Heroes Not Zombies

It’s funny how a document or an idea can float around for many years then re-emerge with new relevance much later. In reading about “Health 2.0” in the BMJ recently I followed the links to the Demos organisation and downloaded their excellent document “The Talking Cure“. One of the references listed in that document was a publication by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, published back in 1997, tackling the issue of “non-compliance” – where patients don’t actually take their medicines as they’ve been prescribed. This is a fascinating document. The conclusion it reaches is that it’s time to stop thinking about “compliance” and start thinking about “concordance”.

Here’s their definition of “compliance” –

The patient presents with a significant medical problem for which there is a potentially helpful treatment. What the doctor or other health care professional brings to the situation – scientific evidence and technical expertise – is classed as the solution. What the patient brings – ‘health beliefs’ based on such qualities as culture, personality, family tradition and experience – is classed by clinicians as the impediment to the solution. The only sensible way out of this difficulty would appear to be to bring the patient’s response to the doctor’s diagnosis and proposed treatment, as far as possible into line with what medical science suggests.

and, here’s their definition of “concordance”

The clinical encounter is concerned with two sets of contrasted but equally cogent health beliefs – that of the patient and that of the doctor. The task of the patient is to convey her or his health beliefs to the doctor; and of the doctor, to enable this to happen. The task of the doctor or other prescriber is to convey his or her (professionally informed) health beliefs to the patient; and of the patient, to entertain these. The intention is to assist the patient to make as informed a choice as possible about the diagnosis and treatment, about benefit and risk and to take full part in a therapeutic alliance. Although reciprocal, this is an alliance in which the most important determinations are agreed to be those that are made by the patient.

This is such an important shift in thinking.

The full report considers what this means for “Evidence Based Medicine” (EBM). It does represent a challenge but it doesn’t undermine EBM principles. EBM is basically clinical epidemiology. It’s a statistical technique which focuses on the results of experiments conducted on groups of volunteers. It helps us to understand the potential of an intervention. However, the reality of an intervention has to be patient based. A painkiller might be “proven” in EBM terms, but might totally fail to relieve a particular patient’s pain. In fact, that’s partly the reason there are so many “proven” drugs which claim to do the same thing – they might have demonstrated their potential to something but only the patient can decide whether or not they “work” for them.

This is encouraging. For too long patients’ experiences have been dismissed as “anecdotal” and, frankly, irrelevant. That thinking has to change.

There’s a revolution beginning in the practice of medicine. It’s about a shift in power which will change the way doctors work. It’s quite fascinating to see the early shoots appearing and it’s way too early to be able to say exactly how this is going to develop.

One of the change factors is what is being termed “Health 2.0”. This term is being used in different ways but it mainly refers to the use of social networking tools. This is one of them – a blog. Blogs allow anybody to publish anything of interest. Some blogs are just websites trying to sell something, and some are so highly personal that they are only of interest to readers who already know the blog author. But the most exciting blogs are those which allow sharing of experiences, views, information through tools like links, tags, comments, blogrolls and so on. Social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace, Bebo and so on are other ways of sharing experiences views and information. I could go on, but I won’t! There are more and more tools emerging all the time. What do they have in common? They are about sharing. They allow people to access the stories of others’ experiences.

What’s this got to do with health?

Well, the traditional doctor-patient relationship is based on a doctor as the expert who knows best and a patient who will passively accept the doctor’s recommendations, whether that be a prescription or an operation or whatever. The power sits with the doctor and the patient often feels intimidated or unheard. The new way is patient-centred, another term which means different things to different people, but which usually includes giving a higher prioirty to the patient’s issues and wishes.

There are two elements to this “Health 2.0” change – doctor-patient communication and patient-patient communication. The US Institute of Medicine’s report “Crossing the Quality Chasm” suggested that care be seen in future as less “event based” and more “relationship based”. It recommended that doctors and other members of health care teams be more accessible to patients and that care becomes an ongoing process rather than conceived of as something that only happens in “consultations” or “office visits” or “admissions”. An article about these changes was published in the BMJ last week. It highlighted the need to shift towards what it called “conversations”, giving one example of moving the patient record from being a doctor-held property to being a document co-created and shared between doctor and patient –

An example of this conversation is that created when general practitioners share records with their patients by posting them on the web. It is being pioneered by a group of English GPs in the patient access electronic records collaborative, using the EMIS information system for primary care. GPs will post up the patient records on a password protected site and patients and their GP will be able to access them.

This sharing of information is a major driver in the shift of power. Not only will personal information no longer be the sole preserve of the authorities (think also of Donald Berwick’s speech to the NHS where his first recommendation for improvement was this – “Put the patient at the absolute centre of your system of care—In its most authentic form, this rule feels very risky to both professionals and managers, especially at first. It means the active presence of patients, families, and communities in the design, management, assessment, and improvement of care. It means total transparency. It means that patients have their own medical records and that restricted visiting hours are eliminated. It means, “Nothing about me without me.”) but more and more information is being shared. The BMJ article, for example, highlights the development of the NHS Choices supersite http://www.nhs.uk and facilities like Healthspace and Medpedia as examples of the much wider publication of health related information.

The second element is collaboration and sharing between individuals. These new tools allow people with similar problems to not only share their experiences but also to discuss what they’ve personally found helpful or harmful.

Demos, a UK-based thinktank has recently published an excellent document entitled “The Talking Cure” which encourages people to think about these changes. In that document they state –

“If we are serious about engaging patients in their own care, we need to recognise that current structures of choice inhibit responsibility.” Choice “requires a genuine negotiation, a conversation between patient and doctor, and a shift in logic.”

and

Truly personalised healthcare allows patients to articulate their experiences, express their values, set their priorities, be aware of their options, exercise their preferences and be educated in managing their health. This means an end to paternalism

The Demos document very interestingly compares the mechanics and hairdressers as models of ways in which doctors work – yes, really!

Today, the typical motorist may have a rough idea of what is wrong with his or her car but leaves it to the mechanic to make an exact diagnosis, define a successful outcome, and prescribe the procedures needed. A visit to the hairdresser on the other hand begins with a conversation to elucidate what the client wants done (and whether it is practical) and may continue throughout the visit. At the end, the client assesses the outcome.

I find all this very exciting. It’s going to shift health care into collaborative relationships which focus on the needs, experiences and wishes of individual patients. This represents a huge challenge to the command and control, expert knows best, model of passive patients who are told what to do by others who claim to know better than the patient what will make their life better.

I read a report today by Professor Lipshutz about coenzymeQ10. I don’t know if you’ve heard about it but it’s a chemical which is necessary for the normal functioning of every cell of your body. Given its biological importance, some people have wondered if you can improve function, and therefore health, by giving additional amounts to people as some kind of supplement. The problem with the current supplements is two fold – first coenzymeQ10 has been expensive to make (that’s changed now as the Chinese have developed a cheaper method), and, second, there’s a problem of getting it absorbed into the body. The supplements on the market now tend to deliver only about 10 – 15% of the enzyme. The report I read today is from an American researcher who believes he has come up with a method to tackle this latter problem by using nanotechnology to make coenzymeQ10 easier to deliver effectively to the human body.

OK, so far, this sounds like a good story. If this stuff in needed and giving more of it makes people better then something that improves its availability must just be a good thing. But the question of whether or not taking supplements of coenzymeQ10 will improve your health, either in general, or specifically in relation to particular diseases, hasn’t been clearly answered yet. I agree with the logic expressed by Dr Langsjoen who wrote a very clear summary here. He said –

Modern medicine seems to be based on an “attack strategy”, a philosophy of treatment formed in response to the discovery of antibiotics and the development of surgical/anesthetic techniques. Disease is viewed as something that can be attacked selectively – with antibiotics, chemotherapy, or surgery – assuming no harm to the host. Even chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and hypertension, yield simple numbers which can be furiously assaulted with medications. Amidst the miracles and drama of 20th century medicine we may have forgotten the importance of host support, as if time borrowed with medications and surgery were restorative in and of itself. Yet, in this age, a patient may be cured of leukemia through multiple courses of chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, only to die slowly of unrecognized thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency(47). Like the vitamins discovered in the early part of this century, CoQ10 is an essential element of food that can now be used medicinally to support the sick host in conditions where nutritional depletion and cellular dysfunction occur. Surely, the combination of disease attacking strategy and host supportive treatments would yield much better results in clinical medicine.

There was one particular phrase used by Professor Lipshutz which did alarm me however –

Nature gave us, through 2.5 billion years of evolution, a number of fundamental anti-aging, free-radical scavengers that helped us to survive, on average, only to about 40 years of age, until modern medicine came along

Dear, oh dear. Does Professor Lipshutz really believe that? That life expectancy has increased in the developed world from 40 to 70 years because of “modern medicine”? That’s just not true. And it’s not even what is taught in medical schools. The BIG improvements in life expectancy are not down to medicine at all. They are down to clean water, better housing, improvements in food availability and reductions in absolute and relative poverty. We won’t improve the health of most people by technical fixes. It’s going to need some political will to change our societies.