PODCAST: Preventing Overdiagnosis 2017 - from theory to practice by BMJ talk medicine

My first Podcast!

Dr Navjoyt Ladher of BMJ talk medicine kindly invited a few colleagues and me to participate in an informal discussion at the Preventing Overdiagnosis 2017 conference in Quebec, Canada.

As working clinicians, we explored moments in our careers that got us interested in tackling overdiagnosis, scratched our heads thinking a little bit about why we (and not all of our colleagues) are taking this on, and reflected on take away messages from the conference.

Have a listen, and go to the original site if you wish to join the discussion.

Source: https://soundcloud.com/bmjpodcasts/prevent...

Making change: The Right Care Movement

If you are reading this, you already know there is an epidemic of overuse in health care. Yes, there is underuse too, and this has been the subject of many lobbying and quality improvement initiatives to date. The medical-industrial complex, particularly in the United States, has capitalized on the fears of individuals who worry they might be victims of underuse, to the tune of billions in unnecessary and harmful "just to be sure" testing, medications, and procedures.

Of course the health of individuals and populations is primary, but we cannot discuss this in isolation, without due attention to cost and sustainability. Given the finite resources we have in health care, we can't afford to throw away the precious time of patients and clinicians, or the money of patients and taxpayers. The best way to fix either problem is to see them – under- and over-use – as one. We need the right amount of care.

Who doesn't dream of a problem in which all you have to do is shuffle the deck to solve it!? This resonates strongly with my predisposition (and tiny amount of training) with Integrative Thinking.

The classic example of two sisters splitting an orange is a good illustration of the potential of integrative bargaining, as well as its elusiveness (Follett, 1940). Two sisters both want an orange, and they compromise by cutting the orange in half. What they would have discovered had they discussed it, however, is that one sister wanted the pulp for juice, and the other wanted the peel for a cake. Discovering that they each wanted different aspects of the orange would have helped the sisters to split the orange in a way that each gets the most individual utility out of the agreement
– Kirk D, Oettingen G. Gollwitzer, PM. (2011). Mental contrasting promotes integrative bargaining. International Journal of Conflict Management, 22(4), 324-341.

This is not a traditional way of thinking. The idea that "less" can lead to "more" is not intuitive. Some examples may help to illustrate the meaning of this when applied to health:

1.By ordering fewer unneeded tests and consultations for one patient (say, to review their cardiovascular profile), the clinician can instead emphasize and support the role of lifestyle changes and free up the patient's time and energy to exercise (which will improve their health far more than any cholesterol test or drug could).

2. If a patient can stop paying for a medication she doesn't need, she has a better chance of making rent payments that month, decreasing stress and the morbidity associated with homelessness as well as reducing the chance of an adverse event or side effect from medication.

3. If one patient's MRI for a sore knee is cancelled because it was planned to assess for a meniscus tear and is not needed as meniscus surgery is not shown to be effective, then timely access is now an option for another patient who needs that MRI (perhaps they've clinically had a stroke and the CT was normal, so the pattern of pathology on the brain MRI would change the treatment plan to prevent further strokes)

It goes on. However, because many people don't think about the big picture for themselves, their practice, or society as a whole, it can be hard to convince them to consider the 'Less is More' mentality. They may only hear "less" and run screaming.

This is why we need to create a huge swell of support, a cultural shift to make the discussion about overuse and underuse the norm. Jeanne Lenzer explains more about how the Lown Institute is attempting this with the Right Care Alliance in The Backstory—Is US healthcare a frontier for a new civil rights movement?

Source: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/05/13/jeanne...

BMJ Blogs: Six proposals for EBM’s future

Dr Paul Glasziou is a Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Bond University in Australia. He speaks and writes mainly about the translation of health research into clinical practice.

His latest contribution to the BMJ Blog is a look at the future of evidence-based medicine (EBM). As its era fades into another, it becomes apparent that there is still a huge gap between what research tells us and what doctors and patients wind up doing.

Sometimes the known evidence is biased, of poor quality, or doesn't actually have any relevance for our patient. Sometimes, we have strong evidence about what is clinically 'correct' but we have forgotten to remember that each patient is an individual, with unique goals and life circumstances. Sometimes, we get so caught up in chasing the potential benefits of something that we fail to realize it could be causing more harm than good.

Read Dr Glaszious' Six Proposals for EBM's future, as he tackles these tough issues and helps to guide us back to a place where research improves care.

Source: http://blogs.bmj.com/ce/2015/03/27/six-pro...

"#Overdiganosis is in the eye of the beholder" The challenge begins with definition

Stacy Carter headed a great session at the Preventing Overdiagnosis 2014 conference in Oxford, which is where I met her for the first time.

 This BMJ talk Medicine interview expands on that session and on the paper written with Rogers, Heath, Degeling, Doust, and Barratt. They explore the culture (ethical and social aspects) and science behind "overdiagnosis," why it is so hard to define, and limitations of the term.

Listen at the BMJ and read the paper, which I am delighted to report, cites this website!

Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h869

‘Choosing Wisely’: a growing international campaign

As you may know, the Choosing Wisely campaign, originally started by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation in the United States, was launched in Canada in 2014. It has now spread to over 12 countries and many others are working on recommendations in line with the work.

Dr Wendy Levinson (Chair), Dr. Sam Shortt (Vice Chair) and Dr. Sacha Bhatia (Evaluation Lead) of the Choosing Wisely Canada campaign join colleagues Dr. Daniel Wolfson (Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer ABIM), Dr. Eve Kerr (Director, VA Center for Clinical Management Research), and Marjon Kallewaard (Director of Quality, Dutch Association of Medical Specialists) in authoring a paper summarizing the international efforts of Choosing Wisely.

The article in BMJ Quality and Safety describes the growth of a campaign from its American-launched roots as an effort "to encourage physicians and patients to talk about medical tests and procedures that may be unnecessary, and in some instances, can cause harm."

Several charts in the article compare the stages, stakeholders, and special issues in each of 12 countries as well as outlining the common principles of the campaign.

Portion of the table comparing 12 countries and their variations on the Choosing Wisely Campaign, the involved parties, and the unique challenges faced.

The most interesting section for me is "Challenges." Here, Levinson et al. describe some of the major barriers to developing and implementing the recommendations, as well the need to discover if the campaign has been effective.

Read the article at BMJ Quality and Safety.

Source: http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early...

7 Themes from Preventing Overdiagnosis #PODC2014

In September I was lucky enough to attend the Preventing Overdiagnosis conference in Oxford, UK. I learned about new resources and people that I could connect with, changed some of my beliefs, and generated even more questions for myself/the health care system.

In my reflection, 7 major themes emerged:

  1. Nomenclature

    • under-use is as much an issue as over-use
      • like food, we want our medicine neither over- nor under-cooked [David Haslam]
    • how do we define the problem? what terms are being used to describe this/similar issues? [see glossary for some] can we create a common term?
    • causes of overdiagnosis are on a spectrum
      • good intentions -- wishful thinking -- vested interests [Stacy Carter]
         
  2. Cognitive/Labeling Biases = Problematic

    • flawed thinking: doing something better than nothing, "more is better"
      • the more resources exist, the more they are used
    • actions motivated by fear (of death, illness, uncertainty)
    • labeling bias
      • is there any other way we can see patients besides by labeling them with diagnoses? [William House, Andrew Morrice]
      • creating a "WAR ON CANCER" galvanizes people, breeds an ideology and creates fundamentalists
         
  3. It Is about conversations, not certainties

    • mostly grey areas, no blanket rule for everyone; evidence, guidelines, recommendations must be interpreted for each patient
    • pathology is a continuum, never/rarely yes or no
    • "correct" is not always effective

    • use existing skepticism/understanding to inform others

      • eg. people have begun to understand the harms of the overuse of antibiotics; parlay that into other areas
         

  4. Individuals vs. populations

    • for Patient X to not have a stroke, 76 other people have to be on statins
    • it is not possible to know at an individual level if something is overdiagnosis
    • evidence often does not apply to the person sitting in front of you
       
  5. Health Care delivery is flawed

    • changing the way we delivery primary care might be the heart of the solution
    • "consumer"-driven Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, Participatory (P4) medicine is scary & narcissistic [Henrik Vogt]
    • neo-paternalism may have a role
    • industry is scary
      • for-profit medicine is the biggest enemy of "Less is More Medicine"
      • this drives the medicalization of normal life, which makes us sicker!
    • the technology for genetic-based medicine is a long way off from being helpful
       
  6. Screening fails in ways we never imagined

    • patients equate screening with access to care [Laura Batstra]
    • "why is screening exempt from the ethical responsibilities to do no harm?" [Alexander Barratt]
    • preventative medicine has disappointing outcomes [Linn Getz]
       
  7. Evidence is lacking

    • it's not just a lack of quantity or quality
    • do we really need clinical trials to prove the obvious? can't we just do the right, ethical thing? [Dan Mayer]

Did you take away the same points as I did? Something completely different?

I'm already looking forward to the conference next year, in Bethesda, USA.