Published by
Stanford Medicine

Category

Health Policy

Health Policy, Pediatrics, Research, Stanford News

Less burnout, better safety culture in hospitals with hands-on executives, new study shows

Less burnout, better safety culture in hospitals with hands-on executives, new study shows

walkroundsA specific method for fostering interaction between hospital executives and front-line health-care workers can reduce burnout and improve a hospital’s safety culture, new research from Stanford and other institutions has found.

“Caregiver burnout is a huge problem for health care,” said Stanford’s Jochen Profit, MD, in a conversation with me about the new study, which he led. Profit is also a neonatologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford. “Across the industry, a third to half of our staff are burned out. How do you maintain quality and safety in that environment?”

The method that Profit’s team evaluated holds an answer. Called executive walk-rounds, it consists of regular, safety-focused visits by hospital executives to the units where patients receive care. The study, published last week in BMJ Quality & Safety, evaluated the effects of walk-rounds on the staff of neonatal intensive care units, the nurseries that care for the sickest newborns. Walk-rounds provide doctors, nurses and other caregivers with an opportunity to point out safety problems, and, ideally, also give executives a chance to tell staff about resolutions used for the problems they’ve raised.

The study surveyed worker engagement and safety culture in 44 NICUs during a quality improvement project led by the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative. The surveys asked workers if walk-rounds were used at their institution and whether they had participated in the process. They also asked about caregivers’ levels of burnout, the hospital’s overall culture of safety and about feedback returned from hospital leadership to front-line caregivers to follow up on suggestions made during walk-rounds.

“Walk-rounds are a way for organizations to make sure they make the lines of communication open,” Profit said. “It can help show that they care for the people in the trenches.” Walk-rounds might help clear up confusion about the hospital’s chain of command or resolve difficulties with getting equipment or supplies in a timely fashion, to name a few anecdotal examples from the study.

Follow-up was the key to successful walk-rounds, the study showed. About 30 percent of the hospitals surveyed used walk-rounds, and these differed in the extent to which staff said they received feedback on how the safety suggestions they identified were resolved. Staff at hospitals with the highest levels of follow-up said they had lower rates of burnout, better communication about errors, and better teamwork and safety climates.

Continue Reading »

Health Policy, Infectious Disease, Microbiology, Public Health, Stanford News

Microbial mushroom cloud: How real is the threat of bioterrorism? (Very)

Microbial mushroom cloud: How real is the threat of bioterrorism? (Very)

Dr. Milana Trounce, M.D. teaches a class on the the risks of bioterror at the Stanford School of Medicine. Photo taken on Monday, April 21, 2014. ( Norbert von der Groeben/ Stanford School of Medicine )

“What if nuclear bombs could reproduce? Get your hands on one today, and in a week’s time you’ve got a few dozen.”

That’s the lead sentence of a feature article I just wrote for Inside Stanford Medicine. The answer is, bombs can’t reproduce. But something just as potentially deadly – and a whole lot easier to come by – can, and does.

What I learned in the course of writing the feature, titled “How contagious pathogens could lead to nuke-level casualties” (I encourage you to take a whack at it), was bracing. Stanford surgeon Milana Trounce, MD, who specializes in emergency medicine, has been teaching a course that pulls together students, faculty and outside experts from government, industry and academia. Her goal is to raise awareness and inspire collaborations on the thorny multidisciplinary problems posed by the very real prospect that somebody, somewhere, could very easily be producing enough killer germs to wipe out huge numbers of people – numbers every bit as large as those we’ve come to fear in the event of a nuclear attack.

Among those I quote in the article are infectious-disease expert David Relman, MD, and biologist/applied physicist Steven Block, PhD, both of whom have sat in on enough closed-door meetings to know that bioterrorism is something we need to take seriously.

Not only do nukes not reproduce. They don’t leap from stranger to stranger, or lurk motionless in midair or on fingertips. Nor can they be fished from soil and streams or cheaply conjured up in a clandestine lab in someone’s basement or backyard.  One teaspoon of the toxin produced by the naturally occurring bacterial pathogen Clostridium botulinum is enough to kill several hundreds of thousands of people. That’s particularly scary when you consider that this toxin – better known by the nickname “Botox” -  is already produced commercially for sale to physicians who inject it into their patients’ eyebrows.

As retired Rear Adm. Ken Bernard, MD, a former special assistant on biosecurity matters to Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and a guest speaker for Trounce’s Stanford course, put it: “Who can be sure there’s no off-site, illegal production? Suppose a stranger were to say, ‘I want 5 grams — here’s $500,000’?

That’s five grams, as in one teaspoon. As I just mentioned, we’re talking hundreds of thousands of people killed, if this spoonful were to, say, find its way into just the right point in the milk supply chain (the point where loads of milk from numerous scattered farms get stored in huge holding tanks before being parsed out to myriad delivery trucks). That’s pretty stiff competition for a hydrogen bomb. For striking terror into our hearts, the only thing bioweapons lack is branding – nothing tops that mushroom-cloud logo.

Previously: Stanford bioterrorism experts comments on new review of anthrax case and Show explores scientific questions surrounding 2001 anthrax attacks
Photo of Milana Trounce by Norbert von der Groeben

Addiction, Health Policy, In the News

Increasing access to an anti-overdose drug

In the past decade, the U.S. has experienced a surge of fatal opioid overdoses, driven partly by increased heroin use but mostly by the greatly expanded availability of prescription medications (e.g. Oxycontin). One important tool in combating this epidemic is naloxone, a drug that rapidly reverses the respiration-suppressing effects of opioids.  Expanding its use has been a goal of President Obama’s drug policy from the first days of the administration, and an increasing number of community members, health and social care workers and police have been trained how to administer it.  Some New York police officers give a powerful account of their experiences with the rescue drug in the video above.

However, with the increased demand for naloxone has come an increase in its price. It’s an off-patient medication, so in absolute terms costs are low (up to $40 for the nasal administered naloxone kits that police tend to carry and much less for the injected version distributed by many non-profit service organizations). But even low costs can be a barrier particularly if a drug is provided to cover an entire population (most of whom will never need it) rather than employed to treat an identified individual in need.

That’s why it’s encouraging that The Clinton Foundation has announced that it will attempt to lower the cost and increase the accessibility of naloxone, presumably using the same strategies that were employed successfully to achieve the same goals with HIV-related medications. Another potentially important effort, under consideration in the California legislature, is to allow naloxone to be distributed by pharmacists rather than requiring an individual prescription for everyone to whom it is provided.  Although the impact of this policy on public health can’t be known in advance, naloxone does not appear to have serious or common side-effects to weigh against it potentially life-saving benefits, which makes it more reasonable to have it be available over the counter.

Addiction expert Keith Humphreys, PhD, is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford and a career research scientist at the Palo Alto VA. He recently completed a one-year stint as a senior advisor in the Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington. He can be followed on Twitter at @KeithNHumphreys.

Previously: How police officers are tackling drug overdose, Do opium and opioids increase mortality risk? and Prescription drug addiction: How the epidemic is shaking up the policy world

Global Health, Health Policy, Public Safety, Women's Health

Lobbying Congress on bill to stop violence against women

Lobbying Congress on bill to stop violence against women

capitol - smallWhen I walked into the U.S. Capitol building this week, it was with the weight of history – my own and my country’s. Years ago, I had walked these hallowed halls as a writer for a Congressional publication and had lived in a house just blocks away. But this time I was there for a very different purpose: I was going to try my hand at lobbying, plying Congress for a cause that had become dear to my heart.

I came to Washington, D.C. with nearly 150 volunteers and staff from the American Jewish World Service, an international development organization that promotes human rights and works to end poverty in the developing world. This year, one of the group’s legislative priorities is passage of the International Violence Against Women Act, now pending in Congress. In February, I had traveled to Uganda as a Global Justice Fellow with AJWS, learning first-hand why this bill is so crucial to the lives of women around the world. I met a gay woman whose life had become hell because of her gender identity; she’d been beaten, raped and robbed and was suffering the emotional trauma of being ostracized by family and community. I also met sex workers, many of them single mothers just trying to make a living, who had been subjected to unprovoked beatings and police brutality. And I met a transgender woman whose home had been burned to the ground and who had been terrorized by her community simply because of who she was. In fact, I would learn that one in three women around the world are beaten, abused or raped at some point in their lifetime – an appalling figure.

The bill would help combat this trend by using the full force of U.S. diplomacy, as well as existing U.S. foreign aid funding, to support legal, social, educational, economic and health initiatives to prevent violence, support victims and change attitudes about women and girls in society. When women become victims of violence, everyone suffers; gender-based violence can reduce a nation’s GDP by as much as 3 percent because women are so key to collective productivity.

“If you want to get a barometer on how a country will fare – its stability – just look at the way it treats its women,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) told our group as we prepared to head out to visit Members of Congress. “Women invest in children and family. Men invest in war.”

With the recent kidnapping of more than 250 Nigerian school girls, the need for the legislation has become all the more pressing. “This is the moment to strike,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said during a meeting with 20 members of our group. We met with Boxer in the sumptuous President’s Room in the U.S. Capitol, adorned with gilt, frescoes and historical portraits and the spot where Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King once stood. Boxer had just come from a vote on several new judges and was gracious enough to stop by to spend 20 minutes listening to our pitch and discussing strategy.

A strong women’s rights activist, she has been an ardent supporter of the bill from the start. With 300 nonprofit groups now clamoring for its passage, she said she felt it was time to introduce it into the Senate, which she did a week ago. It’s now critical, she said, to enlist additional Republican co-sponsors of the legislation, particularly among members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to give it greater weight and bipartisan appeal. In the House, the bill already has 63 Democratic and 11 Republican co-sponsors, with more being sought.

Continue Reading »

Chronic Disease, Health Costs, Health Policy, Research, Stanford News

Keeping kidney failure patients out of the hospital

Keeping kidney failure patients out of the hospital

Keeping kidney patients healthy enough to stay out of the hospital certainly sounds like a good thing – both for the patients and the economy. Now there’s scientific evidence to show how this can be done.

Reducing hospital readmissions was a focus of the the Affordable Care Act, and Kevin Erickson, MD, an instructor in nephrology at Stanford, decided to study a group of patients who are often hospitalized. He and his colleagues examined whether an additional doctor’s visit in the month after hospital discharge would help keep kidney-failure patients on dialysis from being readmitted. He and his colleagues analyzed data collected between 2004-2009 by the United States Renal Data System, a national registry of nearly all end-stage renal disease patients in the country.

It’s nice to find something that may generate both cost savings and better health outcomes

Results showed that there was a significant reduction in hospital readmissions with that extra doctor’s visit in the month after hospital discharge. And while the percentage doesn’t sound all that significant – 3.5 percent -  in real numbers that translates to 31,370 fewer hospitalizations and $240 million per year saved, according to the study published this month in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“It’s nice to find something that may generate both cost savings and better health outcomes,” Erickson told me. “Patients with end-stage renal disease suffer from poor quality of life. Some of that I suspect is related to multiple trips in and out of the hospital.”

Patients with kidney failure are at a particularly high risk of hospital readmission: In 2009 patients getting dialysis were admitted to the hospital nearly two times per year, 36 percent of whom were rehospitalized within 30 days, according to the study.

Previously: Study shows higher Medicaid coverage leads to lower kidney failure rates; Study shows higher rates of untreated kidney failure among older adults; Study shows daily dialysis may boost patients’ heart function, physical health.

Chronic Disease, Health Policy, Nutrition, Obesity, Pediatrics, Videos

Fed Up: A documentary looks for answers about childhood obesity

Fed Up: A documentary looks for answers about childhood obesity

I can’t wait to see Fed Up, a new documentary about childhood obesity.

In the early 2000s, when I was earning a PhD in nutrition at UC Davis, I heard a lot of scientific debate about possible causes of the U.S. obesity epidemic. Was it too much fat in our diets? Too much sugar? Processed food? Junk food ads on TV? An “obesogenic environment” – one in which snacks are ubiquitous, adults drive everywhere and neighborhoods aren’t safe enough for kids to play outside?

Or was it something else?

“The message has been pushed on us: It’s your fault you’re fat,” says Mark Hyman, MD, chair of the Institute for Functional Medicine, in the Fed Up trailer above.

The movie assembles an impressive roster of experts in nutrition research, pediatric health and public advocacy to oppose that message. Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, Robert Lustig, Marion Nestle, Harvey Karp, former President Bill Clinton and others say we should not be blaming individuals – especially kids – for struggles with their weight. Instead, they are taking a hard look for answers at the food environment.

“This is the first generation of American children expected to lead shorter lives than their parents,” says a voice-over in the Fed Up trailer. That definitely makes untangling the causes of the obesity epidemic worthy of the efforts of our best scientists. Like I said, I can’t wait to see it.

Previously: Childhood obesity a risk for imminent heart problems, research shows, Using hip hop to teach children about healthy habits and Sugar intake, diabetes and kids: Q&A with a pediatric obesity expert
Via Food Politics

Health Costs, Health Policy, Podcasts, Stanford News

Considering the costs of treatment while making clinical decisions

Considering the costs of treatment while making clinical decisions

The headline of the front page New York Times article caught my attention: “Cost of Treatment May Influence Doctors.” The piece read in part:

Saying they can no longer ignore the rising prices of health care, some of the most influential medical groups in the nation are recommending that doctors weigh the costs, not just the effectiveness of treatments, as they make decisions about patient care.

The shift, little noticed outside the medical establishment but already controversial inside it, suggests that doctors are starting to redefine their roles, from being concerned exclusively about individual patients to exerting influence on how health care dollars are spent.

In reading further, I discovered that one of Stanford’s cardiologists, Paul Heidenreich, MD, was a c0-chair of the policy review that led to new guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. I thought it would be interesting to delve deeper in a 1:2:1 podcast with Heidenreich about why, as he told the Times, “we couldn’t go on just ignoring costs.” Did escalating health-care costs that are consuming GDP spur the action? Are these guidelines a threat to individual decision-making between a physician and patient? And, what role do patients have in these decisions? Shouldn’t they be included in potential key life-and-death verdicts?

I was also especially intrigued by a quote from the societies’ paper outlining the changes: “Protecting patients from financial ruin is fundamental to the precept of ‘do not harm.’ ” Hmm… a new take on the Hippocratic Oath that I’ve never considered.

Why the new guidelines?  Just consider for a moment the iconic rock lyrics of Bob Dylan. They say it all:

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’

Previously: Personal essays highlight importance of cost-conscious medical decisions and Educating physicians on the cost of care

Global Health, Health Policy, Podcasts, Research, Stanford News

Foreign health care aid delivers the goods

Foreign health care aid delivers the goods

Eran Bendavid, MD, knows there’s a lot of debate about whether foreign aid for health care is really making an impact. So he and his colleague, Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, devised a statistical tool to address a basic question: Do investments in health really lead to health improvements?

My colleague Ruthann Richter encapsulated the research in a recent article and blog entry. I followed up in a 1:2:1 podcast with Bendavid, and we started our conversation by talking about the perception that foreign aid is wasted and isn’t making significant inroads in changing the health-care trajectory in developing nations. Bendavid told me that the common perception of inefficiency was eroding confidence in foreign aid health care spending, so he decided to test it.

As Richter wrote, the researchers examined both public and private health-aid programs between 1974 and 2010 in 140 countries and found that, contrary to common perceptions about the waste and ineffectiveness of aid, these health-aid grants led to significant improvements with lasting effects over time. As Bendavid told Richter, “If health aid continues to be as effective as it has been, we estimate there will be 364,000 fewer deaths in children under 5. We are talking about $1 billion, which is a relatively small commitment for developed countries.”

Why are these dollars making an impact? Bendavid amplified to me what he told Richter: that foreign aid dollars were used effectively, largely because of the targeting of aid to disease priorities where improved technologies – such as new vaccines, insecticide-treated beds for nets for malarial prevention and antiretroviral drugs for HIV – could make a real difference.

Health aid in 1990 accounted for 4 percent of total foreign aid. It now accounts for 15 percent of all aid.

So something to cheer about when it comes to foreign aid. In health-care spending this study confirms it delivers the goods.

Previously: Foreign aid for health extends life, saves children, Stanford study finds and PEPFAR has saved lives – and not just from HIV/AIDS, Stanford study finds

Addiction, FDA, Health Policy, In the News, Podcasts

E-cigarettes and the FDA: A conversation with a tobacco-marketing researcher

E-cigarettes and the FDA: A conversation with a tobacco-marketing researcher

The FDA announced today its plans to regulate e-cigarettes. The news comes as little surprise to many, including Robert Jackler, MD, chair of otolaryngology at Stanford Medicine, who studies the effects of tobacco advertising, marketing, and promotion through his center, the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising. I asked Jackler this morning what he thought of the FDA’s plan, and he had this to say:

While I welcome the FDA proposal to deem electronic cigarettes as tobacco products under their regulatory authority, I’m disappointed with the narrow scope of their proposal and the snail’s pace of the process. Given its importance, I’m particularly troubled by the FDA’s failure to address the the widespread mixing of nicotine with youth-oriented flavorings (e.g. gummy bears, cotton candy, chocolate, honey, peach schnapps) in electronic cigarettes products.  Overwhelming evidence implicates such flavors as a gateway to teen nicotine addiction [which] led the FDA to ban flavors (except for menthol – which is presently under review) for cigarettes in 2009.  Give the lethargic pace of adopting new regulations, a generation of American teens is being placed at risk of suffering the ravages of nicotine addiction.

In a podcast last month, Jackler spoke in-depth about the rise of, and problems with, e-cigarettes. If you haven’t yet listened, now is a great time to.

Previously: E-Cigarettes: The explosion of vaping is about to be regulated, Stanford chair of otolaryngology discusses federal court’s ruling on graphic cigarette labels and What’s being done about the way tobacco companies market and manufacture products

Clinical Trials, Health Policy, Research, Science Policy, Stanford News, Videos

New Stanford center aims to promote research excellence

New Stanford center aims to promote research excellence

Updated 4-24-14: The center founders discuss METRICS in this just-posted 1:2:1 podcast.

***

4-23-14: Stanford has a new center, called the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, or METRICS for short, that will focus on ways to transform research practices to improve the reproducibility, efficiency and quality of scientific investigations.
When Stanford professor John Ioannidis, MD, DSc, discusses ideas on how METRICS might improve research quality, he points to the wealth of statistics within any newspaper’s sports section.

“Science needs as many ways to measure performance as sports do,” says Ioannidis. “More important, we need to find efficient approaches for enhancing this performance. There are many ideas on how to improve the efficiency of setting a research agenda, prioritizing research questions, optimizing study design, maximizing accuracy of information, minimizing biases, enhancing reporting of research, and aligning incentives and rewards so that research efforts become more successful. Possibly we can do better on all of these fronts.”

The center’s other co-director is Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, professor of medicine and of health research and policy.

METRICS’s core group of interdisciplinary scholars will be working on various aspects of meta-research, from methodologies to processes to policy. The center will also provide educational funding for students and scholars; organize collaborative working groups that include academics, policymakers, research funders and the public; and help establish similar initiatives worldwide.

You can learn more about “meta-research” and METRICS’s mission in the short interview above and in this release. Ioannidis discusses the center’s short- and long-term goals in the video clip below.

Previously: The Lancet documents waste in research, proposes solutions, “US effect” leads to publication of biased research, says Stanford’s John Ioannidis and Shaky evidence moves animal studies to humans, according to Stanford-led study
Photo in featured-entry box by Norbert Von Der Groeben

Stanford Medicine Resources: