Monday, June 08, 2009

I see Jimi in the mirror!

A sticky wicket has been picked up.

A thorny problem has popped up out of the weeds.

Pandora's box has been breached.

A sh*tstorm will fly.

Got the idea? Then you know how I felt when I read a recent study in the May edition of the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. Entitled Trauma Surgeon Mortality Rates Correlate with Surgeon Time at Institution, this is a retrospective review of outcomes in trauma patients with a comparison of seasoned versus less experienced trauma surgeons. This is a very provocative paper, and comes from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami. In essence, the authors took a close look at their own data to see if trauma surgeon experience played a role in how major trauma victims fared in their institution. From the abstract:

Using our prospectively collected database, we compared our results with mean mortality for high-volume American College of Surgeon–certified trauma centers reporting to the National Trauma Data Bank. Mortality rates for our 11 trauma surgeons were correlated with years of experience as faculty surgeons at our institution during a 2-year period.
That's a pretty honest look in the mirror. What did they see? Overall, their trauma center mortality rates were excellent, and were significantly better than the mean rates of the National Trauma Data Bank for patients with all levels of injury. However, despite such good numbers,
...there was a significant correlation between years of experience as a surgeon at our institution and improved outcomes for patients with an Injury Severity Score ≥ 35 (weighted linear regression, p < style="font-weight: bold;">It took, on average, 7.9 years of experience at our trauma center to reach benchmark mortality rates.
Wait a minute. That means.....yes! Experience makes a difference! Us old guys do have something to offer after all. Of course, common sense would tell us this any way, but it is nice to be "validated" every once in a while.

Oh. Wait a minute. This means......experience makes a difference. In other words, despite the best instruction in residencies and fellowships, it takes a while before even the most well trained trauma surgeon has enough accumulated knowledge and experience to reach the level of his more seasoned colleagues. And that means, well, I'm not so sure --- but I'm pretty sure that some folks would demand to only be cared for by the most experienced trauma surgeons.

One of my favorite expressions comes courtesy of my program director:
Good judgment comes from bad experience.
Bad experience comes from bad judgment.
I know that today, after 15 years in practice, that I have better judgment and better experience than I did after 1 or 2 years in practice. That has come from a whole bunch of nights on call, time spent with patients, time spent with colleagues, time spent reading......and just a whole lot of time period. The same can be said for any occupation, it's just that physicians are held under the microscope a bit more closely than most.

I suspect that if this type of study were applied across all aspects of medical care, similar results would be found. Surgery just tends to lend itself to more spectacular problems when there are errors in judgment compared to, say, dermatology. But there simply are not ever going to be enough fully experienced surgeons on call at every institution in the country every single night. I think we have to expect that there will be an ongoing learning curve for new surgeons, but we need to encourage newly minted surgeons to put themselves into positions that allow close interaction with older colleagues who can provide much needed help as well as mentoring.

However, with the average age of practicing general surgeons in this country being ~ 56, I'm not sure the mentors will stick around to pass along the wisdom they have gathered if plans for major upheavals in health care in this country actually come to pass. And that would be a huge loss in institutional experience.

We'll see.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Trite but True


I must admit that the idea of sifting through reams of data makes me slightly nauseated. And antsy. And irritated. Let's just say it ain't my thing. But, as they say, somebody has to do it, and I'm all for that. Because sometimes sifting yields a little golden nugget --- the trick is to figure out if it is real gold or only pyrite.

A lotta data has been generated by the American College of Surgeons' NSQIP program --- the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. While I have quibbles with some aspects of NSQIP, particularly about patient risk stratification, it is a laudable attempt to gather enough clinical information to steer patient care in the right direction. With the data that has been rounded up to date, the data analyzers have been able to start identifying hospitals that are outliers in certain areas, basically those with higher than or lower than expected complication and mortality rates. Figuring out what makes those facilities tick in a positive or negative direction is the whole goal of the program, so that every facility gets information to improve patient care delivery.

At the most recent Academic Surgical Congress, NSQIP data analysis of Medicare patients undergoing colectomy from 2005-2006 was presented. A total of 12,688 patients in 123 hospitals undergoing colectomy were included (article in ACS Surgery News). The reviewers looked at not only specific complication rates and risk-adjusted mortality rates, but also at the mortality rates following those complications -- what they termed as "failure to rescue."

High-mortality hospitals were found to have a 1.5-fold greater risk of postsurgical complications --- that stands to reason. However, there was not a linear association with increasing rates of complications and increasing mortality ---- the higher mortality facilities had a rate of mortality associated with postsurgical complications that was more than twice that of low mortality facilities (26% versus 11%).

What, exactly, does that mean? It means that a certain percentage of patients are going to have complications, and that complications are more frequent in higher-mortality hospitals. But it also means that if a patient has a complication in a higher-mortality hospital, their likelihood of mortality is greater than if they had a complication at a lower-mortality hospital. An unwelcome double whammy, to say the least

Why might that be the case? Here is where the trite but true saying comes into play --- it takes teamwork to get patients successfully through a hospitalization. Avoidance of postoperative complications starts well before surgery, with appropriate preoperative evaluation and testing; this includes the assistance of other physicians (cardiologists, pulmonologists, etc.) and staff (following protocols for preop lab and EKGs, initiation of DVT prophylaxis, etc.). In the OR, having a team approach is critical to minimize the risks for excess blood loss, prolonged OR time, avoidance of temperature loss, etc., ad infinitum. Postoperative care is crucial, with nurses, physical and respiratory therapists, and physicians being attentive to mobilization, pulmonary toilet, glucose control.........you get the picture.

"Failure to rescue" then may occur with any person or department involved in a patient's care --- the nurse who doesn't recognize that a patient's low blood pressure may indicate bleeding; the respiratory therapist who thinks a patient with worsening respiratory function will do OK through the night; the physician who doesn't see a patient who is doing a bit more poorly than expected in a timely fashion; the blood bank that doesn't get needed products to the patient's bedside quickly enough; failure to implement protocols to deal with DVT prophylaxis, antibiotic prophylaxis, ventilator management, etc.

To draw on the current phraseology of hospital management-types, it boils down to culture. Hospitals with lower mortality rates, I suspect, aggressively engender a culture of high expectations, where everyone down the line understands how important of a role they play on the team. High expectations come with accountability, and the squishiness of some administrators when it comes to meting out that accountability can lead to poor outcomes. That accountability must also apply to the physicians, and a physician culture that demands the best for our patients in our hospitals --- from the physicians and staff alike --- pays big dividends.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

CMS : Flying Against the Headwind of Reality

When good science, good medical care, and common sense sit athwart government bureaucrats, who wins? I think all of you know the answer, but it bears repeating.

One of the hidden dangers that lurk for patients -- particularly those who have undergone surgery or who have had trauma -- is the risk for developing a venous thromboembilism. I have written about this in the past, so I won't bore you with the details. Simply put, we try to aggressively treat patients with prophylactic measures to try to avoid the development of VTE, using medications (Heparin or Lovenox), early ambulation, and sequential compression devices. There are a few problems with this, however:

  • Some patients cannot be mobilized, due to injury, ventilator-dependence, etc.
  • Some patients cannot be given chemoprophylaxis, with injuries to the central nervous system, spleen, or liver which could bleed when they are given medications that interfere with clotting.
  • Some patients will develop VTE, regardless of whether or not they are treated with appropriate prophylaxis.
That's right, Kemo Sabe, some patients will develop a deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism no matter what we do. While we may have prior knowledge of a hypercoaguable state in some patients, more often than not it becomes apparent only after the fact. Sometimes the hypercoaguable state is temporary, associated only with the episode of trauma, and sometimes it is genetically predetermined. But a really smart trauma surgeon at the University of Colorado has developed a test that appears to be able to detect patients who are at a significantly higher risk for VTE.

In the May issue of Surgery News (link is to a pdf file), Dr. Jeffry Kashuk describes the test, known as rapid thromboelastography (r-TEG), using a device manufactured by Haemoscope. For those of you who are interested in the chemical processes involved, read the article for the details that were presented at the Central Surgical Association's annual meeting (which I suspect will be published formally in the not to distant future). The bottom line? -->
  • 19% of the hypercoaguable patients experienced a thromboembolic event despite chemoprophylaxis, compared with none of the patients who had normal coaguability.
  • Evidence of a hypercoaguable state predicted thromboembolic events with a 100% sensitivity and 45% specificity in patients who received chemoprophylaxis.
Cool. If this pans out in larger studies, it will provide us with another tool to treat patients in a more tailored fashion. For example, we may be quicker to place a temporary vena cava filter in some patients, or give them greater than standard doses of Heparin until the r-TEG results normalize. Alternately, we may be able to avoid placement of some IVC filters in trauma patients who cannot be given chemoprophylaxis if their r-TEG tests do not demonstrate a hypercoaguable process. Once again, this has the potential to be a very useful tool if it pans out.

Whoa, Nellie. Stop right there. According to the Baghdad Bob the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, venous thromboembolism should never happen! It is, in their parlance, a "never event." That's sort of like saying that flat tires, frozen pipes, or computer crashes should never happen. It flies in the face of reality, an intentional offense to those caring for patients in this country. I say intentional, because the goal is not improving care, but denial of payment. (More on "never events" can be found here and here.)

So, we know that some patients are at an increased risk for VTE, and some are going to get VTE even with currently appropriate prophylactic measures. This test may help us identify some of those patients, and start trials on treating them differently. CMS, ignoring the science and accumulated weight of decades of clinical evidence, by declaring this to be a "never event" has rendered this type of investigation moot, as they simply will not fund care for "never events."

Let this be a little introduction to government-run health care.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Doctor Death

I belong to this quirky group of docs that gets together once a month --- we have a few adult beverages followed by two of us giving a talk. The talks have to be 10 minutes long, with no notes or visual aids (I said it was quirky). My turn comes around every two years or so --- I have posted some of the talks I have given a while back here and here. The last few weeks were light on blogging because my turn was up again, so time not spent working was frequently spent trying to put together a talk that would be entertaining and pass along something that the docs in the room had never heard. This rather long post is that talk -- I did edit it a bit to get to around 10 minutes, but this is the whole enchilada. And I know that there may be a few incorrect dates or factual errors, but I was trying to "tell a story."

On the night of September 5th, 2004, Ukranian presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko sat down for a relaxing dinner. He was fully at ease, dining with the chairman of Ukraine’s security services, Igor Smeshko, at the home of Smeshko’s head deputy, and so had released his usual security detail. The purpose of the meeting was to try to persuade Smeshko to restrain his underlings from interfering in the rather contentious election that was underway. Unfortunately for Mr. Yuschenkko, his dinner companion had already chosen to become a particularly active supporter of Yushchenko’s opponent, the sitting Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich.

Within hours of the dinner meeting, he was violently ill, with abdominal pain, nausea, and profuse vomiting. The following day, his face and trunk erupted with a forest of painful skin lesions. By the time he had been flown to Vienna for medical care four days later, he was desperately sick, barely able to walk, with biochemical evidence of hepatitis and pancreatitis. There was little doubt that Mr. Yushchenko had been poisoned, and the painful skin eruptions known as chloracne provided an important clue as to the agent that was used. Chloracne is almost exclusively seen as a result of heavy dioxin exposure.

Colorless, odorless, and tasteless, Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin had not previously been seen as a possible method of assassination or intimidation by poisoning. In this instance, however, it had been bound to alpha-fetoprotein. This created a highly soluble and toxic little bio-bomblet, carrying a much more immediate and devastating impact. In effect, the addition of a simple delivery system allowed the dioxin ingested by Mr. Yushchenko to nearly take his life.

Somewhere, someone was ringing a bell. Sending a message.

On the evening of November 1st, 2006, ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko dined with a pair men at a sushi bar in the heart of London. Litvinenko was living in political asylum in England, fearful of his life after publicly clashing with Russian authorities. He met with these gentlemen because they offered information for an expose on the murder of a Russian journalist Mr. Litvinenko was working on.

When he fell ill later that night, he had enough prior experience as a KGB officer to know that his severe abdominal pains and nausea were not due to a bad batch of raw fish. His hospitalization and rapid deterioration over the next two weeks provided anyone with a newspaper or an internet connection with a crash course in radiation poisoning. Color-less, odorless, and tasteless, the dose of Polonium-210 ingested by Mr. Litvinenko in a cup of tea has been estimated at greater than 100 times the lethal dose.

Somewhere, someone was ringing a bell. Loudly. But whose hand was on the bell rope?

To answer that question, we need to travel eastwards a few thousand miles, and back-wards several decades.

In 1888, an imposing Baroque building was erected in central Moscow as the headquarters of the All Russia Insurance Company. After the Bolsheviks took control of the country, this massive structure became the headquarters of a different kind of insurer --- the kind that ensures the absolute subjugation of a populace. The Lubyanka housed not only the Russian secret police, called the Cheka since before the revolution, but also the infamous Lubyanka prison. For decades, Muscovites dared not even utter the name of Cheka’s headquarters, calling it instead after a nearby toy store, “Detsky Mir.”

But just one block away from Lubyanka square sits a nondescript, squat square building that generated no concern even to the ever apprehensive citizens of Moscow. This building housed Laboratory Number One, where Vladimir Lenin established the Office of Poisons in 1921, a short four years after establishing total control over the Soviet Union. But the “cabinet,” as it was then known, was relatively inactive, as the head of the Cheka preferred more “traditional” methods of eliminating “enemies of the people.” It was only with the active involvement of Josef Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the Cheka after 1938, that the lab’s productivity blossomed as part of the First Chief Directorate of the secret police. The First Chief Directorate was responsible for foreign intelligence and special operations --- basically, everything associated with spies, assassinations, double agents, and the like. They were also responsible for assassinations within the Soviet Union. The poison laboratory would be given a half-dozen names over the next 40 years, but to those few that knew of its existence it was simply the “Kamera,” which is Russian for “chamber.”

The secret police certainly had no compunction about using a billy club, a piano wire around the neck, or a bullet in the back of the head to achieve their results; one does what one can with the tools at hand, after all. But some situations called for an approach that would be seen as less obvious, except to those being assassinated and their associates. Poisoning gives just such an effect, leaving a very cold corpse that gives off the hint of assassins who can reach anyone, at any time. In short, sending a signal. Ringing a bell that certain people are sure to hear.

But the Cheka at the time had very little to work with, and complaints about ineffective poisons from Cheka officers prompted Beria to jump start research in the Kamera. He wasted no time in finding a man with just the right combination of intelligence and amorality, tapping the head of the secret labs in the Bach Institute of Biochemistry in Moscow to take over poison research for the Cheka. For now, let’s simply call him by the nickname given to him by Stalin: Doctor Death.

A physician, Doctor Death was a professor of pathophysiology, but he was an unsavory character even by the standards of the secret police. Eager to please his patrons, Doctor Death took to this new task like Rosie O’Donnell with a bad case of PMS tearing into a box of chocolates. But his initial efforts fell a bit short of the high expectations of Beria and Stalin. Called on the carpet, he apologized, stating that it was difficult to predict the effect of poisons that had only been tested upon animals. Beria would have none of these excuses, asking “Who’s stopping you from experimenting on humans?”

Now, remember that Beria was most certainly aware of the rather artless murder of Rasputin a year before the revolution, who was poisoned, beaten, shot, and finally thrown into a river before he died. Or perhaps it was the lack of murderous elegance demonstrated by First Directorate agents in the assassination of Leon Trotsky, who failed to die for two days after being impaled with an ice axe to the head, that provided additional urgency for Stalin, Beria, and their pet biochemist to develop a simpler and less obvious method of state sponsored murder.

Regardless of the reason, Doctor Death was happy to comply, and he was rather success-ful. In fact, Stalin himself awarded him with a PhD for the thesis entitled “Biological Activity of the Products of Interaction of Mustard Gas with Human Skin Tissues.” Given the subject matter, it is no surprise that this award was kept highly classified.

In the long run, the ultimate goal of Doctor Death and his colleagues in the Kamera was the development of poisons which could be used without arousing suspicion in the victim, and which could not be easily traced. In other words, colorless, odorless, tasteless agents with rapid and devastating results. While death was the goal, an autopsy result of “heart failure” was seen as the optimal outcome.

Doctor Death certainly did not lack for research subjects, as the cellars of the Lubyanka were continuously refreshed with an influx of newly condemned enemies of the state. Almost all of these victims had been convicted on Statute 58: engaging in anti-Soviet propaganda, or in other words, thought crimes. He nicknamed his subjects “ptichki,” or little birds, and he had a preference for foreigners, including at least one known American named Cy Oggins.

The prisoners were brought in groups to the small lab, tricked into thinking they were getting medical treatment. Isolated in separate dingy cells, they were given poison and then observed through small windows. Sometimes, poisons that had worked with cruel efficiency on animals would fail to kill a prisoner. If they didn’t die, a bullet to the back of the head would suffice, but occasionally the victims were nursed back to health for another go with this deadly version of Russian roulette.

There were no survivors.

Over the next few years, Doctor Death experimented with a variety of agents, including digitalis, colchicine, cyanide, thallium, ricin, and curare. Delivery systems were devised for each agent, such as a ricin pellet in a sharp-tipped umbrella, poison cyanide sprayed from a rolled up newspaper, a poison-carrying bullet, or a powder surreptitiously slipped into a cup of tea. Each fresh victim was carted off for autopsy at the Lubyanka, looking for any obvious trace of poisoning, with all involved hoping for a result of "heart failure.".

Now, keep in mind the time frame here. Doctor Death was active in the Kamera from 1938 through at least 1945, and probably for a few years after that. The end of World War II was quickly followed by the Nuremberg trials, which made the Soviet hierarchy a bit nervous about the Kamera being discovered. Beria decreed that no further experiments on humans would be officially permitted, as “crimes against humanity” would most certainly include the research activities of Doctor Death and the rest of the Kamera crew.

Whether human experimentation continued after that is up for speculation, but what is not is that Kamera continued its existence for many decades longer, changing names about as frequently as Elizabeth Taylor changed husbands. Regardless of its official name at any given time, Kamera's poisonous biological and chemical agents were constantly refined over the years. Highly specialized poisons were crafted cause death or incapacity, and one thing in their design was constant, making the victim's death or illness appear natural, or at least produce symptoms that would baffle doctors and forensic investigators. In the long run, the Kamera became singularly specialized in transforming known poisons into original and untraceable forms. And they were highly successful.

So, in the post-Soviet world, who is ringing the bells now? Who is sending these kinds of messages today? The past few years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of politicians and journalists being murdered in Russia itself, and the non-Russian cases of Yushchenko and Litvinenko certainly have many pointing fingers at Moscow. Why would that be? Well, it is instructive to look at the current occupants of the upper echelons of the Kremlin. Russian governmental structure has changed in the past fifteen years, but there is still a Soviet style “top-down” approach in place. It is estimated that 80% of top Russian government officials are former or active KGB officers. And the man at the top, Prime Minister and former president Vladimir Putin, cut his teeth in the KGB as an officer in the First Chief Directorate --- the very same part of the Cheka responsible for running the Kamera.

In the end, though, there is no denying the role played by Doctor Death, or ultimately, by Beria and Stalin as well, who famously stated that "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." While those men may not have had an active hand in ringing these bells, their bony carcasses are certainly still clinging to the ropes.

What became of Doctor Death and his patrons? Stalin died in 1953 after a night of heavy drinking with his Politburo cronies. The official cause of death was an intracranial hemorrhage, but the presence of Beria that evening has always led to speculation that Stalin was poisoned. Adding fuel to that speculation is the fact that Beria himself later claimed to have had a hand in Stalin’s death, and that he quickly moved to try to position himself as Stalin’s successor. But Beria’s poker hand was a few cards short of a full house, and he was arrested within a few months, with a bullet to the head being his reward for his service to the party.

With the fall of Beria, a raft of his Lubyanka cronies were arrested, interrogated and tortured with their own methods. A large contingent called the Berievtsy, or the Beria men, were shipped off to the Vladimir prison. Eager to save his own skin from mustard gas, Doctor Death testified against Beria, using his own notes as evidence. But he was not spared arrest, and was sentenced to 10 years in the Vladimir. In a classic example of Soviet era judicial double speak, he was imprisoned not for murder, but for “illegally storing strong-acting chemicals outside the workplace.”

Not content with such a light sentence, Doctor Death peppered officials with letters, pleading with them that he had been a good scientist in service of the Communist Party. Eventually given early release in 1961, he was sent to internal exile in the Caucasus region, heading up a chemical institute in Dagestan. But he was Jewish, and has commonly been referred to as “Stalin’s Jewish Mengele” in Russia since his existence became more publicized. And this Jewish Mengele, who somehow escaped Stalin’s own periodic bloody purges of Soviet Jews, was to spend his remaining years exiled in a backwater Soviet republic on the Caspian coast that was more than 90% Muslim.

The story of Doctor Death would have ended there, never to see the light of day, if it were not for the Soviet bureaucracy’s obsession for detailed record keeping. Researchers dedicated to uncovering and documenting the Soviet regime’s crimes against its citizens were able to bring Doctor Death back to life, so to speak, and in doing so have given us the rather ironic story of his death.

Doctor Grigory Mairainovsky, also known as Doctor Death, pining away in a dirty port city on the Caspian Sea, made a final, fatal miscalculation. He wrote a letter appealing directly to the new master of the Kremlin, Nikita Kruschev, for official rehabilitation. In his letter, he reminded Kruschev that they had once met. Not one for subtlety, Mairanosvsky eagerly asked Kruschev to remember that they had shared a conversation on a train in the Ukraine, just before the assassination of a troublesome Archbishop; gee, what a happy coincidence! I helped kill meddlesome Russians too!

Mairanovsky received no “official” response to his letter. But this little “remember me” note may have struck a nerve in the Kremlin, as soon thereafter Mairanovsky died. The official cause of death? “Heart failure.”

I first heard of Grigory Mairanovsky in a book entitled The Lost Spy: An American in Stalin's Secret Service. Eventually, I cobbled together a bit more information from a variety of other sources to try to put a coherent story together.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Publish or ... get tattooed by your department


In my never-ending quest to be the most evidence-based surgeon out there, just to keep you über-informed, I pore through a stack of surgical journals every month thick enough to choke Rosanne Barr.

Just wanted you to picture that for a sec before moving on.

While it comes as no surprise to my medical colleagues, I must state for everybody else's benefit that there is, well, quite a bit of "filler" in medical journals. Articles that are really not quite up to snuff, so to speak. Ones that impart about as much knowledge as Ward Churchill on a bender. The kind of articles that leave you wondering, "Why was this even submitted for publication? And why in God's name was it accepted?"

We all know "filler" when we see it, whether it is in the newspaper, a magazine, or TV Guide. But medical journals are supposed to be full of scholarly stuff, right? Well, these journals need to fill their pages in some manner, and sometimes there just aren't enough quality submissions. Besides, us docs are just as eager to see our names in print as everyone else.

"Avoidance of tattoo disruption: a further benefit of laparoscopic surgery" is a bit of filler. The title pulls you in, sort of like a train wreck, but you know that there will be nothing of significance in the meat of the text. From the abstract:

Introduction Tattoos are increasingly common in both male and female patients. Abdominal skin tattoos may be present at the site of proposed incisions for conventional surgery whereas laparoscopic port site placement can be adjusted to accommodate tattoo constraints.

Methods Patients with tattoos were questioned by face-to-face interview to determine how long ago they had their tattoo, financial cost of the tattoo, and potential degree of distress caused by disruption of their tattoo (on a scale of 1–10). Consultant and higher surgical trainee general surgeons were asked by e-mail survey whether they had encountered a patient with a tattoo at the site of a proposed incision, did they avoid incising the tattoo during surgical intervention, and had they received a complaint from a patient about tattoo distortion.

Results Ninety six patients (50 male, median age 29 years) were questioned. Median cost of the tattoos was £35 ($70). Female patients were more likely to be distressed and complain than men about tattoo disruption (p = 0.0003) and there was a significant inverse correlation between time from tattooing and distress (p = 0.02). Most (79%) of the general surgeons questioned (n = 107, response rate 82%) had encountered tattoos at proposed incision sites; 61% had avoided making an incision through it and 4% had received a complaint about tattoo disruption by a patient.

Conclusion Tattoo disruption by surgical incision may cause distress especially in female patients who had their tattoo recently. Tattoos should be avoided where possible by alternative port site placement.
Perhaps I am too crusty and old, but I had two immediate reactions to this article. First of all, is this a pressing medical issue? Are we being deluged by patients irreparably harmed by having their tattoos altered as a result of surgery? Does this rank up there with, say, techniques to avoid bowel injury during laparoscopy in importance? Why, in fact, is this even something to write up, other than the fact that nobody else had done so yet? And secondly, if you are going to go to the trouble of asking the patients and doctors these questions, there are three that were conspicuously absent ---
  • (for the patient) On a scale of 1-10, what would have been more distressing, having the operation or not having the operation and leaving your tattoo intact? This is not a trick question, especially if the operation you had was an urgent one.
  • (for the patient) On a scale of 1-10, what would have been more distressing, having the surgeon struggle because he was trying to avoid your tattoo, or having him disrupt the tattoo to do the operation with as little trouble as possible?
  • (for the surgeon) What, exactly, takes precedence? Concerns about cosmesis, or concerns about doing the right operation the right way?
I'm not so crusty and cold-hearted that I won't work around a tattoo.....if it is the right thing to do .... but I hardly think that this rises to the level of a publishable activity. In academic medicine, there has long been an imperative to "publish or perish," so perhaps the authors wanted to be sure that theirs was the definitive article for "evidence-based medicine" in the realm of tattoo avoidance.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

How Low Can You Go?

Dallas in the early 80s was nightclub heaven, a city where there was always a "hot new trendy" place to go. "Trendy" as in "spendy." "Trendy" was not a good way to describe yours truly, so the amount of time I spent in hot new clubs was similar to the amount of time Nanc Pelosi has spent educating herself about basic economics. You could not, however, be young in that city and not hear something about a string of restaurants & clubs operated by a guy named Shannon Wynne. He had a thing for the letter "o" for some reason, and all of his clubs and restaurants ended with "o" --

8.0
Rocco Oyster Bar
Nostromo
Mexico
Tang-o

Everything he opened turned to gold, at least initially, with great crowds and publicity. But it was the Tang-o nightclub that was the place for an all-too-brief period of time in the early 80s. It was festooned with a gaudy cluster of six dancing frogs that were sculpted by Bob "Daddy-o" Wade specifically for the roof of the building, making it an instant landmark for the young and cool.

I gotta admit, I never went in. The lines were too long, and I wasn't really part of that crowd. But I absolutely loved their ads, and think about them every time I'm doing a particular operation. You see, Tang-o was located at the very southern end of Greenville Avenue in Dallas, a long stretch of road that at the time contained a treasure trove of restaurants and clubs. There was really nothing that far down Greenville, so the ads intoned with a deep, gravelly voice:

How low can you go?
Tang-o, on lowest Greenville.

How low can you go? That, in fact, is a question a surgeon must ask himself when evaluating and operating on a patient with a low rectal cancer.

Basically, a lot of what I do is plumbing --- the GI tract is one long tube, with twists, turns, special functions, different anatomic characteristics, etc. Each part of that tube has specific blood supply and lymphatic drainage, and anatomic positions and attachments that influence the ease, or lack thereof, with which we can operate upon it. The esophagus, for example, lies within the neck, the chest, and the abdomen, and depending upon what needs to be done to a patient it may be approached through any (or all) of those areas.

The rectum poses a few thorny problems for us. It's function is simply as a reservoir, albeit a rather important one for obvious reasons. Almost always, removal of a portion of the rectum is done for malignancy (or polyps that cannot otherwise be removed), but the location of the tumor dictates what must be done surgically. A tumor that is "too low," or too close to the anus, cannot be removed without leaving the patient with a permanent colostomy. But how low is "too low?"

The best way to describe this anatomic issue is to think of two bowls nestled one within another, with the inner bowl being more pliable but pretty thick, and the outer bowl as firm as stone. A garden hose runs from inside the inner bowl, down through its thick wall, and then out the outer bowl. From a simplistic standpoint:
  • Removing a segment of the hose and putting the two ends together above the inner bowl is pretty straightforward. This is the situation for the colon and the uppermost part of the rectum, which lies within the free peritoneal cavity.
  • Removing a segment of the hose that abuts, or lies within the wall of the inner bowl and connecting the two ends is more challenging. This is in general the case for the mid portion of the rectum, straddling the intra- and extraperitoneal areas as the bowel passes out of the abdomen on its way to the anus.
  • Removing a segment of the hose near its final exit pretty much can't be done if the goal is to have two functional ends to connect together. This is the issue for distal rectal cancers, i.e., how low can one go without crossing the Rubicon and committing a patient to a permanent colostomy?

There is much more involved, obviously --- blood supply and lymphatic drainage, for example --- and we need to make sure that our surgical margins are quite clear of tumor (at least a 2cm margin distally is a minimum requirement) for the best outcome. We help no patient if we leave tumor behind, or leave their sphincter mechanisms no longer functional.

This is, however, the kind of operation where there is just as much artistry as there is science, as well as a whole lotta patient-specific factors in play. There are a few tricks in a surgeon's bag that help us get way, way down in the pelvis, and a few things that make it impossible to do so. This is a physically demanding operation as well, and there are portions of the procedure where there is as much "feeling" as "seeing"...... the surgeon must free the rectum from the tissues in front of the sacrum, from the bladder and uterus & vagina or prostate anteriorly, and from dense fibrous and vascular tissues (the lateral rectal stalks) on either side, and tactile feedback is very important. Freeing the rectum in the deep pelvis becomes a process of working in each of these regions circumferentially, not in any single organized fashion but rather "taking what's easy" in one area and then doing the same in another.

Gradually, we reach the muscular floor of the pelvis, the levators (levator ani). Actually getting this far is very dependent upon the patient's anatomy --- it is easier to work in a wider space, i.e., in a women's pelvis in comarison to a man's. An obese patient poses big challenges (pun intended), as does a patient who has had a lot of prior surgery.

Remember the movie with Catherine Zeta-Jones slinking under, over, and around the laser beams of an alarm system to steal a rare piece of art? It sure left an impression on me, and I'm sure it was absolutely crucial to the plot. Well, in some respects, when we are working on "stealing" a part of the rectum, we must work carefully to avoid a few danger zones of our own. Potential problems include big-time bleeding from a nest of snakes along the anterior aspect of the sacrum known as the presacral plexus, injury to the ureter (which drains urine from the kidney to the bladder), injury to the bladder, and injury to the prostate or vagina (especially with bulky tumors).

At some point, though, a point is reached where the surgeon must decide if a complete and safe resection with an anastomosis (putting the bowel back together in continuity) is possible. We try. We sweat it out. We really work at it to try to avoid a permanent colostomy. But each patient is different, so it is not always possible to be 100% sure before we are in the OR whether or not we will be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

So, in the end, the question in each case remains the same --- how low can you go?

Monday, April 13, 2009

96 Tears? No, 100 Lab Coats



When it comes to counting, ? & The Mysterians have nothing on me.

I entered medical school in the late summer of 1984. Almost 25 years later, I have much to look back upon, and as a result of a headlong rush through those years, many holes in my memory. Unlike a hunk of Swiss cheese, however, sometimes little things will jarringly cause me to fill in a few black holes in my cerebral RAM. SWIMBO sent me hurtling backwards in time with a simple little recent comment ---

"Good Lord, look at yourself! Get some new lab coats! NOW!!"
Indignant and hurt (how could she say that about my.....comfy, wrinkled and coffee-stained coat?), I pulled out the best retort in my quiver --- "Er, yes dear."

But it got me thinking. I am very old fashioned, and as a surgeon have always worn a lab coat in the hospital, either over scrubs or over my regular clothes. In some ways it may seem a silly convention, but I feel as naked without my lab coat in the hospital as I do without my helmet on my mountain bike. And I have been wearing one since the beginning of my third year in medical school.

Please, don't get me wrong. My inner fashion barometer tells me every morning that blue jeans and a very obnoxious Hawaiian shirt is just the thing to wear to work. However, SWIMBO has kindly arranged my clothes in such a manner that I can almost never fail to find some combination that has a greater than 50% chance of matching. Sort of like Garanimals for the fashion-challenged adult. But once I get to my office, the need to put on that white coat is as basic to my nature as is the urge to finish rounds before going to the OR in the morning.

So, SWIMBO's comment got me thinking. How many lab coats have I worn over the past 23 years? Perhaps the more salient question would be, how many lab coats have I ruined over the past 23 years, with coffee spills, rips when the pocket holes were caught on doorknobs, volcanic eruptions of pus while opening wound infections, ink stains, and the like? I'm putting the number at somewhere between 70 and 100, and given my severe coffee enslavement, 100 may be the more accurate estimate.

The first was thin, with buttons that had a tendency to fall off during the most embarrassing moments, such as when I had to present a patient's history and workup to the smartest man in my then known universe after a sleepless night of work. It had no embroidery or markings whatsoever, but had pockets that were ridiculously large enough to hold :
  • a stethescope
  • a pen light
  • a reflex hammer
  • a copy of the Sanford guide
  • a well-worn copy of the Washington manual
  • at least 3 pens
  • scrap paper; lots of scrap paper
  • most importantly, a copy of the Scutpuppy Guide to the Lands, an indispensable guide book to Parkland Hospital, its idiosyncrasies and Byzantine method of operation, and its navigable hallways, along with a few helpful Spanish phrases (download it here for fun and exciting reading!)
  • lunch
I am sort of a big guy, and was fortunate to go to not only to The Best Medical School in the Country®, but also one which did not require students and junior residents to wear short, short-sleeved lab coats. Those things have a tendency to make one look like Bozo the clown when he's trying to dress down to the level of a real doofus. And that, I believe, has always been the point in those institutions ---- to single out the junior level folks, sort of like fraternity hazing on a prolonged scale. Since I was a Γ Δ Ι in college, that sort of crap really pisses tees me off.

So, my big white lab coat with oversized pockets did me well for about 8 weeks, which was the length of my first rotation as a 3rd year medical student --- internal medicine at Parkland Hospital. This was followed by 8 more weeks in internal medicine at the Dallas VA Hospital, and by the time 16 weeks was up, "white" was a term that could only be used in the past tense when referring to that rag.

During the remainder of my time in medical school, I variously soiled and destroyed more than a few other coats, but arrived in Salt Lake City in the summer of 1988 freshly married to a woman doggedly determined to ensure I would show up for work cleaned and pressed (even if I didn't end the day that way). Somewhere along the way, she was kind enough to order me a plush, thick, 100% cotton lab coat embroidered with "Aggravated DocSurg, M.D." in dark red. It was great. Sort of made me feel like Navin Johnson ("The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!"). Just like Navin having his name in the phone book, however, having my name on my coat made me a target for potshots for attending surgeons who needed to pimp someone, but who weren't always sure what everybody's name was.....except for that guy with his name out there for God and everybody else to see!

Fast forwarding through the 6 years of residency, each pristine and embroidered lab coat was donned with the hopefulness of Pig-Pen as he steps out of a bathtub. The results of a week's worth of work ended up generating the same level of disarray as Pig-Pen's entry onto the playground. Somehow, my attendings managed to maintain a razor-sharp crease and a zero "smudge quotient" on their lab coats. Surely, once I was out in practice, I could do the same!

Well, the "dirty" little secret I discovered was that the attending surgeons had the luxury of having residents do most of the scut work, and they could hang their bracingly white coats in their office after rounds (and no, I'm not complaining, only making an observation). In practice, well, I have no residents! So, while I may be able to afford a few more coats than I used to, they still get just as coffee-stained and worn out as ever.

Trashing at least 5 coats per year since starting practice in 1994, I suspect I have crested the century mark for lab coats through my career. It ain't over yet, so I suppose I need to start buying in bulk.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Just Do It

My son and I just returned from a 4 day mountain biking trip in Canyonlands National Park, just outside of Moab. This was our fourth trip with Western Spirit Cycling, and I have to say once again that this is the best experience I have ever had with my son. The guides are fun, funny, great cooks, unbelievable riders, helpful, and genuinely great people; in four trips, I have ridden and camped with 12 different Western Spirit guides, and they have all been gems. Our trip this year was a bit windy and chilly (in the teens one night), but the scenery was beautiful.



We rode the White Rim Trail, which initially runs along the Colorado River, and then winds along the Green River. My son is now 15, and can absolutely kick my rear on a bike. Here is one of the few times he was within my sights during the day.



We did get caught in a spot of nasty weather -- cold winds, a touch of snow, and a few pretty chilly nights. But it was never bad enough to make this anything less than a great time.



I cannot recommend this company highly enough. While I think it's great to do with my son, by no means are all of their trips designed to be for families only.



So, if you are willing to sweat a bit on vacation, give 'em a call.


Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Canary, Meet a Possible Coal Mine Air Shaft

GruntDoc recently posted about how he feels the EDs in this country are similar to lobsters, slowly cooking while to death while they think they are doing reasonably OK. The same could be said for a variety of specialties in medicine, where the poisonous trifecta of poor insight of our governing bodies, the insidious nature of reimbursement decreases brought on by the RBRVS system (thanks, AMA!), and government intervention has generated unintended outcomes in patient care and physician behavior. Add to that the cost of "CYA medicine" (yes, Matt, it does happen) generated by the fear of being sued, and you've got a swell recipe for boiled lobster.

But I've posted about this before, and certainly anyone connected with medical care can see that there are big challenges ahead for us. Peruse the most recent National Medical Resident Match Program Data, and compare it with historical data, and you'll get a sense of how few front line physicians there will be available in the future. There are not, however, a whole lotta big solutions on the horizon. Some folks are starting to get innovative in their thinking, however, and are starting to look beyond the knee-jerk response of "hire more physician extenders."

I spend a considerable amount of time in the hospital providing trauma coverage for our ED. This requires me to be physically here for a 24 hour stretch, in addition to my regular work as a general surgeon. It gets, to be honest, old. And I suspect that there will come a time when I will no longer provide trauma care, particularly if my income gets slashed by the socialists in Washington. There are many institutions in larger cities where there are trauma services that provide essentially nothing other than trauma care, because the volume of injured patients requires this. That, for me, would get really old.....and there really isn't an abundance of general surgeons who feel differently. As a result, there is already a shortage of dedicated trauma surgeons, and there will be a gradually growing deficit in the future.

Cue one innovative and interesting solution -- "Emergency Traumatologists as Partners in Trauma Care: The Future is Now." Brought to you courtesy of one of my old senior residents, now part of the Penn system. Here's the abstract:

Background Decreasing manpower available to care for trauma patients both in and out of the ICU has led to a number of proposed solutions, including increasing involvement of emergency medicine-trained physicians in the care of these patients. We performed a descriptive comparative study in an effort to define the role of fellowship-trained emergency medicine physicians as full-time traumatologists.

Study Design We performed a retrospective review of concurrent and prospectively collected data comparing process of care and outcomes for the resuscitative phase of trauma patients cared for by full-time fellowship-trained trauma surgeons (TS), a fellowship-trained emergency medicine physician (ET), and a first-year fellowship-trained trauma surgeon (TS1).

Results
Patient age, Revised Trauma Score, and Injury Severity Score were similar between groups. Process of care, defined by transfusion of uncrossmatched blood, prevalence of hypotension in patients receiving uncrossmatched blood, time spent in the emergency department, frequency of ICU admission, severity of injury for ICU admission, and time between emergency department and operating room for patients requiring surgery, was equivalent between groups. Outcomes evaluated by mortality and length of stay in the hospital and ICU did not differ between groups, and provider group was not predictive of mortality in stepwise logistic regression.

Conclusions
These data suggest that emergency traumatologists can provide trauma care effectively within a defined scope of practice and may provide an effective solution to manpower issues confronting trauma centers.
Interesting. Innovative. But workable?

Let's look at the positives first. Evaluating all the data, the patients cared primarily for by the fellowship trained trauma surgeons and the fellowship trained emergency medicine physician were similar in characteristics, and had similar outcomes. In other words, the patients did as well regardless of which of the three physicians were caring for them.

However, we are talking primarily about patients with blunt trauma --- auto accidents, primarily. Those with penetrating injuries, while they can initially be assessed by a non-surgeon, will require surgical intervention. And the occasional blunt trauma patient also needs a laparotomy. From the article --
Clinical coverage grids were designed using the ET in appropriate areas and in compliance with PTSF/ACS (American College of Surgeons) guidelines for trauma center accreditation. So the ET could not provide independent in-house coverage for trauma unless supported by a surgeon.
Additionally, this retrospective study looked at the involvement of a single fellowship trained emergency medicine physician. It would be very unwise to therefore extrapolate this data to suggest that it is a workable model for most institutions. But it may be an alternative to the approach that has been suggested by the AAST and ABS:
...the American Board of Surgery has supported efforts on behalf of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma to establish a curriculum in acute care surgery in the hope that redefining the content and spectrum of care provided by trauma surgeons might attract more residents to the specialty. It is too early to judge the effectiveness of these efforts, but as yet only two institutions have applied for accreditation for this fellowship. In addition, it is unclear how much this curriculum differs from the current practice of many trauma surgeons, because the requirement and opportunity to learn and apply operative skill sets derived from orthopaedics and neurosurgery are very limited.
Is the Penn approach a good solution? Perhaps, rather than being a solution for all, it is an indication that there is no single solution that will work for every institution. As the system as a whole struggles in the future with fewer physicians, each hospital is going to have to find a workable solution to fill their needs, whether in trauma surgery, OB, thoracic surgery, or medicine. As I have often said, the future of medicine is paved not with concrete, but quicksand, and knowing how quickly to keep moving in any particular direction is difficult. Finding the missing piece of each puzzle will require innovative thinking. Nice work, Dr. Grossman.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Where are they?

My brother was recently in Houston, and decided to do what all old farts do when they are in places they used to live ---- look up old girlfriends!!! Actually, he drove by the house we last lived in there, and sent along a photo or two:



Though I last was inside the house in 6th grade, I'm pretty sure I could walk in the front door, take an immediate right, head up the stairs, and find 6 miles of Hot Wheels track in a large room on the second floor. My little brothers and I would set the track up to start on top of a bed, snake through the room, run down the stairs, and end on a jump.....so the cars left a series of dents in the wall at the bottom of the stairs (Sorry, Mom. I hope the current owners have better luck with their kids).


My father planted the pine trees in the yard, and they have grown just as he had hoped. The weeping willow that was in the front yard was taken down some time ago, and the buckling sidewalks where we used to ride bikes looks to have been replaced. It seems as if I spent my entire childhood destroying decks of my parents' playing cards, clothespinning them so they would make noise while I cruised the neighborhood (Sorry, Mom).


At night, though, I got to see my future, or at least I thought I could. I'd read books like "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "The Wind in the Willows," and think I could have great adventures. I'd watch SciFi shows like The Outer Limits, The Twilight Zone, and Night Gallery and think about all the cool things that would scare the willies out of me in the years ahead. But most of all, I'd watch Dino and the Golddiggers ---- that was going to be my real future!


Dean would swagger out from behind a curtain every Thursday night, carrying a martini, and spend an hour yukking it up with John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Don Rickles, Lucille Ball, and whoever else was part of the Hollywood crowd at the time. I frankly don't remember much of that, other than the fact that he rarely got through a skit without barely contained laughter himself. What I do remember, however, are the Golddiggers surrounding him like a cloud of hot-looking angels. I remain convinced that before the show, they would check his tuxedo to make sure it looked sharp, and stirred the perfect martini just for him. It was the perfect image to send a 6th grade boy off to sleep.


My 6th grade mind became wholeheartedly set on the idea that I would grow up to be Dean Martin, and that every night I'd come home to a cold adult beverage and a harem of scantily clad women waiting for me. Really. Forget Cary Grant, Sinatra, or any of the current crop of stars --- Dino was the epitome of cool.



So, I've been wondering. The Outer limits has been recycled and repackaged. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has been made into yet another movie. Though not in name, Night Gallery themes can be found in myriad of TV shows and movies. The Twilight Zone has been revived more times than Resusci Annie. So, I've been wondering....I've got my martini glasses, olives, and gin, so...

when do I get my Golddiggers?


SWIMBO, I suppose, would not approve. But maybe she's waiting for Dino, martini in hand.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

5 Steps to a Happier Healthcare System

Too many nights on call, too many weekends on call, too little sleep lately to blog coherently. Oh, I've tried, but get 2/3 of the way through a post and realize that what I have written makes about as much sense as a Jackson Pollack painting --- colorful, but impenetrable and eventually utterly meaningless to someone who spends any time looking at it. So, I'll try again.

Much ink has been spilled recently in the newspapers regarding "health care reform," and many more pixels have burned brightly on news sites and blogs about the same. Since nobody in Washington gives a rat's rear end about what I have to say about the subject, I'll offer my prescription for health care reform right here. It's a 5 step program, easy to implement, but impossible for the politicians and lobbyists to swallow.

Step 1. Uncouple health insurance from employment. Basically, allow folks the same degree of freedom in selecting a health insurance product that they enjoy in selecting life, disability, and auto insurance. Ever notice how all of those GEICO and Progressive auto insurance ads tout not only better pricing, but better service as well? That's the cool thing about a competitive marketplace --- it tends to keep prices reasonable and allows an even playing field.

How to do this? Actually, despite the protestations from the Obamanistas, Sen. McCain's idea of allowing a tax credit for individuals purchasing their own insurance, while taxing the benefits of employer-provided health insurance was a reasonable step in this direction. I would prefer to simply not tax income used to purchase health insurance, regardless of who is footing the bill.

Why won't this be allowed by the folks in Washington? As is pretty obvious, the folks currently running the world's biggest money wasting entity simply want to find ways to get more of your hard-earned money, including taxing your health care benefits (but without the tax credit). Gotta pay for that "stimulus," you know.

Step 2. Eliminate state-specific health care requirements, and allow folks the freedom to choose health insurance from providers across the country. What many consumers don't know is that each state sets the requirements for what a health insurance plan must cover. For example, in my state, chiropractic care is mandated to be covered. That's sort of like requiring coverage for readings by Miss Cleo, in my opinion, but that's beside the point --- I, along with every other Colorado resident must pay for chiropractic care when paying for health insurance. And I am not allowed to call bullshit "Pelosi" on that and purchase coverage from an insurer in a neighboring state that doesn't have this requirement.

How to accomplish this? I think that most Americans can agree on a basic set of requirements of a health insurance plan, which could serve as a basic starting point for consumers to compare plans and coverage options that could be done more in an a la carte fashion. You want chiropractic coverage, aromatherapy, and massage therapy? Great, here's the pricing schedule. To my mind, this would be the only place where the feds would set policy, and eliminate the ability of lobbyists to get state regulators to insert a host of costly add-ons to plans that consumers don't want.

Why won't this be allowed by the folks in Washington? If those self-serving idjuts won't even allow a la carte pricing for cable TV, do you think they would do it for health care? Besides, the lobbyists for folks wanting their bailiwick to be fully covered would be out in force, so achieving a consensus on a basic level of coverage would be damn near impossible. Given the stinking pile of Pelosi that passed as a "stimulus package," we would probably end up with "basic" coverage that would be far more expensive than what we have now. Even so, I can dream, can't I?

Step 3. Tort Reform. This is a concept near and dear to my heart....and should be to anyone who runs a business. Tort reform would positively impact every single industry in the country, not just health care, with significant savings. Loads and loads of information here.

How to accomplish this? Take Shakespeare's suggestion (Henry VI -- Act IV, Scene II).

Why won't this be allowed by the folks in Washington? They are all lawyers, and most importantly the party currently in power owes a tremendous debt to the trial lawyer lobby. This will never, ever happen in our current political climate.

Step 4. Establish a system of health courts. Just because I think tort reform is desperately necessary for the U.S., I do not think that folks should be unable to access the legal system if they have been truly wronged, whether in the health care system or due to gross negligence in another field. But in the current medical malpractice environment, the only winners are the attorneys.

How to accomplish this? Once again, this would require the full participation and engagement of legislators willing to ignore the trial lawyer lobby.

Why won't this be allowed by the folks in Washington? See the answer in question 3. Ain't gonna happen, no matter how many good folks support the idea.

Step 5. Make me king. "Aggravated DocSurg, Lord of all that is Good and Reasonable, Emperor for Life." Has a nice ring to it, don't you think? That way, I can make sure that this is all accomplished with a minimal amount of bloodshed fuss.

OK, that's not realistic, at least not until I become better armed (time to visit Dragon Man). Actually, step 5 is to tackle the many headed hydra known as Medicare. There is simply not enough money lying around in the pockets of "the rich" to satisfy this cash sucking beast, but there are some concrete steps that could be used to rein it in a bit:

  • Eliminate coverage for chiropractic care. I mean, really, what a waste of cash. We'd be as justified as having Medicare cover astrology as chiropractic care.
  • Allow physicians and hospitals to write off the difference between what Medicare pays and what they would otherwise expect to get paid for the same care. Everybody knows that there is cost shifting going on, and Medicare simply does not cover the costs of providing care to most patients. Why shouldn't I be able to write that off as bad debt or charity on my income taxes? This would immediately solve access problems for patients, particularly in primary care; it has gotten so bad that in my community I cannot find physicians willing to see Medicare patients in many instances.
  • Put the institution of ICD-10-CM on the back burner. Permanently. Coding for care is expensive and time consuming, and the next version of the international classification of diseases is an exponential increase in complexity for coding, with no benefit to payors, consumers, hospitals, or physicians.
  • Eliminate the "3 day" rule to get patients from the hospital into a nursing facility. This is frankly a silly rule that increases costs for all hospitals and for Medicare.
  • Eliminate the rule that prevents Medicare patient from being held overnight at an outpatient surgical facility. This, too, is a silly rule that increases the costs that Medicare and patients must expend to have procedures done.
  • Eliminate the bastard stepchild of Teddy Kennedy and the Balrog known as GPCI. There is no difference in a laparoscopic cholecystectomy done in Colorado as compared to New York, but the pay from Medicare is different based upon Geographic Practice Cost Indices, which are determined by a formula so poorly designed that it would make Einstein blush. It's a ridiculous abuse of the physicans participating in Medicare.
  • Allow seniors with enough of their own money to fully opt out of Medicare. While this is currently technically possible, it is pretty damn difficult to achieve, and because of the issues above is pretty damn expensive.
  • Last, but not least, mandate that all Congressmen and their families be placed into the Medicare system during their time in office and for five years after they leave office. That will eliminate a whole lotta political poppycock.

Pipe dreams? Sure. But heck, if I can dream of being emperor for life, at least I can dream of doing something good with the title.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

I Agree, But Can't Comply

I received a thoughtful response to my recent over-the-top post about the difference between "consumers" and "patients" from a gentleman at HealthLeadersMedia.com. He raised some good points, but I am afraid that neither he nor I will get to see our ultimate vision of consumer- or patient-centered health care in the future. Here are a few snippets of what he had to say:

This is becoming one of those "get over it" moments for healthcare professionals. You can resist the notion all you want; the fact is patients more and more see themselves as consumers, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

.....When it comes to my health, I have to do my own homework and make my own decisions. When it comes to my kids, I end up getting the best help and useful information from teachers and non-physician providers. The tired notion that as a patient I have some special connection with a physician who partners in my health is an alien concept. I don't blame physicians for this; it's just the way the system has evolved. As a result, I have no choice but to be a conscientious healthcare consumer.
I agree wholeheartedly --- it is important to be a conscientious healthcare consumer, and it is not necessarily a bad thing for patients to see themselves as consumers. But let's look at what a true provider of services-consumer interaction entails. Right now, my son is at swimming practice, and after spending the last hour catching up on paperwork, I am doing a little blogging. Where did I go for a cup of java and wifi access? I could have gone to Corporate Coffee Central; I like their coffee. I could have gone to my favorite coffee shop; it's pretty long drive, however. I chose instead to go to another locally-owned franchise, because it was convenient, has wifi, and serves a pretty good cup of joe.

I chose. Pretty simple concept in a capitalist society.

We had a simple cash exchange, a couple of bucks for a big, black cup of mud, and then a couple more for another cup. I had a menu of options to choose from, knew the price, and had the option of getting extras, such as a pastry that would make even Fat Bastard add a few inches to his waistline. Before I ever got here, I had seen advertisements for this and other places I could choose for coffee, all of which proclaim that they have the best tasting stuff. Some of them are running special discounts, which is really cool if you are a caffeine fiend like myself. If I became unruly, or refused to pay for my coffee, the shop owner can run me right on out the door, with no repercusions. If I ran a coffee shop, I would do all of these things --- advertise, make sure I offered the best product at a reasonable price, try to meet the desires of my customers, etc.

However, as a physician, I am not allowed to do these things. I cannot set my own price for providing care to patients ---- the government mandates what I can and cannot charge, with a list of rules that is so long it mirrors the tax code. I think that there are things that I do pretty well, and that I am caring and compassionate and very competent. However, I cannot advertise that I provide better care than my competitor across town ---- this is partly due to ethical standards, and partly due to the issues surrounding patient privacy. I cannot run a "special," giving patients a Mardis Gras discount for laparoscopic cholecystectomy ---- if I did so, Medicare or their insurer would demand repayment for the difference in price for all of the other cholecystectomies I did in the last three years. And if I have a patient who is rude to my staff, refuses to follow instructions, and doesn't pay his bill..... I still have to take care of him.

Realistically, Mr. Johnson and I are talking about two sides of the same coin --- or, more accurately, about two individual squares of a Rubik's cube, as there are many dimensions to this issue. Physicians are not allowed on the same playing field as other small businessmen. As a result, patients are not given all of the potential information that they may desire to be conscientious healthcare consumers. This problem will only worsen if we head to a single payer or totally government run healtcare system.

If Mr. Johnson and those at HealthLeadersMedia.com really believe in the consumer model of healthcare, then they must be at the forefront of the effort to prevent our headlong dash towards socialized/government run healthcare. How responsive are the folks at the DMV? The post office? How much help or information do you get from the DMV, and how much time does it take you to get it? Do you really think that the system that runs government offices will generate a more consumer-friendly, transparent healthcare system --- when they will have absolutely no competition? The answer is less government involvement in healthcare, with a decrease in the Byzantine set of regulations we deal with. This would allow physicians to negotiate with hospitals, labs, insurers, employers, etc., to form more efficient and integrated models of healthcare delivery. Then both Mr. Johnson and I would be happy, because he would be better able to get the data needed to make informed healthcare decisions, and I would have more time to devote to patient-centered care.

I do have one other question, though. At 2AM, when you are sick as a dog and need an emergency laparotomy, how are you supposed to be a conscientious healthcare consumer unless you have spent a considerable amount of time in preparation, studying all of the available surgeons in town?

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Brush up on your German

I am not a "movie snob." I have a little talking statue on of Napoleon Dynamite on my desk, m'kay? But I must say that I enjoy a well made foreign movie now and again. No, I don't mind reading subtitles one bit, and kind of like hearing the actors speak in their native tongue rather than having some hack job overdub in English. Over the past several months I have had the great fortune of discovering four movies in German, and although they have literally nothing to do with medicine, I'd like to recommend them to anyone who is interested in movies that concern conscience and morality, and who understands the destructive power of government. All of these are available at Netflix, and all but "After the Truth" are available at Blockbuster.



Sophie Scholl (Die Letzen Tage) is a depiction of anti-Nazi resistance movement members in their last days in 1943. While their story may be well known in Germany, certainly it is worth telling to an American audience as a reminder of the true bravery of those souls who stand against the evil that men do to others, and of the price they pay. Well acted and well worth the time to watch.



The Counterfeiters (Die Fälcher) is another true story from Nazi-era Germany, this one told from inside a concentration camp where a hand-picked group of prisoners were forced to participate in the largest counterfeiting operation in history. This excellent film is based upon a book by one of the survivors, The Devil's Workshop: A Memoir of the Nazi Counterfeiting Operation, and won the 2008 Oscar as the best foreign language film. What struck me the most about this film is how well it portrayed a rather unsympathetic character who is able to eventually recognize the inhumanity around him and do the right thing when needed.


The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Andersen) is also an Oscar winner for best foreign language film, and probably one of the best movies I have ever seen. Set in the period before the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, this film explores the insidious way in which the continuous intrusion into the privacy of the populace -- an absolute necessity to maintain a socialist state -- destroys the souls of the spy and those spied upon. This is truly a great film; obviously, I'm in good company.



After the Truth (Nichts als die Wahrheit) is the most esoteric film on this list, and the one which has the least grounding in actual events. Imagine that the Nazi "angel of death" didn't eventually die in Brazil in 1979, but bided his time for a last chance at public redemption. I won't spoil it for anyone who wishes to watch this fascinating movie, but to have an elderly Mengele recount his deeds as "merciful," and accurately compare them to embryo experimentation, euthanasia, and the like is chilling. This is the kind of movie that should have gotten much wider distribution.


So, brush up on your German, or get comfy with subtitles. I promise you won't be disappointed.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The Hard Sell

Amy Tenderich (@ Diabetes Mine) recently wrote a thoughtful post about the difference between referring to people as "consumers" or "patients" when they interact with the health care system. After I threw in my ill-conceived two red pennies, I started thinking about what the logical extension of the trend to label our patients as "consumers" would be. And, of course given the way my mind tends to work, what the far-fetched, illogical extension would be. This being America, I think we need look no farther than day-time teevee for the answers. After all, we approach consumers ........ with advertising!

Yep, I'm talking infomercials and TV pitchmen. I can see in the not too distant future these type of pitches.


"HI! BILLY MAYS HERE! IF YOU'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH HARD STOOL BUILDUP CAUSING DIVERTICULITIS, NOT TO MENTION HEMORRHOIDS, THEN YOU NEED THE AMAZING NEW BOHINEY BLASTER® COLON CLEANSE KIT! USE THIS STUFF ON FILTHY BOWELS AND IT GETS OUT CRAP THAT'S BEEN IN THERE SINCE THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION! IF YOU'VE GOT THAT HARD-TO-GET-RID-OF ROCK HARD STOOL, THEN BOHINEY BLAST® IT RIGHT ON OUT OF THERE! IT'S GOT THE POWER TO BREAK DOWN AND DISSOLVE: POOP, UNDIGESTED POPCORN, AND THE COIN YOU SWALLOWED PLAYING QUARTERS IN COLLEGE!

OTHER CLEANSERS HAVE TERRIBLE ODORS --- NOT BOHINEY BLASTER®! IT HAS A FRESH BUBBLEGUM SCENT WITH A HINT OF MERLOT! USE IT IN THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME, OR CARRY SOME TO WORK FOR THOSE TOUGH DAYS! YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT CAN BE WHEN YOU'RE CARRYING A LOAD AND YOU HAVE A MEETING WITH THE CFO TO GO OVER NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET!

THIS STUFF HAS THE POWER OF A SMALL THERMONUCLEAR WEAPON, BUT IT CAN BE SENT TO YOUR HOME TODAY FOR ONLY $19.99 A BOTTLE. BUT IF YOU ACT NOW, WE'LL SEND YOU TWO BOHINEY BLASTERS® AND THROW IN NOT ONE, BUT TWO OF OUR SPECIALLY PREPARED GRAB, YANK AND GO® HOME HEMORRHOIDECTOMY KITS!



Hi! It's Vince from ShamSurgery©! This is the self-surgery kit for the hernia. The perirectal abscess. The skin cancer. A regular surgery kit doesn't work wet. Not the new ShamSurgery©! It works wet or dry, whether you're performing self-surgery in the shower or on your kitchen table! Doesn't drip! Doesn't make a mess! When you're done, you wash it in the washing machine!

Here's a big perirectal abscess. That is going to be a real problem for the average surgery kit. Look at this --- with the adjustable set of mirrors, you can get back there in no time and get to work. You following me, camera guy? No other surgery kit is going to do that!

You're going to spend $20 every month on doctor copays anyway. To me, the ShamSurgery© kit is for everyday use! You get four ShamSurgery© kits for $19.95. If you call now, you get a second set, absolutely free. That's eight ShamSurgery© kits for just $19.95! It comes with a 10 minute warranty --- here's how to order!



Have you ever wanted to get that great, stretched-as-tight-as-Spandex-on-Roseanne Barr face lift? Well, I'm Ron Pepool, and I'm here to tell you today that your prayers have been answered! Today, we'd like to introduce you to the Robco Facial Carver and Dehydration System®.

This is truly revolutionary --- a device that allows even the most casually interested homemaker to become a surgeon par excellence. Let's look at the inner workings of this fabulous product. The knives are stainless steel, and sharp! (Crowd goes Whoo!) Why, without this you'd have to get pure obsidian to slice your skin that swiftly. You can carve off 4 and 1/2 pounds of fat from your face, or two 2 pound neck rolls! When you're done, the patented Facial Dehyrator will let all that left over juice and blood from surgery drip into the special collecting pan (whoo!), all while causing your skin to contract like Shrinky Dinks in a blast furnace!

Now, a system such as this is worth at least $500, but how much do you think you'd have to pay for such fabulous technology, and where can you get the set? First, let's review what you get -- Robco Facial Carver and Dehydration System® comes complete with a dozen stainless steel scalpels, a pair of sterile gloves, a dozen packs of suture, a Jackson-Pratt drain, and a one-size-fits-all facial burn dressing. Remember that the patented Facial Dehyrator is made of stainless steel-lined plastic, and comes with 3 reusable drip trays. So, how much is all of this worth? (A shout for $400). You know you're not going to have to spend $400! Not $375. Not $300. This revolutionary system can be yours today for just 4 easy payments of $39.95.

But wait! There's more! If you call today, we'll throw in the new Pepool Pocket Appendectomizer absolutely free. You know you'd rather be able to take care of a pesky case of appendicitis in the comfort of your own home than to head to an emergency room. This nifty device includes a veritable Swiss Army knife collection of tools, such as a corkscrew to stick into and lift the abdominal wall while you root around your belly trying to grab that little guy with the Robco Appendix Clamp. But you have to call now, because you know that this deal just can't last! (thunderous applause from the crowd)


Do you need surgery? Does the idea of forking over cash just to get that pesky coronary bypass out of the way irritate you? Well, for the last 30 years I have been working on ways to get YOU free operating room equipment! That's right! I went through all of the IRS documents, all of the Facebook pages of hospital CEOs, and every tax return filed in the past 75 years to make sure YOU get FREE SURGERY EQUIPMENT! How do you qualify? All you need is a Social Security number, $3,000 in annual income, and more gullibility than an Obama voter expecting a tax cut!



Tired of those other kitchen table surgery sets that get dull with use? Have a family member who is a little on the overweight side, and you just can't get down to the abdomen with your worn out, dull scalpels that constantly need sharpening? Well, YOU need the Ginsu Home Surgical Knife Set! It's the Sharpest Scalpel Set on the Market! Skin? Fat? Muscle? Bone? No problem! The Ginsu Home Surgical Knife Set will cut through it faster than Plaxico Burress goes through an ammo clip with his 9mm pistol.




How many times has this happened to you? Your kids all need their tonsils out! You are trying to come up with an exciting new way to get them to let you operate on them! You could go the standard route, tie them down, give them a slug of Everclear, and get to work. But why bother, now that you can use Rodco's amazing new home surgical tool, the Super Tonsill-o-matic 76! Yes, home surgeons, the days of roping your family members to the kitchen table are over because the Super Tonsill-o-matic 76 is so fast and easy to use you just need to give them a sniff of glue to briefly stun them, and away you go! The Super Tonsill-o-matic 76 will grab and blend those puppies into mush in no time!


Consumers. Merchants. Customers. Providers. Bullshit.

I dusted off my diploma, and put on my reading glasses (getting old, dammit), and looked hard. It says that I graduated from The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School (AKA The Best Medical School in the Country®). I checked their web site, and no, it still does not call itself a Provider School, churning out "providers" who deal with "consumers."

Although I am a small businessman, and have the tax headaches to prove it, my business is different than, say, selling shoes. It is my privilege and duty to care for people who come to see me ---- as patients. There is a respect involved with that term which is absent from the term consumer, and which is important in maintaining the dignity of the individual as he or she interacts with physicians, hospitals, and other places where medical care is delivered. When we lose that perspective ---- when physicians are seen only as "providers," or interchangeable widgets, and when patients are seen only as "consumers" ---- we will have totally lost any semblance of dignity as a profession, and by extension as a people.

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Shakin', Shakin', Shakes


The shakes. The shivers. The heebie jeebies. The jitterbugs. The jimjams. The horrors. The screaming meemies. The blue devils. Snakes in the boot. The DTs. All are expressions that refer to a clinical phenomenon known as delerium tremens ---- delerium associated with alcohol (or benzodiazepine) withdrawal. Why, pray tell, does a surgeon care about alcohol withdrawal? Because I see it, and not infrequently.

I like a good martini now and then. I've even enjoyed a glass of Delerium Tremens beer recently (oh, it was good). But I am not in the category of an Olympic caliber drinker, one who consumes a fair amount of alcohol on a daily basis. The dedicated drinker is the kind of patient who causes all kinds of havoc for us, and not just in the realm of trauma.

Alcohol can be a wonderful thing. A social lubricant, a relaxing tonic, a stress reliever, an enjoyable companion with a good meal, and in some forms possibly a good thing for your heart. It can also be destructive, a massive earthquake that destroys lives and tears apart families. I'll leave the social issues about alcoholism aside for this post, but I'd like to let you in on a little secret --- alcohol withdrawal is not a glamorous downward spiral or a simple hangover. It is an ugly, depressing, and potential deadly process. Unfortunately, we often see this when we least expect it.

Not surprisingly, many folks are a tad less than honest with their physicians. Alcohol dependence isn't as readily detected as, say, hypertension, a heart murmur, gallstones or appendicitis. We don't have a screening test available, and we thus must rely on a patient to be as forthright as possible when we ask the question "how much do you drink?" For obvious reasons, most answer with a miniscule fraction of what their real booze allotment really is --- I trained in Salt Lake City, where this question was frequently seen as an insult, but alcoholism knows no religious boundaries and I was given false information just as frequently there as here in Colorado.

For surgeons, especially those who work on the GI tract, an alcoholic can pose a vexing challenge. Basically, when a patient that overindulges regularly is hospitalized, the pint of vodka he usually downs on a daily basis is not readily available. For short hospitalizations of a day or so, this will generate irritability, nervousness, and shakiness ---- all relieved with a stop at the package store on the way home. For longer hospitalizations, it gets progressively worse, with nausea, headache, insomnia, excessive sweating, tachycardia, tremors and a variety of involuntary movements (such as constant picking at clothes, skin, and sheets) joining the display. This is the point where we generally pick up on the diagnosis --- basically the patient has the shakes.

A fault runs through the valley
It's long as it is mean
It starts to tear into the earth
And gets all in between
It shakes up through the mountains
It shakes down to the sea
It shakes up to the volcano
And then it starts to scream
And then it starts to shine
And Lord, it makes me tremble
And Lord, it makes me tremble
It's shakin' and shakin' and shakes

By this time, without a quick infusion of a couple of stiff drinks, the patient is well on his way to full blown withdrawal, marked by profound agitation, hallucinations, fever, convulsions, severe autonomic nervous system overactivity, and possibly death --> delerium tremens. We treat this by making a bargain with the patient's body --- if we give enough sedation, generally in the form of Ativan or another benzodiazepine, hopefully we can stave off the severe physiologic effects of alcohol withdrawal until the process passes. The tradeoff is that the patient must be pretty snockered, meaning ICU care, careful monitoring, a need for restraints, nutritional support, and a risk for aspiration. More severe cases may involve mechanical ventilation, particularly in the patient who has undergone major surgery or suffered severe trauma. Beta blockers and Clonidine also help mitigate the systemic effects of alcohol withdrawal, and though it seems a little bizarre, IV ethanol infusion has been used as an alternative to benzos.

Needless to say, it is often the case that alcohol withdrawal is often far worse than the other underlying reason a patient is hospitalized. It is also a big expense, one that is rarely reimbursed.

And Lord, it makes me tremble
And Lord, it makes me tremble
She's shakin' and shakin' and shakes