#followthefellows

 

Footnote:

The two quotes about industrialisation and healthcare 
come from Intelligent Kindness by Ballat and Campling.

The considerations on conferences are included in a
this BMJ perspective

This post is creative, made in my own time and intended 
to ask questions in the spirit of the Freedom to Speak Up 
recommendations by Sir Robert Francis.

My forebear, Alexander MacCallum Scott grew up in Polmont, 
Scotland. He became an MP and was Private Secretary to 
Winston Churchill. I mention this as he turned down an OBE 
for his work connected with the war (WWI)

 

 

Quality Improvement and Ethics

In a recent Healthcare Improvement Scotland blog, Karen Ritchie asked: “Do we need perfect evidence when making decisions?”

I posted this response on the 26th September 2017:

Dear Karen,
What a carefully considered and thoughtful blog. Thank you for sharing.

I do so agree with this approach: “our underpinning philosophy is that we need to ensure that decisions are evidence informed, rather than evidence based”.

You ask in your blog “Do we need perfect evidence when making decisions?”.

I am of the view that there is no such a thing as perfect evidence, however I do think that science requires philosophy and ethics. That is why I welcome your inclusion of philosophy in the above organisational approach to evidence.

However I am concerned, as I have explained to Dame Denise Coia, Robbie Pearson and Dr Brian Robson, that there is no consideration – or even mention of – ethics as necessary for science by Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

Ethics do not appear in the matrix/diagram that you include as representative of  the “many parts but one purpose” of Healthcare Improvement Scotland:

Some Quality Improvement (QI) proponents have suggested that to address the “perceived slowness” of science – and to “improve” science – we take shortcuts with ethics. I am afraid I could not disagree more. Especially when “pilots” are being scaled-up nationally as part of “good practice”.

I submitted this response on ethics and improvement science (QI) to the BMJ a few months ago.

If you have any thoughts on this subject it would be great if you could post them here.

Kindest wishes,

Dr Peter J Gordon
NHS Scotland
(writing in a personal capacity and in my own time)

A film that considers how we may go about improving health and wellbeing:

By living we learn from omphalos

Patrick Geddes: insights into improving health and wellbeing

Sunday, 17th September 2017.

To the Chair of Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

Dear Dame Coia,
I do hope that you may appreciate that I write out of the shared wish to make health and social care better in Scotland.

I realise that my concerns about the mechanistic approach of improvement science (derived from a different culture) may not be shared. My perspective, I like to think, is taken from a wee shift of stance and perhaps reflects my interest and learning in a range of different subjects.

My voice matters no more than any other, and like any other I can be wrong.

I speak up not because I am “brave” or “right” but out of conscience when I find harm. The history of medicine has repeatedly revealed that harm can result from most well-intended interventions. This is why I keep arguing that scientific method needs philosophy, ethics and grounding in the culture of life.

I am of the view that Healthcare Improvement Scotland has time to re-orientate itself around these principles. I am also of the view that your organisation might do well to keep a healthy distance from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), Boston, which has a business and cultural ethos that is quite different to NHS Scotland.

As to regulation. I do not personally want to see over-regulation. Such can have harmful consequences. However Healthcare Improvement Scotland needs to be independent of the Scottish Government otherwise any “scrutiny” will not be viewed as such by the public. Your organisation works closely alongside the Scottish Government with links that started and continue through several IHI fellows.

Please forgive me for setting my thoughts out in this way but I have been reading the work of Patrick Geddes who was considered a “social maverick”. I found that in reading about his work that it seemed to me he has lessons that could be relevant to the organisation that you Chair?

I want to thank you again for being so kind to me. I realise that I may come across as an oddity but I am actually every-day.

Kindest wishes Peter

If you have any thoughts on how Patrick Geddes might improve your organisation I would be delighted to hear.

A film that considers how we may go about improving health and wellbeing:

By living we learn from omphalos

Frailty – nothing about us without us

In September 2016, Professor Martin Vernon, National Clinical Director for Older People and Integrated Care at NHS England stated why diagnosing frailty is important:

In the same month Professor David Oliver had this Acute Perspective published in the British Medical Journal. It attracted over twenty responses many of which, but not all, were supportive.

I submitted this response as I was not convinced that “frailty” was inherently any less likely to stigmatise our older generation:

A year later, Dr Steve Parry, the Vice President of the British Geriatrics Society (BGS) had this perspective  published on the British Geriatrics Society Blog , asking “when does a well-meaning medical fashion become a potentially destructive fad?” This perspective also attracted over twenty responses.

A week later, the former President of the British Geriatrics Society, Professor David Oliver argued why he was “fine with Frailty”:


Dr Shibley Rahman, an Academic in Frailty and Dementia and has outlined why he is of the view that such a model, based on deficits only, if applied to our older generation could cause harm. This article also attracted many responses.


In a recent Acute Perspective Professor Oliver outlined his concern that the British public may not have realistic expectations when it comes to frailty and “progressive dwindling”:

My understanding is that the term “progressive dwindling” was first used by George J. Romanes in this 1893 book:

This is the context in which the term is used:

The dictionary definition of “inutility” is: uselessness or a useless thing or person.


Healthcare Improvement Scotland has been concentrating on frailty as one of its National Improvement initiatives. This first started in April 2012 and so has developed significantly in the five years that have followed. NHS Scotland staff have been reminded to “THINK FRAILTY”. Up until now the focus has been on deficits and how to “screen” for these with “toolkits”.


Back in April 2016 Bergman and Karunananthan, McMaster University were of this view:

“Thus far, research on frailty has been heavily based on establishing associations between various definitions of frailty and poor health outcomes. A limited number of studies on the perspectives of older persons offer a very different characterization of frailty and the potential impact of labelling.

While several expert meetings over the past decade have called for a unified operational definition of frailty, varied definitions continue to abound, suggesting that researchers are still not ready to close the debate on what defines frailty. The integration of findings from the diverse perspectives, including those of the older persons themselves, is essential when considering the potential for a meaningful clinical tool.

Furthermore, studies examining the contribution of frailty in improving prediction of adverse health outcomes are needed in order to assess the potential utility of frailty as a prognostic tool. Despite the enthusiasm of clinicians and researchers to utilize frailty as a prognostic instrument, frailty will only be relevant if it can be empirically demonstrated either that frailty is reversible, or that its adverse outcomes are amenable to intervention.”


In a BBC Radio Scotland “Thought for the Day”, the broadcaster and writer Anna Magnusson recently considered the language that we use in relation to our older generation. I made this short film using her words and voice. I have shared it with Anna Magnusson and she wrote a kind personal response to me:

We are far more than our labels from omphalos

These words from an Edwin Morgan poem resonated with me as a description of the complexity of ageing:

The people best placed to assist in understanding the complexities of ageing and the language best used to describe it are surely the older generation themselves.

Delirium screening (some years later)

Over three years ago I wrote this summary of my concerns about mandatory delirium screening. The consequences for me in writing this were life changing: the reality of having the courage to care in NHS Scotland.

Time has moved on and we should consider recent statements on this subject:

6th June 2017: Dr Claire Copeland:
“Two heavyweights of the delirium world: Wes Daly takes on Professor Alasdair Maclullich: to screen or not to screen. Let the battle commence”

5th August 2017: Dr Sharon Inoyue:
“Very important. Studies show dramatic increase in antipsychotic treatment with mandatory delirium screening”

31st August 2017: Dr Dan Thomas:
“In the UK I would be very surprised if many with delirium in hospital left  on antipsychotics (which is good!)”. This is a speculative response to an article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society which had found that “most patients with delirium discharged  on a new antipsychotic had no instructions for discontinuation”

Footnote:
Whilst evidence cannot ever be complete there has been
consideration of antipsychotic use for delirium:

 

Improvement science: engineering 42 – ethics 0

In my last post I considered a “thought paper” entitled “The habits of an improver” and welcomed that critical thinking was considered a necessary habit.

The word “engineer” or “engineering” is to be found on 42 separate occasions in this Health Foundation thought paper.

The word “ethics” does not appear at all. Despite the fact that the introduction begins with this quote:

That ethics do not seem to be considered amongst the “habits” necessary for “improvement science” is concerning.

The last time I looked, I found this result using the Healthcare Improvement Scotland search facility:

The former Chief Executive for the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland used to introduce me as “Bayesian Peter”. Bayesian is the name given to interpretations of probability and returns to Reverend Thomas Bayes original considerations of complexity.

Healthcare, like life, is complex. We are human and live in an ever changing world.

This is not all so simply “engineered”.

Ethics is integral to science.  I do not deserve the epithet “Bayesian Peter” – for whilst I am interested in ethics this does not mean that I am more ethical than you the reader.

However, I want to say as clearly as I can, and yes with passion, that without ethical considerations “improvement science” should linger in quotes.

If NHS Scotland has been genetically-modified with QI

It is most welcome to hear from Philippa Whitford about positive outcomes of NHS Scotland’s collaborative approach to quality improvement and the learning that this might provide for the rest of the UK. I share Philippa Whitford’s concerns about the potential consequences of competitive systems such as occurs more in NHS England with providers, commissioners and contracts and the inevitable fragmentation that this brings. The integrated approach taken in Scotland along with the engagement of patients and frontline practitioners is indeed something to be most positive about.

However, NHS Scotland’s approach to Quality Improvement is based on what is known as “improvement science”. This is a relatively new approach to science introduced from the USA and based on methodologies from the engineering and airline industries. The Health Foundation, in its ‘Evidence Scan’ found a “real paucity of evidence about the field of improvement science” . The Health Foundation found papers on the conceptual nature of Improvement Science but concluded that: “none of these could be said to be seminal pieces of research acting as building blocks for the field as a whole”.

As far back as 2007 Brent et al identified that “ethical issues arise in QI because attempts to improve quality may inadvertently cause harm, waste scarce resources, or affect some patients unfairly.”

Scotland has two key National Improvement initiatives for older people in acute hospital care. One is for Delirium and the other is for Frailty.

The QI initiative on Delirium was reliant upon “screening tools” that were effectively made mandatory for all those aged 65 years and over admitted to hospital. Healthcare Improvement Scotland measured the “compliance” with the use of these “screening tools” across Scotland. On the wards I was finding that these tools were not infrequently being interpreted as diagnostic and that older people were sometimes considered as lacking in “capacity” on this basis. I was also concerned that this approach could lead to greater use of antipsychotic medication.

The QI initiative on Frailty is currently being implemented across NHS Scotland. This is despite the fact that there is no internationally accepted clinical definition for Frailty. More “screening tools” have been developed by Healthcare Improvement Scotland and “Frailty Hubs” are now being set up in most NHS Boards. It may be worth noting recent high-level disagreement amongst British Geriatricians about the validity of the “Frailty Industry” as one senior Geriatrician described it.

The experience of these national initiatives perhaps highlights the limitations of approaches which work best in mechanical settings. The same success cannot be guaranteed when applied to more complex presentations such as delirium and frailty.

It has recently been stated that “ethical approval is less burdensome” for QI. However I suggest that we must be wary of taking shortcuts that may result in potential harm as well as potential good. This is why ethics and philosophy have an established role in science.

Another risk is that if science is pre-determined as “improvement”, this may limit the acceptance of critical thinking.

Philippa Whitford concludes that in NHS Scotland “Quality improvement has made its way into the DNA of frontline staff”. I share the view that Quality Improvement has much to offer. However, if NHS Scotland has been genetically-modified with QI let us hope that the wider considerations necessary for science are included in the base-code.

Dr Peter J Gordon
Psychiatrist for Older Adults
NHS Scotland

 

‘The medical untouchables’

The following is a recent opinion piece by Dr Des Spence published in the British Journal of General Practice.

I had been lined up to do the media interviews on BBC Scotland in relation to petition PE1651. However, on the day, due to changed travel arrangements, I was not available. Dr Des Spence was interviewed instead and did a better job than I could have done.

As an NHS doctor and specialist, I fully support this petition (PE1651) which calls on the Scottish parliament “to urge the Scottish Government to take action to appropriately recognise and effectively support individuals affected and harmed by prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal.”

I have submitted my response.

I feel it would be helpful to hear the views of the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland and in particular, how this matter might be considered as part of Realistic Medicine.

Three recent posts by me demonstrate the scale of competing financial interests in medical education in the UK. If you have a moment, you should have a look. Perhaps you might then share the worry that I have about this matter:

I have previously raised my own petition, PE1493, which the Scottish Public has supported. This was a petition for a Sunshine Act for Scotland, to make it mandatory for all financial conflicts of interest to be declared by healthcare professionals and academics.

My petition, supported by the public, had no support from “Realistic Medicine”. The public has had no update from the Scottish Government on my petition in 18 months. My view is that this is a shocking failure of governance and would seem to demonstrate a lack of respect for democracy.

‘How to Improve’

The Nuffield Trust has recently published “Learning from Scotland’s NHS”. This report was based on a select group of “30 senior leaders and experts from Scottish health and care”.

One of the primary “learning points” of this report was that Scotland should be considered as “the model of how to improve healthcare across the British isles”. What is not made clear in this report is that the improvement methodology that Scotland has embraced was introduced from the USA not by “30 senior leaders” but by three:

  1. Derek Feeley, President of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and former Director General for NHS Scotland
  2. Professor Jason Leitch, who is a Dental practitioner, IHI Fellow and National Clinical Director of Healthcare Quality and Strategy (Scottish Government)
  3. Dr Brian RobsonIHI Fellow and Clinical Director of Healthcare Improvement Scotland

The “30 senior leaders and experts” would seem to be “marking their own homework”.

A few personal thoughts:

I am a passionate about science but am of the view that passion should not pre-determine scientific method and process.

I have previously argued why it is unhelpful to pre-determine science as “improvement”.

I fully welcome a coordinated approach to improving healthcare.

I worry about the inherent reductionism that is the basis of IHI “improvement science”

IHI promotes learning to healthcare based upon the experience of Industry (mechanical engineering). This may work well for less complex interactional processes, such as Hospital Acquired Infection. However healthcare is rarely linear (it is more often Bayesian) and reductionist interventions (however well intentioned) can cause harm.

I have found that Healthcare Improvement Scotland (IHI) does not routinely include ethical considerations in its approach to “improvement science”.

In summary:

I would suggest that it would have been more accurate (evidence based) for the Nuffield Trust report to have been titled: “Learning from the USA”.

I welcome all learning and from all reaches of the globe. I also seek improvement. But as a philosopher and NHS doctor (of 25 years) I worry about any one-system approach.

Science needs to consider culture, ethics, narrative, and the experience of being.

“How to Improve” needs to consider the voices of people and place. It should not just be the voices of the “senior leaders and experts from Scottish health and care”.

 

 

 

 

freedom to speak

The Director General for NHS Scotland:

  Peter's experience of the Director General for NHS Scotland

 

The Clinical Director of Healthcare Improvement Scotland:

     Peter's experience of the Clinical Director of HIS

 

The Director of Health and Social Care Integration:

Peter's experience of Director of Health & Social Care Integration

 

In my determination to put patients first I have been treated poorly.

These highly paid officials seem to be beyond accountability:

[I have always openly acknowledged that my view is no more important than any other. I am always careful to be clear in what cannot be said with any certainty. I am fully aware of my weaknesses.  I absolutely refute any charge that I am “vexatious”. I do not hold grievances. What matters to me is truth and fairness. I have found that the same cannot always be said of those in genuine positions of power]:

 

It can take courage to care. To resist the threats to your career and the misnaming:

 

Such abuse of power is not new:

 

You are invited to join me for this protest: