Category

Researcher

The Culture of Participatory Research

By | Advocate, Researcher | No Comments

My recurring mind loop these days is non-traditional patient, non-traditional patient, non-traditional patient. I heard it repeatedly while attended a one-day symposium, Putting Patients at the Center of Research: Opportunities for Ethical and Regulatory Oversight at

Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center. See a great report written by Andy Oram about the symposium here. The symposium showcased a PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute)-funded study about patient involvement in research in non-traditional roles (not the subject*). The study actually focused almost exclusively on Institutional Review Board (IRB) perceptions of patients in non-subject roles. Interesting focus since the role of the IRB is to protect patient rights in research studies as subjects, not other roles.

*Please note: Subject is a loaded word for some. They say participant rather than subject, a more egalitarian term. I’m sticking with using subject because I’m introducing the label of Participatory Research. I don’t want to confuse the issues.

No one’s ever accused me of being a traditional patient and I’m not defensive. Right:) You know I’m heavily involved with PCORI whose reason for being is to fund research that matters to patients and will benefit patients. It’s odd that a PCORI-sponsored study would label anything a person does who is not an academic and not a subject of a research study as non-traditional. The roles the study refers to as non-traditional are membership in the research team as an investigator, advisor, consultant, recruiter, or disseminator. It seems that the study started with a bias when they called other roles, nontraditional, rather than, say, non-subject roles. It didn’t call researchers who include patients in non-subject roles, non-traditional researchers.

My patient/caregiver activism rests on a foundation that patients and caregivers should have a seat at the table for governance, design, operations, and learning of healthcare policy, planning, delivery, improvement, and research. It makes sense that much of the research industry feels like a fish out of water with patients in their midst. Perhaps labeling (non-traditional) is a reflection of their acute discomfort with other. We call people of the Navaho nation whose ancestors lived in the continental US before the Puritans, American Indians. We call people who emigrated from China during the California Gold Rush, Chinese Americans. Yet, I’m white, first-generation American. I’m not called Dutch/German American, just American. Perhaps when many researchers think patient, they think someone wearing a hospital gown with their butt crack bare, not skilled, insightful, hardworking, curious, passionate people like themselves. Other.

As a reviewer of PCORI funding requests and co-chair of an Advisory Panel, I’m fortunate to be part of a leading edge of culture change in the human research industry: Participatory Research. I have seen research teams with patient/caregiver stakeholder Investigators and Advisors paid on equal footing as the academics. I’ve even seen respite care budgeted for carees of caregivers, so they could free themselves to participate in any role. Culture change seldom occurs by waving a magic wand. Rather it moves in fits and starts as the bulk of researchers follow Participatory Research early adopters. Early adopters see participatory research as a no-brainer. Those that follow feel like they’re putting round pegs in square holes. They question the capacity, skill, and confidentiality of lay people in research team roles. They think patients need to be protected, that they need to become more research literate. A great research team has members with statistics and methods expertise, recruitment expertise, project management expertise. Often with less experience with patient/caregiver life flow and direct care clinician workflow. They seldom require life experience training or statistical training for those without such experience. However, everyone, no matter the role, needs to have documented understanding of the rights of subjects and confidentiality of individual data.

I appreciated the presentations at the symposium of three patients (Jane Permuller, Marty Carney, and Paul McLean) in non-subject roles highlighting the benefits of patient participation in research. I also respect Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center for scratching the surface and reminding us (me) that the spread of participatory research is in its infancy and we activists have much work to do.

A Seat at the Table. Now What?

By | Advocate, Researcher | No Comments

Walking in the door, I look around me. Who are these people? What am I doing here? I’m not an academic. I’m don’t represent a national advocacy organization, a health system, or insurance company. I don’t work for pharma. I don’t represent an EHR vendor or software startup. I’m not a techie. I’m not, I’m not, I’m not. I’m just little Danny van Leeuwen. Yet, I’m finding myself sitting at several tables – research, data privacy and access, measurement, design, palliative care, behavioral health, policy – as a patient/caregiver scholar or stakeholder or activist. It’s been a heady, nerve-wracking, sober, and awkward process.

A core principle of my advocacy: People at the center of care (patients, direct care clinicians, and those that support them) need to sit at the tables of governance, design, operations, and learning in all aspects of healthcare research, delivery, and policy making.

Thank goodness I salivate standing in front of the complex Tower of Babel. In a weird way, I welcome the nonsensical business puzzle of sick care. Every tribe represented around the tables has a different language, all, apparently, in English. My first tasks are clarifying purpose and audience, inventory related efforts to-date, and figure out the one thing above all else that I want to accomplish at this table.  Whenever I don’t understand, I ask. What is an artifact? What do you mean by patient-centered? Who pays? Who cares? I propose definitions in my own words, words I think lay people might get. I tell my colleagues that I need to be able to write about it for you.

Next, I develop relationships and build trust. It’ll surprise you to know I’m an extrovert (Myers-Briggs ENFP if you go that way), so it’s natural for me to build relationships. The best way for me to build trust is to take on tasks and deliver on time.  And listen more than I talk. That’s work for me since I like the sound of my own voice. I prepare, do my homework, read everything provided in advance. Again, I bring one goal to accomplish in the upcoming meeting. When I feel small and intimidated, I think of the mouse, Jerry, of Tom and Jerry cartoons. (Does that date me?) I lean into the feeling of intimidation.

Broadly, I look for more opportunities to bring other people at the center of care to this and subsequent tables. I set my expectations low, so I can be delighted when they’re exceeded. We don’t have to hit it out of the park. I relish any humor and irony I stumble upon. It’s a fertile field. If I’m feeling crabby or hopeless (more than the normal anger at our sorry state of healthcare delivery), I back up and take a break. Play music, meditate, exercise, spend time with family, space out. Self-care first. If I feel disrespected, I’m out ‘a there.

Mostly, it’s fun, fun, fun. People care, people want things to be better, people want to accomplish something. People have hope. I hope we’re moving a battleship three degrees.  I know it needs to turn at least 45. Play the long game even if you’re a short-timer.

Photo by Ken Treloar on Unsplash

Related Posts

It’s not so simple – making treatment choices

Trust

Help Making Choices

Paying for Value. I’m Overwhelmed. Please Read This

By | Advocate, Caregiver, Clinician, ePatient, Researcher | 3 Comments

As you may know from previous posts, I sit on a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) panel about Quality Measurement Development: Supporting Efficiency and Innovation in the Process of Developing CMS Quality Measures. Jeesh! What a mouthful! In English, for me, this means, if Medicare is going to pay for value in health services, what is value? How will value be measured? How will value measures be created? And, should we care? We (people at the center of care – patients, clinicians, and those that support us) absolutely should care. First of all, we are the ones who are actually paying.  Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance companies write the checks, but their accounts are filled by us as taxpayers and employees.  The more money spent on healthcare, the less money is spent on our wages, public health, safety, everything. Hospitals and professional practices respond to how they get paid more than anything. When they are paid for volume – more treatment, surgery, days, and visits – they do more since it means more money for them. We know that more does not necessarily mean better for our health. The healthcare industry is creeping toward paying for value, not volume. Value should mean better medical care, better health, better relationships within our health teams, and better work life for those of us that are professionals. The definition and the measurement of value become critical. An example is readmission rates. Volume is paying for every admission. Value is not paying for a readmission to a hospital within a certain number of days. There are roughly 1,000 of such quality or value measures.

I want to share with you some of the recommendations made by the technical expert panel so far (this is from the second of four all-day sessions).  You can find the full report from the January meeting here on the CMS website, but it’s hard to get to the report, so I put it here to make it easier. I’m listing the recommendations below with my interpretation in italics of what they mean. Nobody at CMS or Battelle or the Panel has endorsed my interpretations. They’re all mine. But it’s no good if you don’t know what’s going on and I’m not sure if reading the report will help. So, here goes:

Recommendations

  1. Institute a governance process to help plan, develop, and manage shared measure testing resources. Measures need to be tested to see if they work. Working means that they measure what we want them to measure, that they measure the same thing every time, and that it makes sense. People developing measures use large sets of data to test to see if the measures work. Many organizations suggest measures, measure the measures, and publish the measures. This recommendation says that there needs to be a governance process (a clear and understandable way to make decisions) about how measures are tested. Right now measures are mostly tested using claims and electronic medical record data. It’s not enough. Data from patients and the experience of patients and clinicians are important too.  We don’t have much experience with using this kind of data for value. Lots of decisions ahead of us.
  2. Incentivize participation in measure testing. Everyone who creates measures won’t test measures out of the goodness of their hearts or because it’s the right thing to do. Incentives encourage people to test measures in new ways. Incentives for organizations can be similar to incentives for people. I am more likely to do something if it’s easier than not doing it; if it’s required with a penalty if I don’t; if people give me credit for my work; if I get paid or a discount on something else; if I get more business if I do it. You get the idea.
  3. Promote data element standardization and education. Measures are made up of data elements. A very simple measure is the fraction of females in a group (55% of the group are females). But it’s not so simple. How do you define the group and how do you define the data element, females? Is a female a person that can bear children, has two X chromosomes, self-identifies as female… What’s important with measures is that everyone using the measure defines it the same – there are agreed upon standards. A requirement to make the definitions and standards available for anyone to see helps too. Nothing hidden.
  4. Implement a framework with a long-term plan on how CMS will approach measurement.  Changes to the way measures are developed won’t happen by waving a magic wand. It takes time and effort by lots of people. Some things tried, won’t work. Something else will need to be tried. It takes a long-term plan, like retirement.  We need a picture of how the plan will move along and adapt to new knowledge.  That’s the framework.
  5. Institute an acceptable “quick path to failure” mechanism in the measure development process with well-defined steps. Developing measures is expensive and time-consuming. Whenever new things are tried, some don’t work.  We don’t learn to walk without falling. We need to know that something isn’t going to work as soon as possible so we can try something else. But if people are going to “fail early” they need to know how to do that and be paid for the work they do, even if it doesn’t turn out as expected. Again, incentives.
  6. To facilitate development of cross-program measures, consider a different organizing structure for measure development contracts/projects that cuts across programs.  Right now, most measures are diagnosis-specific for one setting (home, hospital, nursing home). But people aren’t their diagnosis and they spend time in many settings. Measures across diagnoses and settings are hard to develop. The science is young. They’re different and should be managed differently. As a patient, I care about this a lot.
  7. Provide funding for the development and implementation of a national testing collaborative. Changing how we develop measures is expensive and a risk. The government should pay for some of this experimenting with testing.  It’s an incentive.
  8. Develop an objective scoring system to evaluate measure testing concepts that are currently assessed subjectively such as importance, burden, and feasibility. Changing how measures are tested could end up like the Wild West- shooting from the hip, pretty wild, with those having big guns controlling the town. Having a scoring system (more points for helping patients and clinicians, more points if it’s easy to do it in many places, more points if I can do it the same way after you figure it out) really helps manage these new ways of testing measures.

Overwhelmed? No wonder. Me, too. I’m sitting at this table because I think it’s important stuff. I appreciate that CMS cares and included me. I respect the knowledge and passion of those around the table and they respect me. It’s government at its best. It helps when you understand this too. Even a little bit. Please ask questions, comment, and share. We’re pretty smart but not as smart as we think. We need your smarts.

Photo by Ashim D’Silva on Unsplash

Related Posts

A Vision of Paying for Value

CMS Quality Measures for People

 

Failure is Under-Rated

By | Advocate, Caregiver, ePatient, Leader, Musician, Researcher | 2 Comments

I’ve told my teams over the years, if we don’t fail several times a week we’re not pushing the envelope and not doing our jobs. We weren’t tightrope walkers, pushing IV meds, or manufacturing artificial joints. We were innovators, learners, and leaders. Failure as a virtue is a hard sell – to almost anyone. My teams, my colleagues in leadership, editorial review boards always start by thinking I’m crazy.  Sometimes they eventually get it, sometimes not. Leadership usually wants to get A’s. In one health system I worked for, I reported that we successfully completed medication reconciliation in 40% of admissions. OMG, that’s awful! They said.  No, I said, that’s great! We’re failing. Let’s succeed. In 18 months we completed medication reconciliation 70% of the time.  It’s a lot harder to go from 70% to 80% than 40% to 70%. In research, we don’t publish when the study doesn’t prove the hypothesis. Yet, not proving is as important, if not more important, than proving. I was on an Editorial Review Board once that decided to solicit articles where the hypothesis wasn’t proven and something was learned. Over a 10-year span, we solicited exactly 0 such articles. Zero!

A definition of failure to some is the opposite of success. Not necessarily. Especially when it comes to learning and getting healthier. We don’t tell kids they fail when they fall learning to walk. They keep trying.  Same with learning to talk. As an adult, I find failure a motivator to try again.  As a thinker and a catalyst for change, I’m delighted when I succeed with 30% of what I try. It’s been the rare boss that’s accepted that. They’ve been the best bosses and we’ve done the best work together in my career.

For health, embrace failure. I did eye exercises twice a day for 8 months before my brain rewired and my crippling double vision cleared 80%. That’s 360 failures and one success! It’s taken years of trial and error to land on a balance, stretching, and strengthening routine that works for me. I stumble a lot, fall infrequently, and sustain only minor injuries when I do. I get frustrated when I see failure and stuck in the muck. Fail and try something else, that’s the ticket.

Failure flavors humility and empathy.  My best stories are of failure – my failures. People laugh with me.  We can all relate to failure. It’s the warp of our lives. Hearing about a failure, we naturally ask, and then? What happened next?  What did you learn? What did you try? What eventually worked?

So, failure, persistence, and humor are inseparable cronies. Keep trying and chuckle at the absurdity. That‘s life, health, music – anything worth doing well.  Persist and laugh. Eventually, who knows?

Photo by Nik MacMillan on Unsplash

Related posts

Stoking the Fires

Patient Adherence – Lessons from Recovery

Learning from What Doesn’t Work

Health Hats: Reflecting on 2017

By | Advocate, Caregiver, Clinician, Leader, Researcher | No Comments

Since I stopped being an employee or a boss two years ago I’ve written annual reports for myself. I had written ones for my boss and staff for 25 years straight. I thought I’d keep it up now that I’m retired from that. Helps me be sure that my work serves my mission. With so much to do in this sick, sickness industry, it’s easy to feel disappointed and burned out. Fortunately, I’ve made a career of beating low expectations – starting with something truly disappointing and finding the small thing that can have an outsized impact by moving that something a lasting inch. I call them levers for best health. I’ve found that drinking water has the most outsized impact for best health. Anyway, the annual report helps me keep a pulse on the balance between impactful work and stoking my fires while managing my health and having fun. It’s an inspiring strange ride. Thanks for being on the ride with me. I couldn’t do it without the personal inspiration of my immediate family (Ann, Simon, Ruben, Jessica, Kate, Anica, Jacky, Leon, and Oscar) and my friends (Mary Sue, Sue, Michael, Kathy, Fatima, Regina, John, Geri, MaryAnne, and Pat). Read More

A Vision of Paying for Value

By | Caregiver, Clinician, ePatient, Family man, Researcher, Uncategorized | One Comment

I’m the child, Custodian and Healthcare Proxy of my 89-year-old mother, Alice. I live in a different state. My mother has diabetes and is depressed. Her care team, beside herself and me, includes medical providers in various health settings, community support agencies, and a full-time caregiver that helps her schedule and get to health-related services. My problem is to understand what my mother wants for herself and to track who says they’re doing something for her (including my mother and me), what they’re doing, and when they’re doing it. I want to know what it takes to do it (Can she afford it? Can she get there? Does it agree with her? Who will be with her? etc.). I want to know if the actions have the effects we thought they would. I want to know what her risks are and how we plan to prevent or respond to them. I want to able to keep track of all this and keep it current. I want to share it or have it shared from day-to-day and from setting to setting even if I’m not present.

This scenario describes a vision of healthcare for a caregiver and his mother. The vision lives in a context of social circumstances, physical environment, individual behavior, genetics, and medical care – the determinants of health. In the best of circumstances, healthcare dollars pay for this vision of best health for people, their families, and communities.

The goals of any payment method should be to reward high-quality care and to permit the development of more effective ways of delivering care to improve the value obtained for the resources expended. These goals are relevant regardless of whether care is delivered in a predominantly competitive or regulated environment, and whether the ultimate purchaser is an employer or the patient/ consumer. Payment policies should not create barriers to improving the quality of care. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001. 8, Aligning Payment Policies with Quality Improvement. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222279/

This means that payment systems for treatment and services recognize quality (best health), support improvement and reward stakeholders (patients, caregivers, clinicians, institutions, and insurers) for the process and outcomes of best health. Read More

CEO of My Health Team

By | Advocate, Caregiver, Clinician, ePatient, Family man, Leader, Researcher | One Comment

I am the CEO (Chief Executive Officer, the boss) of my health team with a ton of subcontractors: my primary care doc and her practice, my neurologist and his practice, the radiology department at my local hospital, the neighborhood pharmacy, the utility companies… You get the idea. They get paid through my employment benefits, your and my taxes, and out of my pocket. Right now I directly employ my massage therapist and acupuncturist – fee-for-service. I also have pro bono team members: my wife (my care partner), my family, friends, and advisors.

As CEO of my health team, I try to lead and manage. Leading is building and fostering relationships, finding service providers as needed, setting health goals, coming up with a plan to meet my goals, and learning from our mistakes (what doesn’t work).  As a leader I find ways to share information among the team, and, of course, I fundraise and cheerlead. Leading is also about succession planning.  Who will lead when I can’t? Managing, on the other hand, is negotiating service agreements (contracts), actually seeing that the tasks in the plan happen as desired, maintaining the team and it’s connections, and trying to fix what isn’t working. It’s a tough system to lead and manage. It’s exhausting. I have some of the skills I need, but nowhere near all. There’s very little training for Health Team CEOs- no certificate or degree. The pay stinks. There’s no vacation. I can’t resign. Read More

CMS Quality Measures for People

By | Advocate, Caregiver, Clinician, ePatient, Informaticist, Leader, Researcher | 6 Comments

Payment for medical services is shifting from paying for volume (more visits, tests, visits, days = more money) to paying for value (quality of care). Makes sense. But what does value and quality of care mean? It means that physicians get paid an incentive (more money) for certain results (outcomes, process, actions). An example is readmission rates. If a physician’s patients are readmitted to a hospital after discharge more than most physicians, they don’t get the extra payment. There are roughly 1,000 of such quality measures. These quality measures are very important to us – people at the center of care (patients, caregivers, parents, direct care clinicians and staff) – because measurement strongly influences people and organizations who get paid for medical services. Following the money doesn’t necessarily mean better medical care, better health for us, better relationships among our healthcare teams, or better work life for our health professional partners.

I was nominated to sit on a CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services)/Battelle Quality Measurement Development Technical Advisory Panel (TEP). The TEP had its first meeting in Baltimore last week. I was one of 19 Panel members (and one of two with expertise in all four of the selection criteria -Consumer Perspective, Clinical Content, Performance Measurement, Coding and Informatics).  The TEP seeks to improve the process of developing measures. It isn’t trying to develop measures. The good news is that the TEP gelled as a team and the CMS/Battelle leaders seem open to, if not eager for, actionable advice. I am honored to have been asked to sit at this table.

As a Patient Activist and a change catalyst, I appreciate the formidable forces of inertia and the current business realities of the medical care industrial complex. What can little Danny van Leeuwen hope to accomplish? My goal in accepting this appointment is to find one lever that can move the Value-Based Measurement battleship three degrees toward value to people at the center of care. My superpower is to accept what is and go from there. After listening to my esteemed TEP colleagues, my perception of what is is:

  1. Measures serve to evaluate the performance of individual practitioners (not measure whether patients attain optimal health or how the team is functioning),
  2. Inertia is heading to further measure specificity by specialty and diagnosis (not toward the patient with more non-medical than medical determinants of health who is more than a sum of their diagnoses),
  3. Data for measurement exists primarily in claims, diagnostic systems, and Electronic Medical Records (much less patient-generated data and experience/perceptions of people at the center of care),
  4. Physicians bristle at the idea of being held accountable for anything they deem out of their control (rather than what can I do to contribute to improving whatever?),
  5. People at the center of care, insurers, and policymakers all feel ill at ease with uncertainty,
  6. Few, if any, incentives exist for data vendors to integrate their data (So patients, caregivers, and parents using the most health care dollars provide the bulk of communication at transitions in care, if they can do it at all),
  7. Testing measures in real-life seems to be an almost insurmountable challenge (so the link between measures and what they seek to measure and the link between measurement and value to patients is tenuous),
  8. Direct care clinicians are stressed and burning out – the proportion of time they spent documenting rather than caring is growing while they feel pressure to increase productivity (rather than technology helping to reverse those trends),

Jeesh. Houston, we have a problem. Read More

Transformational Leaders

Dragging or Walking?

By | Advocate, Caregiver, Clinician, ePatient, Researcher | No Comments

In its simplest form communication is who, what and how.  Who needs to communicate? What do they need to communicate? How will they communicate? Our healthcare depends on communication between all members of the health team. That communication exists in relationships.  What do people at the center of care and professionals in healthcare look for in their relationships? Much as with any relationship – access when needed, exchange of information, listening, respect, speaking the same language, understanding each other’s values and priorities, follow through. Not easy in the best of circumstances. I’m amazed that we expect consistently good communication in healthcare. How can there be? Communication in health care is fascinating! Anyway….

I am a member of the Academy of Communication in Healthcare. I went to Baltimore this week to attend the International Conference on Communication in Healthcare and the Health Literacy Annual Research Conference. My attendance was sponsored by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) as part of their Ambassador program.

My goodness, an International Conference on Communication in Healthcare!! Still my beating heart.

As in most healthcare conferences these days the buzzword is Patient-centered. Buzzwords are weird. They make me suspicious. Patient-centered often feels to me like health professionals dragging the patient into the center with them (as in making sure we understand them and do what they want). Sometimes, however, patient-centered appears to mean empathy (walking in someone else’s shoes). So what is it? Dragging or walking? Read More

Health Goals to Clinical Decisions (CDS)

By | Caregiver, Clinician, ePatient, Researcher | 2 Comments

It’s hard to reach personal health goals or solve medical problems without a plan.  Plans require decisions. Never-ending decisions (choices) in the health journey. Clinicians, researchers, and insurance companies study and use Clinical Decision Support (CDS) to help with the decision-making process. It’s a shortcut for using research (evidence) in the decision-making. Some talk about patient-centered decision support (see a definition at the bottom of this post). They’re trying to figure out how to help people to make decisions in two minutes of ten-minute visits. Yet, few patients or caregivers I’ve met ever talk about CDS.  So how can people understand the value and limitations of CDS? Read More