The Curse of
Knowledge. We tend to think of knowledge
as a positive attribute, and we are right, however every positive attribute has
within it the challenge of the attribute being used correctly and
sensitively. In a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Source of Bad Writing” Steve Pinker describes
this curse, defined as a “difficulty in imagining what it is like for someone
else not to know something that you know” as a source of much of the bad
writing that we see. He wrote:
“Anyone who wants to lift the curse of knowledge must first
appreciate what a devilish curse it is. Like a drunk who is too impaired to
realize that he is too impaired to drive, we do not notice the curse because
the curse prevents us from noticing it….. I go to a website for a trusted-traveler
program and have to decide whether to click on GOES, Nexus, GlobalEntry,
Sentri, Flux or FAST—bureaucratic terms that mean nothing to me. My apartment
is cluttered with gadgets that I can never remember how to use because of
inscrutable buttons which may have to be held down for one, two or four
seconds, sometimes two at a time, and which often do different things depending
on invisible "modes" toggled by still other buttons. I'm sure it was
perfectly clear to the engineers who designed it.”
While his
message is about writing, it also applies to medicine and to the communication
that is critical to good quality medical care.
Medicine is a field of endeavor in which sensitive topics require strong
communication, however, the curse of knowledge has infected medicine through policies,
regulations, economics and medical education. Medical professionals are trained
to learn a highly specific language and we don't give doctors the time,
training, and incentives to communicate. We also seem to be stuck in a
destructive cycle in which the cost of giving physicians and other health
professionals the time and tools they would need is assumed to be too expensive
in our resource stretched world, so the problem keeps getting worse.
However, while we act otherwise, it may actually be less expensive to give
health professionals more time with patients because we often substitute tests,
drugs, and procedures for communication.
Many of the concierge medical programs and the direct primary care approaches
are starting to prove that the most expensive part of the health care bill is not
necessarily the increased time per office visit.
Giving
doctors, nurses and therapists more money for more time, as the only solution,
will not solve the problem. I worry about
the challenge of retraining doctors who have been taught that the communication
aspect of treating patients is not important.
The current system is driven by an almost religious belief in science alone
and dedicated to the precision of scientific language which is often
incomprehensible to those who are not in medicine. We must try to
change the culture in medicine and in medical teaching environments that lauds the medical scientist as the final arbiter of all that is
high quality in medicine. That being said, the science is critical, and we should
not be compelled in this cultural change to devalue the science. But we must regard
the caring and the communication as being of equal value to the science.
I know this
will be challenging. It is extremely difficult to change the culture of medical
education in which physicians huddle outside patient rooms around computer
screens, discussing among themselves the diagnostic dilemmas and the
therapeutic challenges that the pathology, not the person, presents. It is also
extremely difficult to change the insurance rules and payment systems and the
culture of insurance, government and health policy which speaks in the language
of "incentives" and "codes" and "adjudication",
rather than the language of “caring” and “understanding.” It is virtually impossible to change a
medical science and industry infrastructure that looks for a complex medication
or a new technology or a new payment methodology rather than looking for a
better way to relate to people as people.
Yet we will
not improve care and caring for people unless we start to focus as much on changing
this culture of purist medical science to one that values communication, story
telling, and the social and psychological aspects of people's lives. We can learn lessons from Pinker’s message
and from literature in general about communicating with people’s spirits as
well as their minds.
Dr. Daniel
Sulmasy, a Franciscan monk, physician, author and expert on medical ethics, has
written extensively on the need to see the experience of illness as distinct
from the disease pathology. He wrote:
“Illness
is a spiritual event. Illness grasps persons by the soul as well as by the body
and disturbs both. Illness ineluctably raises troubling questions of a
transcendent nature-questions about meaning, value, and relationship. These
questions are spiritual. How health care professionals answer these questions
for themselves will affect the way they help their patients struggle with these
questions.”
It is
spiritual, it is literary, it is story-telling and of course it is scientific.
Health care touches people as people and not only as patients. As such, we must find solutions that fosters
the caring, the communication, and the literary and spiritual aspects of care
as well as the purely medical science aspects.
My solution
is somewhat radical but also keeping with the tradition of medicine in human
history. A new health professional dedicated to hearing
people's stories, relating the stories people tell to professionals in ways
that influence the care they receive, and helping those people in need by
translating the jargon of insurance, care delivery and medicine, into
understandable and actionable prose that reflects their lives, their
challenges, their values, and their fears. A profession that recognizes the
spiritual nature of illness as well as the scientific aspects of disease. We, at Accolade call the professional who has
this communication expertise the Health Assistant and lest this blog seem too
much like a shameless commercial, our goal is to create this new profession in
addition to growing Accolade as a company. Of course I want to see the success
of my company, but more as a vehicle for changing the landscape of medicine
than as a purely commercial endeavor. Our
patients need and deserve this. We all, as people, need to be approached with
a dedication to true communication that matches the dedication to medical science.
No comments:
Post a Comment