Full Table of Contents
_______________
Abbreviated
Table of Contents
Home Page
Patient Safety
Silence vs
Safety
Silenced
White wall
of Silence
Silencing
Conflict Of
Interest
Psychology of
Providers
Subjectivity
Blacklisting
Nurse survey
Loyalty
Mobbing and
bullying
Trust Us
Defensive
documenting
Report Rate
Risk
managemnt
SOAP
Management
Hospitals
Crime in
medicine
Sexual Abuse
Liability
Limitations
Free Speech
for Patients
Exploitation
OSMB Medical
Boards
Mammography
solutions
Medical errors
Medical Complaints
One number
Links
Injured patients who want to help and be heard, click here.
Thomas Jefferson said that given the choice between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he would choose newspapers.
In medicine we have government without newspapers. Patients cannot find out what they need to know to make informed choices. No one in medicine records or reports the information patients need to know the most. So patients will have to do it.
Patient Safety and Health Care
Truth/Justice/Patient Safety
It's a Path
As long as patients do what they are told and pay what they are told in medicine, costs will spiral up and quality will not improve.
Nowhere in medicine is anyone talking about or thinking about the biggest problems for patients. Because we get all of our information about healthcare from people with vested interests, there isn't even awareness of what they are. Medicine is in denial about them. Since they are the source for information about it, that is bad. They never will stop killing and bankrupting patients and the country. They never will stop feeling good about making progress on the relatively narrow issues that fit in with a view of the world that is more subjective and self-serving than they admit to themselves.
First I will give an example of a small, uncontroversial thought that no one in medicine ever will have. After that, I'll tell you why they never will have it. Then I will tell you why it is crucial for patients to have it. Then later, I will tell you about more fundamental issues that make providers bristle and chide anyone who brings them up. Which is part of why patients will continue to die unnecessarily in such large numbers as long as it is left up to the healthcare industry to provide awareness and make decisions for us.
Provide awareness? What patients need to know most medicine covers up.
Doctor Knows Best?
All of the discussions about how to fix health care assume that all physicians are equally competent and equally well meaning and that patients don’t need to know better. Does one orthopedic surgeon keep sending older women with shoulder pain into surgery, with no success, while another recognizes what frozen shoulder is and treats them with physical therapy and has a 100% success rate? In the current system no one knows. No one even knows that the first surgeon has no success. Whether it is public or private, for-profit or not-for-profit, surgeons create their own records and record that their operations are perfect as a matter of routine. The first surgeon’s operations might be perfect, but they are of no benefit, and he continues to earn a living doing them.
If patients were crowd-sourcing information about their experiences in medicine, this is one of the kinds of information that health care professionals do not record, but that patients would. For the first time there would be data not only comparing the surgeons, but comparing which physical therapists did a better job of healing frozen shoulder. Some physical therapy firms create schedules that extract all the money the insurance company will pay before treatment ends. Others require less time off work for the patient and fewer expenses for the insurance company.
Nothing in scientific studies or evidence based
medicine
or best practices policies touches the fact that all providers are not equal and
that all providers are not worth what they charge.
The very first step in making informed cost-benefit decisions about health
care is choosing providers based on more than rumors about beside manner.
Patients can learn the kind of information they need to make such decisions only from other
patients. No one in medicine will record it. We need to plug patients in to helping
each other by recording such information on the internet where everyone has
access to it. Otherwise for now and forever we will do what we are told and pay
what we are told no matter how much it costs and no matter whether is was of any
value or not.
Cost Comparison
There finally are a few websites that are trying to tackle the cost issue part of this problem. PricDoc.com, OutOfPocket.com and HealthcareBlueBook.com take various approaches to trying to enable access to at least a little information about how much things cost. But it still is buying blind. The woman with pain in her shoulder might have been able to shop for a cheaper surgery (one woman reported getting a $2,500 MRI for $300 after shopping around), but she would not have learned which surgeons, including hers, have no idea how to heal frozen shoulder and that surgery is the wrong treatment for it. She should have been able to do a search on shoulder surgeons and read a wealth of data posted by patients.
We need patients to be able to blog and twitter and Facebook about whatever happens to them in medicine without fearing repercussions, so that Google, or whomever, can make it available in a search. When enough of that is online, motivated patients will gather it and make sense of it in various ways. One fledgling attempt to do this can be seen at PatientsLikeMe.com, the found of which says, "When you need help, privacy is a terrible thing,"
The surgeon who operates on shoulders without improving them should be known. The surgeon who sends patients to physical therapy and heals them should be as well. It should be possible to read about the dozens of other patients who have been there before so that the next patient can skip the surgery and go to a much less expensive physical therapist who heals that problem faster.
Without access to that kind of information, patients cannot make the kind of informed cost-benefit decisions that drive quality up and drive cost down. Instead, they will continue to be hapless pawns with no choice but to do what they are told and pay what they are told while costs escalate and quality does not.
Unfortunately, patients never will get this kind of information from their caregivers, because
Only 1.5% of adverse events are reported in medicine
This might be the most important fact in health care (other than, perhaps, the crime rate) and it is ignored by everyone in health care (as is the crime rate). Click it to see the studies and journal articles behind it. Talk to victims of adverse events if you want to hear personal experiences with it.
"What you measure effects what you do.
If you don't
measure the right thing, you don't do the right thing."
- Josephe E. Stiglitz,
Nobel Prize winning economist.
Adverse events are the most important thing to know in order to drive down cost and drive up quality in medicine. Without knowing about them, trying to pick a provider or a treatment is like trying to pick a baseball team where batters keep their own records and record only 1.5% of their strikes. They all look stellar under those circumstances. But they aren't.
There is little truth in medicine about what is wrong. There is almost no justice. Both are essential. Neither will come from the providers. Adverse events are the last thing anyone in medicine will record or report (covered in detail on this site) and that is not even acknowledged in any of the proposals or reforms or discussions currently going on. Fortunately, there is something patients can do about it.
Errors are the symptom, not the problem
Right now the whole health care debate is provider centric. All of it assumes that well-meaning people at the top will protect the patients who are hapless children with no ability to make intelligent decisions. It is how governments operated before democracy - as though the masses are helpless idiots.
The greatest innovation machine that ever existed is markets. Markets can exist only where consumers can make intelligent cost-benefit analyses. In medicine currently consumers cannot obtain the information necessary to be intelligent. The health care industry wants it that way. For instance, during the health care debates in Washington, lobbyists worked to get measures enacted to prevent studies from being done that measure cost effectiveness in medicine. That is wanting medicine to be expensive and wanting us to be stupid and wanting all the power in their own hands at our expense.
Intelligent Consumers
The average consumer spends 12 hours on line doing research before buying a camera. How much time would they would spend researching the surgeons who were going to cut them open if as much information were available on that? In ten minutes on line the patient has learned all that can be learned about a surgeon, which is virtually nothing. There is nothing about the surgeon's success rate (no one keeps track of that) or infection rate or any similar information. You can learn more about a hairdryer you might buy than about the hospital where you are going to be cut open or the surgeon who is going to do the cutting.
As long as no one is collecting information on adverse events, all of the initiatives to fix health care are going to fall short. Hundreds of thousands of patients will continue to die unnecessarily every year. Millions more will continue to be injured unnecessarily. Costs will continue to rise. And there won't even be a change in the crime rate in medicine.
Crime against patients is the most fundamental problem for patient safety and not only is it never mentioned in patient safety discussions and other healthcare debates, but we defy you to find people in medicine who even will acknowledge that there is one.
Fortunately, there is a solution
It finally has been demonstrated that when given the opportunity, patients are more frequent and more accurate reporters of events in medicine than anyone in medicine. When asked, patients report three times as many confirmable adverse events as health care professionals (footnoted here). Unfortunately, patients are prevented from sharing such information. Not only is there no place for them to share it, they can get sued if they do. And they can get blacklisted for it. It is baffling to us how little awareness there is of the extent to which reporting of adverse events by patients is not only discouraged but stopped. Especially when the injuries are iatrogenic.
Ever try to get your primary care physician to write in the record that your injuries resulted from bad care or malfeasance on the part of someone else anywhere in medicine? You can't. They won't. There is no one you can tell. You can't even become a statistic. The people who need to know most are other patients, but they are the last people who ever will know. Or rather, the second to last. People in medicine would be the last as they are so deeply entrenched in a culture of denial.
Every Try To Research a Surgeon?
Consider the surgeon who, among other surgeries, performs one that improves the condition of patients only one third of the time. The other two thirds of the time it makes them worse. The surgeon doesn't see it that way. Most of the patients of the surgeon's other surgeries improve. And the poor success rate of this one surgery is believed to be no one's fault. It is assumed he/she happened to get sicker patients than surgeons with better success rates, if he/she notices the negative trend at all. When patients come back to him/her in worse shape afterwards, he/she says it is because of the original problem, not the surgery. The record the surgeon creates always says that his/her surgeries are perfect with no complications. The operating room staff and the hospital believe it. The surgeon believes it too. There is no record and no recognition of the bad outcomes and no awareness of the surgeon's extremely poor success rate.
Patients think someone in medicine is on top of this. No one is. They think there are agencies tracking this. There are not. When the rare study is done, it uses the records of the surgeons to see how things are going. What is known is only what is reported by surgeons with a subjective, self-serving view of the world. Patients cannot educate themselves in order to protect themselves from it. There is no record of it from which to become educated. Medicine keeps saying that it is "buyer be ware" and advising patients to become informed, but be aware of what? There is no useful information of which to be aware.
Sub Prime Medicine
The sub prime mortgage debacle is a good example for understanding one of the reasons for the debacle in medicine, the unacceptable number of unnecessary errors and injuries and deaths. Mortgage brokers had no skin in the game. Brokers benefited from selling the mortgages no matter what the result for the consumer, no matter what the result for the payer and no matter what the result for the institution for which they worked. It's the same with doctors and nurses and others in medicine.
From time to time someone tries to apply in medicine management techniques borrowed from the airline industry. From time to time someone tries to introduce the airlines' Root Cause Analysis (RCA). But there are fundamental reasons for why it doesn't work in medicine.
Pilots go down with the plane if they don't learn from mistakes and learn to fly right. Mortgage brokers and health care professionals do not. Pilots want to know what went wrong. Doctors and nurses want to be protected from liability when things go wrong. They not only don't want to know what went wrong. They don't want anyone else to know. They don't want anyone to be able to find out. They earn more money and prestige if no one knows. They want stellar reputations with no repercussions and no criticism. They not only don't report what goes wrong, they cover it up. They don't even report crimes committed against patients by caregivers. Not even assault and/or rape when witnessed personally.
Psyched
But they believe that they do. Like the surgeons who views the world in a way that blinds him/her to the extremely poor success rate. The psychology of care giving is powerful for both parties. It is so strong that the people who cause more accidental death and injury than any other group still are the most trusted group in the country. They dispense treatments without having any idea about whether the treatments they dispense are as good as other treatments that are available. They also dispense treatments that they know are not as good as other treatments that are available when they are able to make money by so doing. The treatments on which they can make money are the ones they sell without referring patients for better treatments even when their own treatments are crippling (see profitable treatment rather than good treatment).
The Well Being of Patients
They keep saying that the well being of patients is their first priority. I could write pages about how it is not, and I have elsewhere on this site. But just on the surface, does anyone think that other people will manage your affairs with the same inspiration and dedication that you will manage your own? Will someone else raise your children with the same love you will? Will someone else arrange your retirement as carefully as you will? Life doesn't work that way. No one else will protect your health as well as you will if you are able to find out how.
In medicine the people in charge of your health don't even bother to learn which of the treatments available is the best. 45,000 women have been treated for beast cancer with Mammosite, and no one has bothered to look to see whether that works better than other treatments that are available. If it were your cancer, or your daughter's cancer, how hard would you work to find out?
The people running medicine are not pilots. They are brokers with no skin the game. They not only don't report adverse events, they don't even understand why they should. Their conflict of interest is too great for them to understand it. They never are going to provide the information necessary to give patients a light in the medical darkness. They won't even create it for themselves. And they are unaware of the extent to which they don't.
Here is what you can do about it
Adverse events are the most important things to know to be informed consumers of health care. The positive information is trumpeted. They put that in brochures and advertisements and press releases. They also put out disinformation to protect themselves at the expense of patients (as in this link). What patients need in order to be safe is the fog horn or the lighthouse that warns about the dangers. Medicine provides the opposite of that. Medicine hides its problems. But patients can provide warnings to each other. They can give each other an important amount of what they need to know to chart a course through medicine - if they are allowed to.
On one level this would be proficiency testing through crowd sourcing.
Unequal Protection
Here
is a major obstacle in the way - the more negative the information, the more
likely it is you will be sued for sharing it. Patients learn this quickly and
become silent. When Angie's List asks people to rate health care providers, the
negative information they receive is about trivial things. Nothing
important gets reported because patients learn quickly how medicine punishes
them for reporting negative information.
That is what government must fix. The rest will take care of itself if government protects the people who report. This is not a budget item and another agency being created. This is legislating protection for patients to enable them to create ways to report and make use of what is reported. If you have a nine-year-old with diabetes, you should be able to do a search on the Internet and collect what has been said about doctors in your area by other parents with children with diabetes about the various doctors to whom they went. Currently, parents cannot report anything but positive information without retaliation by doctors.
Especially Malfeasance
In my community there was a physician who sexually imposed on young women routinely. Individually they had gone to the police and the state medical board and the press, but no one would do anything. Finally, there were so many victims in the community that they bumped into each other socially. Why do there have to be so many victims over so many years that they accidentally find each other before they can form a group and do anything? Why could not the first girl imposed upon post on the internet what was experienced? One single report about one single event will be a blip to which no one will pay attention, except the errant physician who could issue a denial and change his behavior. Dozens of reports would enable patients to protect themselves from someone who was not curbing his behavior.
Currently, if a physician rapes you he is protected by liability limitations in many communities, but there is no community in which there is a limit on the amount for which the physician can sue his victim merely for talking about it. That is unequal protection and might be a violation of the 14th amendment. (If you think I'm confusing criminal and civil law, click here).
The Plural of Anecdote is Data
Patients need equal protection. Currently physicians are allowed to speak to each other about patients in ways that can be physically harmful to patients. The moment an adverse event takes place, health care professionals begin a cover up. Your primary care physician will call the next physician you have been scheduled to see and tell that physician not to diagnose your injuries because those diagnoses could be used as evidence in a suit or grievance. The community of physicians will brand the injured patient as a problem wacko and make it impossible for the patient even to get treatment, let alone justice. That can have serious health consequences for the patient.
The patient cannot sue those doctors for conspiring, making false statements, defaming, or anything else. But those doctors can sue the patient merely for complaining about the original injury, or for complaining about how they conspired to silence the patient. The patient cannot even warn other patients.
"If we have a censorship which stops us offending anyone,
the truth may be concealed in the surrounding blur."
- John Milton, “Areopagitica”
We give liability limitations to doctors to protect them from the patients they injure. What do patients get whenever another community takes rights from patients by giving unequal liability protection to health care professionals?
Nothing. Patients should demand liability limitations for themselves. It is more important for patients than it is for providers. Providers want limitations to protect their reputations. Patients need liability limitations to protect their lives. Without them patients cannot share the information that can reduce the rate at which they get injured and killed. With them they could begin to exert the market pressure that drives down cost and drives up quality.
At one time in the USA you couldn't say anything negative about politicians without getting sued. But 200 years ago it became clear that citizens could not run the country if they could not talk about their politicians. So politicians were defined as "public officials," which gives us some protection from being sued for speaking about them (and protects them when they speak about each other). Who is more important to your well being, the members of your zoning board or the members of the surgical team that is going to cut you open? We need to do something that is the equivalent of defining health care professionals as "public officials" so that we can report what we experience in medicine without being sued.
Gagged
We also need legislation that recognizes that information about medicine is so important for patients to know that it should not be allowed to be silenced with gag orders. Isn't that a large part of what makes lawsuits expensive? Buying our silence? If they couldn't, would they pay as much to their victims to settle cases? There must be an end to gag orders in settlement agreements. Gag orders prevent us from finding out the most important information we need to know to protect ourselves. The more negative the information, the more important it is to know.
Whether or not they get liability limitations, we should get liability limitations and the elimination of gag orders.
Scientific, Peer Reviewed Non-Data
People in medicine keep saying that collecting data this way would not be scientific. If they want to collect the data and report it scientifically, we will be delighted. But they collect only 1.5% of what we need to know. Unscientific data is better than no data.
A nurse who didn't know who I was told me about a surgeon in her unit everyone tried to steer patients away from because he is so bad. She told me about people he had butchered. She and her colleagues might be trying to steer patients away from him, but that surgeon is earning a living by doing surgery on someone. No one in medicine reports these things. That is true for problems worse than incompetence. When two dozen teenage girls are groped by a physician, no one in medicine reports it. It doesn't appear in scientific studies. The only people who report such things are the victims. Currently victims can find no one who will listen. Just look at the cases (examples). Patients need a place to report and the freedom to warn each other.
People in medicine also object that patients might say something about them that is not true. Physicians say things about patients that are not true everyday. Why is that okay? The minute there is an adverse event the cover up begins. The victim of an adverse event seeks treatment but cannot get it because physicians call each other to prevent it in order to protect each other's reputation and income in ways that can cause physical harm to patients who cannot get treatment. When patients warn each other about physicians, it does not cause physical harm. The stakes are higher for patients. They at least should have equal rights.
Patient Reports are more Reliable
than Hospital Reports
We know two men who were disabled on operating tables. The records created by the surgeons in both cases say that the operations were perfect with no complications. These were life-ruining events, but nowhere in medicine is there any record of either of these outcomes. How many other patients of those surgeons have had their lives ruined? No one knows. That is typical of how information is collected in medicine. No one knows who or what is good or bad in medicine. They pretend they do. They believe they do, but they don't know the negative information because so little of it is recorded or acknowledged. Some individual patients know the negative information, but they are not allowed to share it. We need the right to share it. We need to start texting and blogging and twittering and recording, in every public way possible, what we experience in medicine. People under a certain age already are in the habit of doing that in other aspects of their lives. We need to protect them and plug them in to a place to do it with their health care.
Small acts by many providers
with a cumulative damage to patients that is enormous
Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics and author of Pet Food Politics, was researching the melamine issue when pet food and farm animal feed was contaminated with it and pets were dying or being made sick. There was concern about how much of it might be trickling into the human food supply. She said that the FDA and the pet food manufacturers and the distributors of the ingredients and the American College of Veterinary Nutrition and everyone else involved in the debacle behaved badly, except for the bloggers. Everyone other than bloggers protected companies at the expense of pets. She said that the bloggers and other citizens involved in food advocacy movements exhibited all the hallmarks of democracy at its best: of the people, by the people and for the people. For human health care we need bloggers who have access to information and enough protection to share it like they can when animals are the issue.
75% of physicians work not in large institutions but in small offices of ten physicians or fewer. They don't report each other. They don't report themselves. Who else is present to report them but patients?
Informed Consumers
That kind of information at last can give patients some of the information necessary to begin making informed cost-benefit analyses about their healthcare - the kind that creates a competitive marketplace that drives costs down and quality up. That information can begin to keep patients from being pawns blindly doing whatever they are told. Our health care providers are killing hundreds of thousands of us unnecessarily each year, and maiming millions more. In the decade during which they have known they are doing that, the health care industry has made no improvement in those numbers. They never have and they never will. We have to do it ourselves. It starts with our knowing the truth about what goes on in medicine so that we can find our way to safety.
There is reason to believe that health care professionals believe that they are doing the right thing when they don't report negative information - apparently believing that the evidence paints an inaccurate picture. They believe in themselves so much that they also don't believe the statistics resulting from studies about patient safety because the statistics do not agree with their view of their personal experience. In fact, the statistics do. Health care professionals have misplaced faith in their own perspective. The way they interpret their experience and filter the information that comes to them is self-serving. We are not used to thinking of health care providers as people living in a fog of self-serving delusion. But they are and we need to be aware of it. No law or regulation or initiative or plea or promise or re-education can get people to report adverse events when they believe that there are none. Someone else is going to have to report the information. Health care workers never will. Patients are going to have to.
“Give me the
liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above
all liberties.”
- John Milton, “Areopagitica”
* * *
State Patients Boards
This brings us to part two. There needs to be a patient-centric institution to call, not just to which to report, but to ask for help. It should be an institution that keeps on top of the patients' position in medicine.
Doctors have the AMA. Nurses have nursing boards. Anesthesiologists have guilds. Hospitals have associations. Patients have nothing like that. When health care goes door to door in Congress explaining their position, there is no one to follow them around explaining the position of patients.
There are many patient safety sites and organization, but none of them are official institutions charged with the duty and the authority to advocate for patients before the government and the press and the healthcare industry.
State after state passes liability limitations for physicians and there is no one to knock on the doors of legislators to make them aware of the patients' view on that or similar issues. When medicine feels inclined to get government to create another law or regulation unfriendly to patients, there needs to be an official representative of patients to speak for them in the matter.
Patients need an organization with a phone number that journalists can call to get the patient's view. Currently journalists cannot do much more than call three doctors and accept whatever self-serving paradigm it suits healthcare to believe this time. When they call injured patients, invariably they reach someone with limited knowledge and no experience in articulating concerns to the press.
The organization should advocate for patients not just before the government and the press, but also by being there when patients become victims of adverse events. They need to be the institution that patients can telephone to reach professionals who are on their side when they need to find out things like how to get iatrogenic injuries treated (usually no one in healthcare will help them) and to explain things like the fact that they can file suits against "unknown John Does" in order to get subpoena power to get records when a hospital will neither identify their caregivers nor give them their records. Hospitals might be required to identify your caregivers, but when they don't want to, they just don't. There is no penalty for breaking the law. There is no one who enforces such laws. Patients are stymied and defeated and cannot even get their injuries treated. Currently there is nowhere for them to go for help in surviving that. And that's only the beginning of the problems faced by injured patients.
The organization also needs to have a legal response team. 97% of patients with legitimate grievances cannot get lawyers. Their lives are no less ruined than the 3% who can. It's not that they all need to get a day in court or to get a settlement. But they do need legal help, in part just to know what they can say and do without getting sued, and how they can use the law to prevent medicine from shutting them down. Medicine has risk management departments dedicated to, and experienced at, defeating patients. Few lawyers have the expertise or the will to figure out how to help patients in the face of that. And the few who do are willing to represent only 3% of the patients.
You cannot be your own watchdog.
That's just common sense.
The patients' board also needs to have a phone number to call to register complaints and post other data collected by patients. It makes no sense to keep putting that information into the hands of organizations run by and for healthcare professionals. Those organizations have agendas that compete with the interests of patients. On their boards they have doctors and nurses, not injured patients, and the way they handle complaints shows that (see OSMB).
Even efforts like the
Department of Health and Human Service's "Hospital Compare" site (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov
[see my page about it]),
although it
is welcomed and appreciated, is not going to help patients overcome the
obstacles that prevent injured
patients from getting treatment and/or justice. For one thing, they can collect only the data that
people in healthcare choose to report.
Some things cannot easily be hidden, but lots of things can. And HHS is
the government. They cannot lobby the government for patients. They are the ones
who are influenced by
lobbies. One of those lobbies needs to be the institution suggested here, the organization that follows
legislative proposals and advocates for the interests of patients.
Healthcare professionals are less motivated to fix problems when they earn money by having those problems. Especially when they conveniently choose to believe the problems are rare or nonexistent. So patients need to. Patients need to spend less time shouting at healthcare to reduce errors and more time creating the means to stay out of the way of errors. As long as patients pay to be exposed to, and damaged by, errors, health care professionals will let us. To protect ourselves we need freedom of speech for patients and institutional support that is on our side.