Knowledge Workers

 

I wrote this editorial in 2010 for the Minnesota Psychiatric Society newsletter Ideas of Reference as part of my role as the President at the time. Since then, things continue to go in the wrong direction.  Some knowledge workers get more recognition from the business managers than others but it is based on income generation rather than the cognitive aspects of the job. And of course, psychiatrists are managed as if there is no cognitive aspect as all.  In an interesting development at the time, I was contacted by Canadian physicians after this editorial was published in the newsletter, but no American physicians.

 

Imagine working in an environment that is optimized for physicians. There are no obstacles to providing care for your patients. You receive adequate decision support. Your work is valued and you are part of the team that gets you immediate support if you encounter problems outside of your expertise. In the optimized environment you feel that you are working at a level consistent with your training and current capacity. That environment allows you to focus on your diagnosis and treatment of the patient with minimal time needed for documentation and coding and no time wasted responding to insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers.

As I think about the problems, we all encounter in our work environment on a daily basis I had the recent thought that this is really a management problem. Most of the management that physicians encounter is strictly focused on their so-called productivity. That in turn is based on an RVU system that really has no research evidence and is clearly a political instrument used to adjust the global budget for physicians. Current state-of-the-art management for physicians generally involves a manager telling them that they need to generate more RVUs every year. Managers will also generally design benefits and salary packages that are competitive in order to reduce physician loss, but this

is always in the larger context of increasing RVU productivity. Internet searches on the subject of physician management gener­ally bring back diverse topics like "problem doctors", "managing physician performance", "disruptive behavior", "anger manage­ment", and "alcoholism", but nothing about a management plan that would be mutually beneficial for physicians, their patients and the businesses they work for.

In my research about employee management, I encountered the work of the late Peter Drucker in the Harvard Business Review. Drucker was widely recognized as a management guru with insights into how to manage personnel and information going into the 21st century. One of his key concepts was that of the "knowledge worker".  He discussed the evolution of managing workers from a time where the manager had typically worked all the jobs he was supervising and work output was more typically measured in quantity rather than quality. By contrast knowledge workers will generally know much more about their work than the manager. Work quality is more characteristic than quantity. Knowledge workers typically are the major asset of the corpora­tion and attracting and retaining them is a corporate goal. Physicians are clearly knowledge workers but they are currently being managed like production workers.

The mistakes made in managing physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular are too numerous to outline in this essay. The current payers and companies managing physicians have erected barriers to their physician knowledge workers rather than optimizing their work environments. The end result has been an environment that actually restricts access to the most highly trained knowledge workers. It does not take an expert in management to realize that this is not an efficient way to run a knowledge-based business. Would you restrict access to engineers and architects who are working on projects that could be best accomplished by those disciplines? Would you replace the engineers and architects by general contractors or laborers? I see this dynamic occurring constantly across clinical settings in Minnesota and it applies to any model that reduces psychiatric care to prescribing a limited formulary of drugs.

I think that there are basically three solutions. The first is a partial but necessary step and that is telling everyone we know that we have been mismanaged and this is a real source of the so-called shortage of psychiatrists. The second approach is addressing the issue of RVU-based pay directly. I will address the commonly used 90862 or medication management code. As far as I can tell, people completing this code generally fill out a limited template of information, ask about medication side effects, and record the patient's description of where they are in the longitudinal course of their symptoms and side effects. I would suggest that adding an AIMS evaluation or screen for metabolic syndrome, an in-depth probe into their current nonpsychiatric medications and how they interact with their current therapy, adding a brief psychotherapeutic inter­vention, case management discussions with other providers or family, and certainly any new acute medical or psychiatric problems addressed are all a la carte items that need to be assigned RVU status and added to the basic code. Although there are more, these are just a few areas where psychiatrists add quality care to the prescription of medicines. The final solution looks ahead to the future and the psychiatrist's role in the medical home approach to integrated care. We cur­rently have to decide where we fit in that model and make sure that we don't end up getting paid on an RVU basis while we are providing hours of consultation to primary care physicians every day.

Overall, these are political problems at the legislative, bureau­cratic and business levels. It should be apparent to anyone in practice that when political pressure succeeds in dumbing down the profession, it necessarily impacts adversely on work environ­ment, compensation, and most importantly the ability to deliver quality care. The continued mismanagement of psychiatrists by businesses and bureaucrats who have nothing more to offer than a one-size-fits-all productivity-based model, is the biggest threat to psychiatry today and a much more enlightened man­agement strategy is urgently needed. The Minnesota Psychiat­ric Society and the APA need a strong voice in that change.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Modern Medical Management - The Myth of Sharing

Any casual reader of this blog will note that I don't really find any value in the myriad of management practices that have been added to medicine since businessmen and their friends in government have taken over.  The only reasons that these practices have been added is strictly political and rhetorical.  Nothing has been overhyped as much as management adding value to medicine with so few results.  Nothing has done quite as much to detract from the quality of care than these same business practices.  At this point they have become as entrenched as gun legislation and will be every bit as intractable. These problems are very difficult for the typical consumer/patient to see.  The obvious points of contention are insurance company denials either for medication or medical care.  They peaked in the 1990s when managed care companies thought that they would just put specialists out of business and had primary care physicians acting as "gatekeepers".  If you are old enough you may recall having to get a referral from your primary care physician to see specialists, for various services. and in some cases even to go into an emergency department.  It took them a while but these businesses learned that being that transparent in denying care was probably not in their best interest.  It also created a large burden on primary care physicians who were now uncompensated reviewers for the insurance company business practcies.  Eventually that system was scrapped in favor of shifting financial risk around - some to consumers and some to physicians and physician groups.  There are many ways it can happen, I thought I would provide a few examples below.

Managers like to use a shared decision making model in their manipulation of physicians.  I guess they don't consider physicians to be particularly bright people.  I don't know if that happens when you are socialized in the business world and automatically consider your decisions to be the best based on scant data, a lack of measurement standards and perceived quality of a good idea.  Whatever the reason, the approach generally only works because the physicians have no leverage.  Consider the following example.  Ten physicians are in a group providing hospital coverage for admissions to a community hospital.  It can be any specialty.  They are working a 7 days on and 7 days off model and each of them typically admits 10-14 patients per day at work.  They are stretched to the maximum so that anyone requiring emergency leave seriously disrupts the schedule.  Their colleagues are expected to cover.   The administration would like to open an 10% additional bed capacity and meets with all of the physicians about this to problem solve over how that might happen.  The physicians are asked the question: "We are here to all figure out how to increase the number of admissions by 10%.  Do you have any ideas about that?"  That leads to a general discussion of how the physicians are overworked and already spending too much time from home on the electronic health record.  A consensus builds and the physicians say they need more staff and staff to cover unpredicted absences.  At that point the administrator states: "No - I guess I didn't explain myself very well.  We are here to decide how to provide more services without increasing the cost by hiring new people."  The physicians finally get it.  Sharing in this case means, I will ask you for your input, but it is meaningless and I will require that you work harder even though you are probably burned out right now.

Another popular sharing model where physicians share more than anybody else is financial risk sharing.  The first introduction was when RVU productivity units were introduced.  The initial administrative argument seemed to be that not everyone was carrying their own weight.  The RVU system was portrayed as being inherently more advantageous to those people who were really productive.  It would allow them to make more more than the slackers in the department.  That was a good theory to try to appeal to physicians competitive natures, but in most departments - schedules and productivity was already saturated.  There were no slackers.  That point goes to the administrators.  The second risk sharing introduced was the "holdback" model.  This said that 10-15% of everyones' productivity would be held back until it could be assured that the production figures were met and then it would be released to the physicians in the group.  Keep in mind this was money that was already billed and earned.  There was no similar "holdback" from administrators or other personnel.  A take off on this risk sharing was getting physicians in administrative meetings and showing them endless spreadsheets of overhead costs and how much they would have to "produce" in order to get either their holdback or some other form of reimbursement.

The ultimate form of risk sharing today seems to be the contract that comes in and puts everyone at risk by not even recognizing the physician billing.  In this case the insurer comes in and says - this is how much we will pay you on a per diem basis to cover these patients for various problems.  You agree not to charge use anymore than than - no matter how much care each one of those patients needs.  This last model is the most insidious.  It caps any insurance payments (losses) and puts any physicians and their clinic at complete risk for catastrophic loss but more importantly it is a war of attrition.  With this model as the only source of funding, it allows administrators to view physicians as "costs" rather than resources and eliminate them, underfund them, overwork them, and burn them out.  It is a tried and true pathway for how managed care organizations using this model can adversely impact the quality of care in every organization they contract with, but especially the ones that don't understand corporate doublespeak.

Too many of my colleagues tolerate corporate doublespeak in management systems.  They don't seem to understand that risk sharing does not really mean that anything is shared.  It means that they are left holding the bag.  These same systems tell us how "younger physicians" are more accepting of these models.  Medical professional organizations and specialty boards are talking the talk.  We have the American Psychiatric Association talking about various collaborative care models where psychiatrists don't need to see patients any more.  The speciality boards have designed a number of expensive and complicated performance metrics that have no basis in reality and CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has done the same.  It is hard to imagine that when I started out in Medicine we did not have to deal with all of this administrative fantasy.  We went to work each day and it centered on the facts, patient care, and the medical science of the day -

Not what somebody forced us to believe for a few months at a time while they were wasting our time, energy, and money.

  

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Tic - toc......

Or why advising physicians on how to manage their time is not generally a good idea.

I will cut to the chase on this one.  The answer is two fold.  Medical practice is by its very nature inefficient.  Secondly, there are just too many people incentivized to waste physicians' time.   After reading another blog on this topic,  it is apparent that most people attempting to give advice to physicians either think that we are quite slow on the uptake or they have no appreciation of what medical practice is like.  The most misunderstood part is how much time physicians are forced to waste on work that is unnecessary to the work of patient care.

I preface my remarks by saying that in the many visits I have had to physicians of all specialties, I have never been seen on time and consider myself lucky to be seen within 30 minutes.  My all-time record was waiting about 30 minutes to be seen in the emergency department one day and then having to wait another 8 hours to be discharged by the physician who saw me for a rather uncomplicated problem.  So there is no expedited line for physicians in clinics, EDs, or hospitals.  We wait like everybody else.

The premise of efficiency in medical practice is a favorite of administrators and other salespeople pushing valuable time saving devices for physicians.  Primary among them has been the electronic health record or EHR.  I think there is finally a consensus on the fact that it has basically created a large pool of physician-stenographers that spend additional hours each day typing in documents that are designed for billing and coding purposes rather than enhancing the care of patients.  I will roll out my frequently stated comparison.  In 1981, two interns and myself could complete all of the daily documentation on a busy 30 bed neurosurgery service during the 2-3 hours that we were rounding with the senior residents and doing all of the other associated work that day.  Today it would probably take an additional 4-6 hours to do that work and it would mean less time in the operating room learning neurosurgery and attendings wondering about what happened to the team.  I have heard of some surgical services who hire retired surgeons to come in as scribes to do operative notes to reduce the paperwork burden.  The documentation burden is worse in primary care.  All of the advice on how to shift your time around to allow ample time for the documentation never considers the fact that time slots in clinic are rarely set in stone.  People show up 30 - 60 minutes late and expect to be seen.  Emergencies happen, and need to be dealt with while people are stacked up in the waiting area.  Labs need to be reviewed and all of the outgoing tasks (paperwork, phone calls, prescriptions, consults) need to be handled.  None of these are trivial tasks in terms of the time it takes to get them done.  Some of my friends in Endocrinology walk in on a typical morning and have over 250 test results stacked up in a computer queue that they need to review on top of the full patient schedule that day and do something about them - in some cases right away!

Outpatient clinics have certain routines every day depending on the specialties involved and the amount of staff available.  As an example, primary care clinics generally have many more staff to room patients, take vital signs, handle calls, and schedule patients than outpatient psychiatry clinics.  But even clinics that are more fully staffed can easily be overwhelmed by the demands placed on them.  There is no end to nonsensical ideas about how physicians can be more efficient, but there are always several facts that all of the advice givers typically ignore:

1.  There are mathematical laws called power laws that govern how many patients can be seen by physicians.  It is a mathematical fact.  All of the speculation about computers doing thousands of physician tasks per second are really meaningless at this point.  All of the administrators talking about "productivity" are as meaningless.  Productivity happens when real quality treatment occurs that changes a person's life.

2.  Despite all of the business focus on productivity, the business administrators in health care have done nothing but create obstacles to physician work.  Wasting hours every day doing tasks for insurance companies and the government is basically a case in point.  I would estimate at least 40-50% of all physicians time is wasted on these tasks.

3.  Every physician in this country who works in a clinic setting is an independent practitioner.  They don't need supervision, they just need to keep their license current and abide by the medical practice acts in each state.  The only time they are supervised is when they work in a clinic or hospital setting and suddenly they are vertically integrated into departments and placed under a supervisory hierarchy.  That hierarchy is by definition very inefficient.  A lot of time is wasted implementing the next great ideas of the supervisors and in some cases sitting in long drawn out meetings about the financial status of the department.  Apart from the administrators needing to demonstrate that they were actually doing something (that is frequently debatable) - these meetings were generally a waste of time.  I don't discuss all of my cases with business administrators - why would I want to read their spreadsheets?  How can putting 20 or 30 physicians in the same room for a meeting be anything but disruptive to clinic and hospital schedules?  The business and government initiatives to force physicians into these employment situations leads even less time to see patients.

4.  Physicians have been hit hard by the EHR and more.  Like many other jobs there is an implied 24/7 electronic access.  When physicians are not completing documentation after hours or at home,  they are answering e-mails and texts about patient problems.  It is not uncommon to start clinic and notice that is addition to a full schedule of appointments and labs to review that there are also 20 or 30 e-mails and messages through the EHR - many marked urgent.  If you are the first appointment in clinic that day and your physician said that she had to respond to an urgent problem - believe her.

I can understand that this post might elicit widely varying emotions.  Overworked and burned out physicians will see the obvious truths here and will wearily think: "Been there - done that."  There will be readers - like one who suggested that I drive a Porsche rather than a soccer mom van - who will be outraged that a rich doctor dares to complain about working conditions.  There will be readers who think that physicians should not complain on basic principles.  I guess they don't want physicians acting like other workers when this is supposed to be a privileged and noble calling.  They don't recognize that physicians are managed like production workers and not professionals.  There will be those trying to silence complaining physicians by suggesting it is "unprofessional" or characterizing legitimate complaints as "whining".  They generally have their own political agenda  that includes managing physicians like production workers.   It should be apparent that there is no extra time to manage.  There are many people who will say they are working as hard as doctors and therefore doctors don't have a legitimate point.  I would say that I don't doubt it at all that too many Americans are working long and hard hours.  The question is whether there is also a public safety consideration.  Most workers where there is an element of public safety have limitations on their hours.   Practically all physicians are running a huge time deficit that can't be overcome by gaining 5 or 10 minutes from the occasional appointment that goes well.

Irrespective of the emotional reaction to this post there is a very basic thought experiment that anyone can do.  It will highlight a suggested orientation to the problem.  The question is - when you see a physician do you want to see somebody who is burned out, fatigued from people wasting their time and trying to get them to do more busy work?  Or do you want to see a physician who is energetic, enthusiastic and has enough time to dedicate to you or your family member?

I personally will take the physician who is energetic, enthusiastic and has enough time to focus their energy on their family and learning more about their field.  That is not happening in many places today.      

And for all of those people who want to give physicians more advice on how to be more efficient in cramming 12-16 hours of work (much of it unnecessary) into 8 - here is a bit of advice for you.  Step back and let us do our work - we were doing quite well without you.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




Attribution:

Clock graphic by Dnu72 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

Watson Replacing Radiologists?

I like reading the Health Care Blog.  It typifies what is wrong with the management of the American Health Care system and I suppose blogs in general.  It is a steady stream of bad ideas and political rhetoric.  The best recent example was a little piece about radiologists called Will Watson Replace A Radiologist - Ask A Radiologist.  Radiologists either don't read this blog or they can't be bothered since the only comment at this point is from a rheumatologist on the necessary consultation and collegiality with radiologists.  The author of the main article is taking the perspective of being both threatening (Can the IBM Watson machine acquire the image reading capabilities of a human radiologist by "reading" a large set of clinical images and reading them at a much faster rate than a radiologist?) and advising (The only way that radiology will survive is to demonstrate their value to patients and colleagues by connecting with them?).  The author's conclusion is very explicit: Connect or be replaced.

Over the past thirty years my experience with radiologists has been positive and in some cases outstanding.  That dates back to the early days of being the medical student or intern responsible for carrying a stack of heavy and awkward films around.  I remember not having a film on a Cardiology rotation and regretting it: "Mr. Dawson - what made you think it was not a good idea to have the chest x-ray of this patient with mitral valve disease?"  From that point on radiologists were my friends.  That was an era before there was a lot of managed care penetration and I always rotated at public  hospitals and VA hospitals anyway.  You could always find a radiologist back in the dark confines of a reading room.  The interns and residents had certain staff members that were the go-to staff in terms of teaching and also amazing observations.  They always pointed out what we were missing.  They collected teaching files and teaching cases for us to learn from.  Reading rooms could be bizarre places in those days.  Very large films clamped on reading boxes.  In some cases entire rows of films - 10 to 12 wide, could be rotated on a belt device.  The radiologist would need to recall when they saw the film and press down on a foot pedal until the correct film popped up.  On many days row after row of films would need to be surveyed to find the one you wanted.  In the early days of spinal CT, many films had to be viewed on each patient.

I did not forget my positive experiences as a resident when I became an attending physician.  All the images I ordered on my patients had to be seen.  I would still go down and pull the films and where necessary review them with the radiologist.  Now I had neuroradiologists to work with and they were excellent.  The medium was changing.  Eventually all of the films went away and when I went down to radiology, the reading room was still there, but now it was a computer terminal with two monitors.  The images could be immediately manipulated to show the best view.  It was no longer necessary to pull the film off the cassette and illuminate it with a bright light.  I could always ask them questions, but as time went by they were under a greater time crunch.  Now all of the dictated reports were available on the phone system and you were encouraged to listen to all of the reports.  Asking to review a series of films without listening to that report was frowned upon.  At one point in time we were all members of the same clinic, but soon all of the radiologists were spun off into a different company.  They were the same people,  just no longer affiliated with our clinic.  By  that time managed care was trying to get everyone on a productivity scale and radiology seemed like an ideal speciality to crank up the productivity expectations.

In addition to the direct experience with radiologists, the author here also seems to not recognize the value of a human brain as a processor.  I teach neurobiology to students, residents, and physicians.  Part of the job of any lecturer is to help people stay awake.  Just before I delve into the frontal cortex and its connections to the ventral striatum, I put up a slide with a fact from one of my IEEE journals:

"Equivalent computing power (depends on the simulation) using today's hardware may require up to 1.5 gigawatts to power and that is equivalent to 0.1% of the US power grid or the output of a small nuclear power plant..."   IEEE Spectrum 2012

I ask the students to speculate on how the human brain has such a tremendous amount of processing power and how it is different from computers.  Even though the audience is generally tech savvy young physicians or students, I have never heard the correct answer.  One of the correct answers is the fact that the human brain is an unparalleled pattern matching device.  There are papers where it has been estimated we can each recognize about 80,000 unique patterns.  I start to go down the list and end with studies of radiologists, dermatologists and ophthalmologists demonstrating superior pattern matching and pattern completion skill.  But I also point out, it is why that you can't learn medicine from a textbook.  It is why you need clinical exposure before you can safely practice.   You need to acquire those skills.  To my knowledge, there have been no good papers written on available pattern matching in human diagnosticians compared with the cognitive tasks they face.  For example to be a good radiologist, how many unique patterns and variations do you need to be able to see - 10,000, 50,000?  The answer to that question is critical and yet we do not know the answer for radiology or any other medical specialty.  If the number if less than 80,000 (and we don't really know this confidence interval) - Watson may have the speed but not necessarily the accuracy.  Will Watson be analogous to the current ECG computer - a general normal/abnormal reading, a reading on measurable dimensions, and then not much on equivocal cases?  Only time will tell.

So I think this Health Care Blog post has the valuable lessons of most of their posts.  I don't know the author, but it is clear that he has not worked with radiologists as long as I have.  Not just the consultations backlit by reading boxes, but the telephone conversations about the best possible test to use to investigate the problem.  If he had worked with radiologists he would know that they have always been connected throughout the careers of most physicians.  The only obstacle to that connection has been corporate medicine.  The author's seemingly friendly advice is disingenuous.  If the business administrators who run health care really wanted radiologists connecting - they would get reasonable productivity compensation for that activity.  They would not need to connect and then run back to their terminal and read enough films to make up for the period of time they were in a conference or informally teaching residents from other specialities.  I think that the admonition to connect probably means to connect with the business administrators running the health plans.  Come back into the herd and let us tell you how many images to read, just like we tell other physicians how many patients they have to see.  Advising physicians on how to behave is also a well known strategy to manipulate them.

The real message is come back to the herd or be replaced, because there is nothing that would make an administrator's day more than replacing physicians with machines - especially physicians that they have no direct control over.

IBM knows that and I know that........

An equally important question is why Watson can't replace business administrators?  They seem to have the requisite lack of technical expertise and creativity.  They need a very basic level of pattern matching to do the job, certainly no training in it.  It would seem that a very basic program to optimize the working environment for physicians, health care workers and patients would be more ideal than dabbling in an area where real expertise and collegiality is required.  I can only conclude those concepts are alien to the ever expanding group of administrators whose reason for existence seems to be managing people - whether they need it or not.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


Supplementary:  Although I could not work it into the above post another insidious effect of corporations on medicine has been taking teaching out of the loop.  Radiology teaching files and teaching rounds were always a rich source of learning for students and residents.  It is a required skill on most board exams.  I recall approaching an administrator about preparing teaching slides for the residency in-training exam.  It is quite easy to copy de-identified images onto PowerPoint slides for review and these images routinely appear in all major medical journals.  I will never forget the response:

"Dr. Dawson - why would we want our images to appear on teaching slides?"

Just another sign of the apocalypse.