Printer Friendly

Applying futuristic technology to the priorities of the past.

Applying Futuristic Technology to the Priorities of the Past

At least one group--consumers--insists that our medical care system is #broke." They're complaining to their neighbors and to politicians. Recently, 89 percent of them told Louis Harris pollsters that our medical care system needs a major overhaul. [1] And their politicians are listening carefully.

Although few consumers consider it wise to confront providers face to face, they routinely roast us in beauty shops and hardware stores. Discussions often swing to medicine and to hospital bills and doctors' incomes. They don't sense physicians' concern for their health outcomes. This group pays our rent and makes our car payments. Professionally, they are the reason we exist. They're our patients, and they're not pleased. What's gone wrong? And what can physician executives do about it?

Our first task may be to convince physicians and others in our organizations that physicians' status with patients is actually as poor as measured in the Harris poll. Those who have been confronted or sued by a disgruntled patient need no reminder. However, there is a residual reservior of good will toward physicians, and some patients will avoid offending their physicians because of future health needs. They simply swallow hard and absorb what they perceive as incosiderate or low-quality treatment--until the pollster calls.

We can help the situation through an organizationwide commitment to reestablishing the servanthood of the board room to the bedside. We've become so bogged down by the third-party alphabet soup and by turf battles that much of our energy has been distracted from our patients' illnesses. Our patients need their crowns returned--and to be resealed on the throne of health care delivery.

Next, a parallel commitment of chief executive officers and physician executives to institutionwide quality of care is imperative. This pledge to quality should be so obvious that it permeates every crevice of the institution. Despite the ongoing struggle to neatly define medical quality, we can definitely dedicate ourselves to finding the "Q-word" in every resource management decision.

Paul Ellwood insists that we cannot manage what we cannot measure. He says that most annual reports of health care institutions provide only statistical data such as operative procedures, laboratory tests, inpatient days, and outpatient visits. Usually there is no mention of documented improvement in health. He recommends a national databank of outcomes utilizing quality of life scales to provide feedback on interventions to providers, payers, and patients. [2]

Allocation of some scarce resources may be necessary for patient outcome information systems compatible with a national databank when it becomes a reality. It may fall on the physician executive--the bridge between the cold calculating financial officer and the warmth of the bedside--to be the persuader and catalyst in recommitting the organization to its high calling of not only producing but also measuring health in patients.

Dr. Ellwood also called for physician managers to consider themselves clinicians whose patients are their institutions, probing and evaluating its multifaceted epidemiology of outcomes. A physician executive should be concerned with specific patient outcomes as if it were his or her stethoscope against the patients' chest and signature on the order sheet.

What are some practical implications of clinically evaluating and treating an institution? How do we climb down from our futuristic perch, where we scan the horizon, into the real world of the physician executive?

Ellwood suggests that the American College of Physician Executives is uniquely situated to set industry standards for organizational accountability on interventional outcomes. Physician executives, particularly members of the College, should encourage the institutional adoption of outcome measurement, utilizing quality of life scales, as a management tool. Physician executives can also promote cost-effective medical treatment research and training in medical school and on residency teaching rounds. Physician executives need to be encouraged to do epidemiological studies of their organizations, looking beneath the philosophic broad strokes of mission and goals. The thousands of pieces of nitty-gritty patient care, like the pieces of a puzzle, when properly assembled will reveal the portrait of a well, satisfied patient-customer. The study kf outcomes should consider ingredients that are almost too obvious to appear in a professional journal but that are nevertheless too often overlooked:

* Rid the organization of rude and inconsiderate providers who make patients feel like nuisances.

* Provide convenient appointments. Should patients need to miss work for routine care? For sudden illness, do they need to choose between a long wait in a noisy, expensive emergency department and a 10-day wait for an office appointment? Could schedulers leave daily gaps for the inevitable overnight illnesses, a daily sick call for those who have toughed it out all night? Patients complain when shifted around like merchandise into gaps in our schdules.

* Require all providers to complete payment request forms for patients. A form that would be simple and routine for experienced billing staff could represent hours of anxiety and frustration for patients. Refusing assistance to patients with these forms is a form of harassment, especially for the elderly.

* Establish performance-based provider reappointment. Patients have traditionally chosen their own physicians and health care organizations after evaluating the "quality" of interventions on themselves and friends. This concept usually singles out physicians. However, all health care workers should be subject to performance evaluations. The public has observed that certain providers earn consistently poor marks, and they wonder why we don't do something about it.

* Avoid bedside nursing shortages contrived for budgetary purposes. That's where the health care "product" is produced and serviced. Only during the last gasps of "institutional air-hunger" should bedside nursing be cut.

* Give priority to actions for patient comfort, such as patient controlled analgesia, that increase hospital costs minimally compared to their positive impact on the patient's experience. Major operation patients who experienced long and painful waits for an overworked jurse to rush breathlessly into the room with a shot will remember. They'll do a bit of negative advertising for the provider--the kind people believe.

* Screen provider practice patterns to monitor resource consumption and provide educational support where indicated. Physician executives uniquely understand both the necessity and the feasibility of cost-effective patient interventions and are, or should be, positioned to have influence on institutional budgetary priorities. The public will soon demand that greater than 56 percent of the CABGs performed are clearly appropriate for both the patient's myocardium and money market fund. [3]

I predict that the future will demand a new species of physician executive, one with special expertise in the pursuit of cost-effective medical care--a quality-resource manager or QRM coordinator. This person will function much as we monitor quality indicators now, but with equal concern for the other half of the quality-cost equation. The QRM coordinator will provide key input on the institution's ethics committee and will testify in defense of staff physicians sued for malpractice when they have acted responsibly. The establishment documented, efficient care-giving not only pumps up the immediate bottom line, but also becomes a keytstone in marketing services to payers and consumers.

* Avoid rationing of medical care. Although events in Oregon (eliminating Medicaid coverage of certain high resource consuming interventions to allow funding of basic care for more people) are well intended, does it make sense for our society to withhold needed care? Is there a place for physician executives in the roll of lobbyist for the poor? If physician executives could document for government leaders that we are providing appropriate, cost-effective care, we could compassionately appeal for high-quality care for all citizens.


[1] Blendon, R. "Three Systems: A Comparative Study." Health Management Quarterly 11(1):2-10, First Quarter 1989.

[2] Ellwood, P. Keynote address at National Conference on Health care Leadership and Management. Washington, D.C., May 1-3, 1989.

[3] Brook, R., and others. "The Appropriateness of Performing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery." JAMA 260(4):505-9, July 22/29, 1988.

Robert I. Brandt, MD, is a medical staff quality improvement consultant and seminar leader. He is also a consultant for Quality Healthcare Resources, a subsidiary of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. He is an associate member of the College's Forum on Quality Health Care.
COPYRIGHT 1990 American College of Physician Executives
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1990, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:includes bibliography; outcomes management
Author:Brandt, Robert I.
Publication:Physician Executive
Date:Sep 1, 1990
Previous Article:Behavioral quality assurance: a transforming experience.
Next Article:Defensive barriers to communication.

Related Articles
Negotiating with interactive scenarios and strategies.
TQM: a paradigm for physicians.
Quality improvement's new focus yields quantitative results.
Futuristic city: high school.
Pedagogy Saturday history: embracing all disciplines.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters