Authors: Atul Gawande
You will find, however, that many respond--because they're polite, or friendly, or perhaps in need of human contact. When this happens, try seeing if you can keep the conversation going for more than two sentences. Listen. Make note of what you learn. This is not a forty-six-year-old male with a right inguinal hernia. This is a forty-six-year-old former mortician who hated the funeral business with a right inguinal hernia.
One can of course do this with people other than
patients. So ask a random question of the medical assistant who checks their vitals, a nurse you run into on rounds. It's not that making this connection necessarily helps anyone. But you start to remember the people you see, instead of letting them all blur together. And sometimes you discover the unexpected. I learned, for instance, that an elderly Pakistani phlebotomist I saw every day during my residency had been a general surgeon in Karachi for twenty years but emigrated for the sake of his children's education. I found out that a quiet, carefully buttoned-down nurse I work with had once dated Jimi Hendrix.
If you ask a question, the machine begins to feel less like a machine.
M
Y SECOND SUGGESTION
was:
Don't complain.
To be sure, a doctor has plenty to carp about: predawn pages, pointless paperwork, computer system crashes, a new problem popping up at six o'clock on a Friday night. We all know what it feels like to be tired and beaten down. Yet nothing in medicine is more dispiriting than hearing doctors complain.
Recently, I joined a group of surgeons and nurses having lunch in the hospital cafeteria. The banter started off cheerily enough. First we chatted about a patient one of the surgeons had seen (a man with a tumor the size of his head growing out of his back), then about the two cans of Diet Vanilla Coke we watched one of the nurses consume. (The Coca-Cola Company had discontinued the flavor--such as it is--but she had hoarded enough to keep herself in supply.) Next, however, a surgeon told a bitter tale of being called to the emergency
department at
2:00 A.M.
the previous Sunday to see a woman with a severely infected gallbladder. He had advised that she would best be treated with antibiotics, fluids, admission to the hospital, and a delay in surgery until the inflammation had subsided, only to have the emergency physician tell her that such a plan was dangerous and she should be operated upon right away. The emergency physician was wrong, the surgeon said. Worse, he had not had the common courtesy to pick up the phone and discuss his concerns before speaking to the patient. When the surgeon confronted him later, he was not in the least apologetic. The story unleashed from the others a raft of similar tales of unprofessional behavior. And when lunch was over, we all returned to our operating rooms and hospital wards feeling angry and sorry for ourselves.
Medicine is a trying profession, but less because of the difficulties of disease than because of the difficulties of having to work with other human beings under circumstances only partly in one's control. Ours is a team sport, but with two key differences from the kinds with lighted scoreboards: the stakes are people's lives and we have no coaches. The latter is no minor matter. Doctors are expected to coach themselves. We have no one but ourselves to lift us through the struggles. But we're not good at it. Wherever doctors gather--in meeting rooms, in conference halls, in hospital cafeterias--the natural pull of conversational gravity is toward the litany of woes all around us.
But resist it. It's boring, it doesn't solve anything, and it will get you down. You don't have to be sunny about everything. Just be prepared with something else to discuss: an idea you read about, an interesting problem you came
across--even the weather if that's all you've got. See if you can keep the conversation going.
M
Y THIRD ANSWER
for becoming a positive deviant: Count something. Regardless of what one ultimately does in medicine--or outside medicine, for that matter--one should be a scientist in this world. In the simplest terms, this means one should count something. The laboratory researcher may count the number of tumor cells in a petri dish that have a particular gene defect. Likewise, the clinician might count the number of patients who develop a particular complication from treatment--or just how many are actually seen on time and how many are made to wait. It doesn't really matter what you count. You don't need a research grant. The only requirement is that what you count should be interesting to you.
When I was a resident I began counting how often our surgical patients ended up with an instrument or sponge forgotten inside them. It didn't happen often: about one in fifteen thousand operations, I discovered. But when it did, serious injury could result. One patient had a thirteen-inch retractor left in him that tore into his bowel and bladder. Another had a small sponge left in his brain that caused an abscess and a permanent seizure disorder.
Then I counted how often such mistakes occurred because the nurses hadn't counted all the sponges as they were supposed to or because the doctors had ignored nurses' warnings that an item was missing. It turned out to be hardly ever. Eventually I got a little more sophisticated and compared patients who had objects left inside them with those who didn't.
I found that the mishaps predominantly occurred in patients undergoing emergency operations or procedures that revealed the unexpected--such as a cancer when the surgeon had anticipated only appendicitis.
The numbers began to make sense. If nurses have to track fifty sponges and a couple of hundred instruments during an operation--already a tricky thing to do--it is understandably much harder under urgent circumstances or when unexpected changes require bringing in lots more equipment. Our usual approach of punishing people for failures wasn't going to eliminate the problem, I realized. Only a technological solution would--and I soon found myself working with some colleagues to come up with a device that could automate the tracking of sponges and instruments.
If you count something you find interesting, you will learn something interesting.
M
Y FOURTH SUGGESTION
was:
Write something.
I do not mean this to be an intimidating suggestion. It makes no difference whether you write five paragraphs for a blog, a paper for a professional journal, or a poem for a reading group. Just write. What you write need not achieve perfection. It need only add some small observation about your world.
You should not underestimate the effect of your contribution, however modest. As Lewis Thomas once pointed out, quoting the physicist John Ziman, "The invention of a mechanism for the systematic publication of 'fragments' of scientific work may well have been the key event in the history of modern science." By soliciting modest contributions from the
many, we have produced a store of collective know-how with far greater power than any individual could have achieved. And this is as true outside science as inside.
You should also not underestimate the power of the act of writing itself. I did not write until I became a doctor. But once I became a doctor, I found I needed to write. For all its complexity, medicine is more physically than intellectually taxing. Because medicine is a retail enterprise, because doctors provide their services to one person after another, it can be a grind. You can lose your larger sense of purpose. But writing lets you step back and think through a problem. Even the angriest rant forces the writer to achieve a degree of thoughtfulness.
Most of all, by offering your reflections to an audience, even a small one, you make yourself part of a larger world. Put a few thoughts on a topic in just a newsletter, and you find yourself wondering nervously: Will people notice it? What will they think? Did I say something dumb? An audience is a community. The published word is a declaration of membership in that community and also of a willingness to contribute something meaningful to it.
So choose your audience. Write something.
M
Y SUGGESTION NUMBER
five, my final suggestion for a life in medicine, was:
Change.
In medicine, just as in anything else people do, individuals respond to new ideas in one of three ways. A few become early adopters, as the business types call them. Most become late adopters. And some remain persistent skeptics who never stop resisting. A doctor may have
good reasons to take any of these stances. When Jonas Salk tried out his new polio vaccine on over 400,000 children, when a battlefield surgeon first shipped a soldier to Landstuhl with the bleeding stopped but his abdomen open and the operation unfinished, when Warren Warwick began putting more feeding tubes into CF children--who was to say whether these were truly good ideas? Medicine has seen plenty of bad ones. Frontal lobotomies were once performed for the control of chronic pain. The anti-inflammatory medication Vioxx turned out to cause heart attacks. Viagra, it was recently discovered, may cause partial vision loss.
Nonetheless, make yourself an early adopter. Look for the opportunity to change. I am not saying you should embrace every new trend that comes along. But be willing to recognize the inadequacies in what you do and to seek out solutions. As successful as medicine is, it remains replete with uncertainties and failure. This is what makes it human, at times painful, and also so worthwhile.
The choices a doctor makes are necessarily imperfect but they alter people's lives. Because of that reality, it often seems safest to do what everyone else is doing--to be just another white-coated cog in the machine. But a doctor must not let that happen--nor should anyone who takes on risk and responsibility in society.
So find something new to try, something to change. Count how often you succeed and how often you fail. Write about it. Ask people what they think. See if you can keep the conversation going.
O N W ASHING H ANDS | |
14 | The U.S. Centers for Disease Control's "Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings," by J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, was published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , October 25, 2002, pp. 1-44. It can also be found at www.cdc.gov. |
15 | Sherwin Nuland tells the tale of Semmelweis in The Doctors' Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever, and the Strange Story of Ignac Semmelweis (New York: Norton, 2003). |
24 | The article that Jon Lloyd came across about the Sternins' approach to reducing starvation in Vietnam was D. Dorsey's "Positive Deviant," in Fast Company , November 2000, p. 284. More about positive deviance can be found at www.positivedeviance.org. |
T HE M OP -U P | |
29 | The definition of diligence is from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (New York: Random House, 2006). |
31 | For an overview of WHO's eradication efforts, see G. Williams, "WHO: The Days of the Mass Campaigns," World Health Forum 9 (1988): 7-23. |
32 | A campaign against guinea worm disease, led by the Carter Center and financed by the CDC, WHO, and the Gates Foundation, is the only global eradication program now under way besides the one against polio (see www.cartercenter.org ). As with the polio effort, there remains great hope. The parasitic worm was once endemic in Africa and Asia and caused some three to ten million infections per year. (The worms grow to three feet in length in the abdomen and then emerge slowly and painfully through the skin, incapacitating victims for two months or longer.) The worm has now been confined to a dozen African countries and only ten thousand infections occurred in 2005. Success again has depended on incredible attention to surveillance and follow-through in prevention. |
50 | The Web site www.polioeradication.org has up-to-date information on the current number of polio cases and maps with the locations of outbreaks. |
C ASUALTIES OF W AR | |
51 | The U.S. Department of Defense's weekly update on American military casualties can be found at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. |
52 | The study that first examined the relationship between homicide rates and medical care is A. R. Harris, S. H. Thomas, G. A. Fisher, and D. J. Hirsch, "Murder and Medicine: The Lethality of Criminal Assault, 1960-1999," Homicide Studies 6 (2002): 128-66. |
52 | The source for the historical casualty numbers is U.S. Department of Defense, "Principal Wars in which the United States Participated: U.S. Military Personnel Serving and Casualties," 2004 (http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf). Some experts have argued that the DoD online data is inaccurate, because of changing definitions of who is wounded (see J. B. Holcomb, L. G. Stansbury, H. R. Champion, C. Wade, and R. F. Bellamy, Journal of Trauma 60 [2006]: 397-401). If figures are restricted to casualties known to have required at least some hospital care, the lethality rate for the American war wounded was 23 percent in World War II (using army-only data), 23 percent in the Korean War, and anywhere from 16 to 24 percent in the Vietnam War (the definitions for Vietnam remain contentious to this day). (These data are from G. Beebe and M. E. DeBakey, Battle Casualties: Incidence, Mortality, and Logistic Considerations [Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1952]; F. A. Reister, Battle Casualties and Medical Statistics: U.S. Army Experience in Korea [Washington: Department of the Army, 1973]; R. F. Bellamy, "Why Is Marine Combat Mortality Less Than That of the Army?" Military Medicine 165 [2000]: 362-67.) Using this definition of wounded, lethality of war wounds for American troops in the Persian Gulf War was 24 percent; in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it has been no higher than 12 percent. |
57 | For more on Ronald Bellamy's concept of the "Golden Five Minutes," see his chapter on combat trauma in his Textbook of Military Medicine: Anesthesia and Pre-Operative Care of the Combat Casualty (Washington: Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, Borden Institute, 1994), pp. 1-42. |
N AKED | |
77 | The U.K. standards on physical examination etiquette are described in the General Medical Council's report Intimate Examinations (London: General Medical Council Standards Committee, December 2001) and in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' Gynaecological Examinations: Guidelines for Specialist Practice (London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, July 2002). |
78 | I relied on three reports in particular in considering the etiquette of American examinations: The Ad Hoc Committee on Physician Impairment's Report on Sexual Boundary Issues (Dallas: Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, April 1996); C. E. Dehlendorf and S. M. Wolfe, "Physicians Disciplined for Sex-Related Offenses," JAMA 279 (1998): 1883-88; and J. A. Enbom and C. D. Thomas, "Evaluation of Sexual Misconduct Complaints: The Oregon Board of Medical Examiners, 1991 to 1995," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 176 (1997): 1340-48. |
79 | Data on patient-initiated sexual behavior toward medical students comes from a report by H. M. Schulte and J. Kay in Academic Medicine 69 (1995): 842-46. |
W HAT D OCTORS O WE | |
87 | Much of the detail on the American medical malpractice system comes from research by my colleagues David Studdert, Michelle Mello, and Troy Brennan of the Harvard School of Public Health. See, for example, D. M. Studdert et al., "Negligent Care and Malpractice Claiming Behavior in Utah and Colorado," Medical Care 38 (2000): 250-60, and D. M. Studdert et al., "Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation," New England Journal of Medicine 354 (2006): 2024-33. Two excellent reviews of what we know about the American malpractice system are D. M. Studdert, M. M. Mello, T. A. Brennan, "Medical Malpractice," New England Journal of Medicine 350 (2004): 283-92 (that's a short one), and Tom Baker's The Medical Malpractice Myth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005) (that's a longer one). |
108 | For more on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program, see D. Ridgway's description in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 24 (1999): 59-90, and also the program's Web site, www.hrsa.gov/osp/vicp/. |
109 | The New Zealand malpractice system is detailed by M. Bismark and R. Paterson in "No-Fault Compensation in New Zealand," Health Affairs 25 (2000): 278-83. |
P IECEWORK | |
116 | William Hsiao outlined his evaluation of the relative amount of work involved in the different tasks physicians do--the relative value scale--in two principal articles: W. Hsiao et al., "Resource-Based Relative Values: An Overview," JAMA 260 (1988): 2347-53, and W. Hsiao et al., "Measurement and Analysis of Intraservice Work," JAMA 260 (1988): 2361-70. |
120 | William Weeks's studies of how much physicians work and earn and the comparison with other professions were published in W. Weeks and A. Wallace, "Time and Money: A Retrospective Evaluation of the Inputs, Outputs, Efficiency, and Incomes of Physicians," Archives of Internal Medicine 163 (2003): 944-48, and W. Weeks and A. Wallace, "The More Things Change: Revisiting a Comparison of Educational Costs and Incomes of Physicians and Other Professionals," Academic Medicine 77 (2002): 312-19. |
126 | The amount of money currently spent on health care in the United States is tracked by the government, and the figures are available from the Medicare Web site: www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/. |
128 | Information on doctors' incomes relative to average workers' incomes was found in Derek Bok's fascinating book The Cost of Talent (New York: Free Press, 1993) and in data from the Bertelsmann Foundation's International Reform Monitor (see www.reformmonitor.org ). |
128 | Evidence on the health and financial consequences of lacking insurance can be found in Jack Hadley's "Sicker and Poorer," Medical Care Research and Review 60 (2003): 3S-75S. |
T HE D OCTORS OF THE D EATH C HAMBER | |
130 | The full opinion of United States District Judge Jeremy Fogel in the case of Michael Angelo Morales v. Roderick Q. Hickman is a riveting and surprisingly readable document (No. C 06 219 JF; District Court, Northern District of California: February 14, 2006). Also see the appeals court's ruling specifying what participating anesthesiologists would be required to do to ensure a rapid, painless death for an inmate ( Michael Angelo Morales v. Roderick Q. Hickman , No. CV 06 00926 JF; U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals: February 20, 2006). |
132 | The history of lethal injection and other execution methods is told in Stephen Trombley's fine book The Execution Protocol: Inside America's Capital Punishment Industry (New York: Crown, 1992). Similarly intriguing is Ivan Solotaroff's The Last Face You'll Ever See: The Private Life of the American Death Penalty (New York: HarperCollins, 2001). |
134 | Ethics codes for participation in executions by different medical professions can be found as follows: The American Medical Association's position was published in JAMA 270 (1993): 365-68, and is available on the www.ama-assn.org Web site. The Society of Correctional Physicians puts its ethics code online at http://www.corrdocs.org/about/ethics.html. The American Nursing Association's position statement on nurses' participation in capital punishment is available at http://nursingworld.org/readroom/position/ethics/prtetcptl.htm. The American Pharmaceutical Association's current policies are found in its "policies related to the practice environment and quality of worklife issues," available at www.aphanet.org. |
136 | Current data on death penalty cases is available from the Death Penalty Information Center Execution Database at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions.php. |
137 | The seminal study on physician participation in U.S. executions is Breach of Trust (Philadelphia: American College of Physicians and Physicians for Human Rights, 1994). |
141 | The survey I cite on the level of physician awareness of ethics guidelines on participation in executions was published by N. J. Farber et al. in Annals of Internal Medicine 135 (2001): 884-88. |
152 | On the U.S. government's recent willingness to use medical skills against individuals for state purposes, see Stephen Miles's Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror (New York: Random House, 2006). |
O N F IGHTING | |
159 | Watson Bowes Jr.'s study of aggressively resuscitating premature infants was published with his colleagues M. Halgrimson and M. A. Simmons in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine 23 (1979): 245. |
T HE S CORE | |
172 | Information on the normal anatomy, physiology, and process of labor, as well as the abnormalities that can occur, is taken from F. G. Cunningham et al., eds., Williams Obstetrics , 22nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005). |
176 | The details of the history of obstetrical techniques and complications are from numerous sources, in particular: J. Drife, "The Start of Life: A History of Obstetrics," Postgraduate Medical Journal 78 (2002): 311-15; R. W. Wertz and D. C. Wertz, Lying-In: A History of Childbirth in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); and D. Trolle, The History of Caesarean Section (Copenhagen: University Library, 1982). |
179 | For more data on the modern experience of childbirth, including on how commonly laboring mothers turn to medical interventions such as electronic monitors, epidurals, and labor-stimulating medication, an excellent source is E. R. Declercq et al., Listening to Mothers: Report of the First National U.S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences (New York: Maternity Center Association, 2002). |
184 | Historical data on perinatal mortality for mothers and newborns are from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. |
185 | Shortly after Virginia Apgar's death, her friend and colleague L. Stanley James published his eulogy, "Fond Memories of Virginia Apgar," in Pediatrics 55 (1975): 1-4. Another key source of information on her life is A. A. Skolnick, "Apgar Quartet Plays Perinatologist's Instruments," JAMA 276 (1996): 1939-40. An excellent review of the development and importance of her score is M. Finster and M. Wood, "The Apgar Score Has Survived the Test of Time," Anesthesiology 102 (2005): 855-57. |