is correctly admired for his "no-drama informed style of decision-making.  And good physicians, says medical science, should operate the same way.  According to this recent New England Journal article, consciously deliberative and logical approaches to diagnosis and treatment selection are far more reliable than the intuitive shoot-from-the-hip pattern recognition that used to rule the bedside.

Psychologists describe the latter as "Type 1" processing while the former is "Type 2."   Think George W. Bushs gut instincts over Iraqs weapons of mass destruction versus Barack Obamas disciplined rationality when he decided to attack the Bin Laden compound. He undoubtedly used the same methodology when he was pondering Syria.

But, thinks the Disease Management Care Blog, there are limits to brainy decision-making when the choices are overwhelmingly numerous.  In this retail business-oriented TEDTalk, Sheena Iyengar points out that dozens of options lead to procrastination followed by bad choices followed by low satisfaction. 

It can also apply to foreign policy. Given the vast array of pieces and potential moves on the Middle East chess board, little wonder that Mr. Obama would procrastinate for days saying he has "not made a decision," then apparently select an attack option disdained by even the New York Times and then engender even more second guessing by the very Congress that the President has repeatedly criticized as unreliable.

Ditto health care.  The downside to shared decision making is that an overwhelming number of testing and treatment options can lead befuddled patients to a "you decide, doc" mentality that leads the physician to regress to "Type 1" decision-making.

The DMCB isnt too sure how TEDTalks Dr. Iyengars suggested solutions can help the folks in the White House Situation Room, but the DMCB wonders if the national security staff shouldnt have done a better job of presenting the Commander in Chief with 1) a limited number of choices that were 2) more "concrete," as well as 3) arranged into categories with the 4) low complexity options offered first. 

That 4-fold approach could help docs and patients too.  The DMCB looks forward to additional research in the area.

In the meantime, there is one additional medical rule that has withstood the test of time that may also be useful in dealing with Syria. The DMCB offers it up to business and politicians alike: primum non nocere.