Upstream Learning & Downstream Dysfunction: How to Train Leaders for a New Future

Featured

“The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday is sufficient for tomorrow.” – William Pollard

In health care right now, lots of people are talking about innovation as a generic way to describe the new holy grail to some of medicine’s biggest problems. Of course this line of logic might lead some to think medicine is in some state of “innovation-deficiency,”  a condition for which innovation replacement therapy is the clear and sole treatment. While this obviously isn’t always true, introducing new technologies and processes, if done the right way, can certainly help minimize waste, control cost, improve efficiency, and introduce equity into existing public systems.

So if medicine needs to up its innovation game, as many are suggesting, who’s it going to turn to? Where is the pipeline of leaders to fill the holy grail and how do you turn on the faucet of new and better ideas?

I’ve been thinking a lot about these questions over the past few weeks as I start my Fall semester at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health. And no that wasn’t a name drop. It was a point of reference drop, to help place the problem I am about to describe, into context.

For the past 3 weeks I’ve been taking a pretty stand out course on quality improvement  taught by the incomparable Maureen Bisognano and her enviable squad of colleagues and friends. For a bit of background, Maureen is the President Emerita of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, basically a healthcare innovation incubator based in Boston, and her friends include people like Don Berwick, Atul Gawande, Brent James, Ellen Goodman, and Derek Feeley, to name a few of the powerful speakers who inspired us. For 3 weeks, we reviewed international examples of ways to radically redesign the US healthcare system.

And then, I had fall registration.

Excited to push the boundaries of existing systems, I was eager to take classes across the University, and like Maureen showed us, find examples from other industries, sectors, and disciplines that could be applied to the great challenges facing medicine and build solutions that translate across public systems and private incentive structures. But to my surprise, that inter-sectional, open learning, not only wasn’t a requirement, but was incredibly difficult to find. And if it is hard to find at places branded on leadership, I worry it may be symptomatic of a larger issue.

Which got me thinking, just how are we going to train this next level of leaders when the educational pipeline through medicine looks remarkably similar to what was suggested in the landmark Flexnor Report in 1910, that established a system of medical education, that with few exceptions, continues today.

Courses continue to be divided by discipline, learners are isolated to their field of study, and for those who select to learn outside that box, they do so singularly, as a function of personal interest or a non-degree program rather than systematic integration of agents and ideas. Then is it any wonder why our systems remained silo’ed with divergent (and sometimes antagonistic) incentive structures despite overlapping public interests?

Don Berwick is often quoted as saying, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” In medicine, as we move upstream in our interventions for disease, to target root causes rather than downstream effects, we must do the same thing for the education pipeline. We have to challenge ourselves to teach future leaders how to think, reason, and execute rather than prescriptively guiding them, formally and informally, to reproduce the same system, with the same challenges we already have.

It has been more than 100 years since the last massive shift in professional medical education, perhaps parting with apprenticed dysfunction and practicing principled disruption is a good start.

 

 

 

Viral Violence and the Challenge for Public Safety

Featured

As the screens we carry narrow our proximity to random and targeted acts of violence, many parents and families are rightfully questioning the impact viral violence has on shared perceptions of public safety and child health.

In pediatrics, we have long considered the link between media, violence and health.

We know kids who watch fake violence in movies or play violent characters in video games show signs of increased aggression. But what happens when the violence kids watch is real? Or when the cameraperson is only a teenager?

Today, youth can easily capture and consume real violence, in real-time, as a part of their daily routines – from snapping school violence, live streaming police violence, recording sexual violence, or sharing images of political violence. This is the new normal* and it’s more complex than the simple relationship between simulated exposures and aggression.

A child watching real violence from their cell phone now understands something tangible about the world; and a kid who records or shares violent imagery online can contribute to others understanding of the world. That elevation of the voices and experiences of youth can be extremely valuable. Indeed, in terms of activist’s movements like Black Lives Matter, the perspective of youth, magnified by social media, has become a national catalyst for police reform, criminal justice reform, and racial equity.

Yet, perpetual exposure to viral violence takes its toll – often manifest in feelings of victimization, grief, fear, intimidation, anger and sadness. And kids and teenagers may be most vulnerable to this kind of trauma because they are still developing the emotional and intellectual maturity to process troubling events. What is more, they rely on trusted adult figures to provide safe spaces in their life.

As we face these harrowing challenges, consider two thoughts:

1. While it’s okay to be protective, thoughtful and proactive regarding how youth experience and contribute to violent images online, we, as parents, caregivers, or providers, cannot simply turn a blind eye. While distressing, some images of violence advance our collective understanding, compassion, and empathy for the suffering that exists outside the walls of our private communities or our segregated social groups, and the privileges those spaces confer. In this way, confronting the visual of violence with a particular effort to center the interpretation of the events around the marginalized populations disproportionately affected, is the first step towards collective healing. And that healing begins with rigorous and vigilant public exploration of the ways systemic racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia and intolerance threaten public safety.

2. As we live-stream our lives, we open windows to the neighborhoods we live in, the spaces where our kids learn and play, and the ways we perceive and are perceived in the world. When we don’t like what we see on the other side of that window, it can be easy to hide discomfort or insecurity with blame or shame or to create narratives that distort the humanity we witness. But each time one of us resists the opportunity to understand the burdens or experiences of another, we all move further from the co-existence necessary to bring peace.

*This is a piece I wrote with my friend and colleague, Dr. Wendy Sue Swanson, that was published in the July 2016 Pediatrics. It is available for free online for the first week of publication.

Towards Equity-Centered Care

Featured

A “Health in All Policies” framework has been touted in the past few years as a strategy to illuminate the intersections between public health and other areas of civic life. It’s one way to incorporate health metrics into existing and proposed public policy – from education to transportation. But the question is, will it work?

It seems fairly obvious that health-centric framing may obstruct interdisciplinary collaboration. But at a more fundamental level, will replacing multivariate, silo’d interests with the singularity of health effectively capture the complexity necessary to create shared agendas across public sectors?

The short answer is no. Here’s why and how we got here.

The former structure of medical education and training was rooted in the idea that the greatest knowledge in medicine was best revealed through individual patient inquiry and the greatest challenges in the field were best understood and addressed through individual clinician excellence. So clinicians were evaluated based on their individual aptitude, patients were assessed based on their isolated symptoms, and each sector of the health and human service network operated in silos, training and treating pieces of the problem, without ever quite appreciating the inter-connected whole.

This paradigm of education and practice placed clinicians at the center of care and patients and allied partners at the periphery. Allied learners were taught separately and systems communicated poorly, both of which resulted in fragmentation – in how problems were evaluated and in how care was delivered.

A more recent iteration of this care ecosystem, like the “Health in All Policies” approach, now places patients and health at the center of delivery models and public policy strategies to treat disease and advance wellness. These patient-driven, health-specific metrics ensure that systems are oriented to serve and public policies are structured to mitigate health impacts.

However increased focus on individual patient outcomes may obscure population-level drivers of health disparities and unilateral dependence on health as the primary outcome, may ostracize allied disciplines, institutions, and learners whose work or study contributes to advanced understanding of human behavior and the complex relationships between structural environments and the pathophysiology of disease.

The bottom line is: the intricate problems that threaten child and community health will not be solved by the individual capacity of excellent clinicians or public servants, but rather by the ability of leaders to organize interdisciplinary teams that learn, work, communicate ideas, translate interventions, and are evaluated across shared infrastructures, in the service of shared outcomes.

If identifying health as the primary outcome of interest or individual patients as the primary drivers of systemic priorities, alienate important partners and dilute the input of minority populations, it is time for a new centering principle. In my mind, that principle should be equity.

Placing equity at the center of the care ecosystem ensures each sector of the health and human service network and each provider and recipient of care has a role and contributes to the shared societal realization of public safety, economic security, and wellness.

Shared values, like equity, are important foundations for building integrated public systems. And integrated public systems are important to create parity in resource dissemination and improve productivity through partnership with allied disciplines and institutions. Although the process of integration may generate new financial costs, it will hopefully save money on the back end by aligning incentives and improving efficiency.

In the end, equity will be the framework for the future of care and policy that aims to improve health. So as we move towards the future, let equity be our guide.

* In appreciation for their wisdom: I want to acknowledge Dr Rajiv Bhatia who’s novel work on The Civic Engine, and Dr. Damon Francis whose generously shared expertise, informed the ideas presented in this piece.*

Freeing the “Doc in a Box”

Featured

The American healthcare system is set up to care for a certain subset of the population – sick people – people with chronic disease, acute illness, acute injury, and complex disorders like cancer or metabolic issues.

The problem is, this set up doesn’t create market incentives to care for the well effectively, or to identify those at risk for disease and efficiently and reliably intervene, at scale.

To reconcile this cognitive dissonance between sick-care and health-care, government agencies like CMS, are now funding population-based care strategies. The idea is, the healthcare system should anticipate patient needs at the population level, stratify those needs by risk, and disseminate preventative interventions locally, based on traditional indices like blood tests and screening protocols and emerging metrics like ICD-10 z-codes to identify social determinants of health.

Now that the federal government is redefining the relationship between communities and health systems, it seems logical to anticipate future opportunities to redesign one of the most outdated physician roles – the “doc in the box.”

But the baffling thing is, that is not what is happening.

Despite CMS’ new Accountable Health Communities Model and the NIH’s recent Precision Medicine Initiative, it seems the latest innovations in healthcare delivery are aiming to do what we are already doing – better – to map the genome, decipher codes in our blood, and screen with increasing precision to identify disease earlier and decrease associated health complications and systems costs.

But the building-based, physician-centric, model of medicine America has relied on for decades, maybe even centuries, isn’t serving us well anymore. The hands-on, face-to-face, one-on-one, physician-patient relationship is changing and the bedside, fee-for-service paradigm doesn’t fit how patients access information and more importantly, doesn’t pay for keeping patients well.

Thinking outside the “doc in a box”

In the future, instead of caring for thousands of people in a primary care panel, I think physicians will “care” for hundreds of thousands of people across a grid. And they will provide that care, in teams.

The grid will be color-coded by risk factors. Incorporating data from smartphone usage, credit card spending behaviors, typographical maps of cities that chart access points for public transit, healthy food, parks and recreation, public learning, and other staples of public life. Those access points will be rated by the degree of mobility they generate – socially, economically, and physically. High-rated areas will become models for low-rated areas, and low-rated areas will be first in-line for public resources to re-engineer the environment people live and grow in. This model places mobility, equity, and the capacity to maximize human potential at the center of innovations that create and sustain health.

It also positions physicians among a team of professionals who operate integrated public systems. Those systems will be powered by data algorithms that understand the connections between human physiology and the lived experiences that nurture or threaten that physiology, to ultimately predict risk rather than simply identify existing disease, early.

If future systems can predict risk at scale and are oriented to respond those risks with mitigating resources or information that informs and supports patient decisions, then in the future, physicians will also be expected to be architects of resource distribution, partners in city planning, advocates for social justice, and champions of equity.

There will likely always be a need for physical care of patients with ailments that require  treatments best administered at the bedside. But the advent of technology to provide remote care, analyze multi-variant data that predicts human behavior, and supports patient and provider decision-making with rapid access to information and resources, shifts the future of medical practice outside of buildings.

With a new legion of ancillary providers, it is time to free the “doc in the box” and expand the vision of medical care to include the future of physician practice.