Choices that Indians abroad and Indian doctors make

Indians fought for their British masters in World War 1

The Indian army personnel who died in World War 1 were commemorated recently. The Indian army during that time numbered 1.5 million soldiers, nearly 1 million fought in the war. About 75000 died and about a similar number injured. 170000 animals came from India 3,700,000 tons of supplies and stores came from India that was worth about £80million. Another £146 million monetary contribution was also provided. £1 in 1917 would be about £340 today (2015) – do the math.

Here is the most fascinating aspect of this:

All the 1.5 million were volunteers. Yes you read that right volunteers.

I heard on BBC Radio that there was even a 70 year old ‘prince’ who went to meet the Viceroy so that he can go to Europe to fight in person on behalf of the empire.

According to most reports India was a relatively rich country at that time. There are some accounts that a Rupee was worth about US $10 around WW1 time. The wealth was not available to an overwhelming majority of Indian people, the wealth was available mainly and overwhelmingly to Britain. Indian people in India were treated quite badly by the British on all accounts. Yet, 1.5 million Indians and their local masters volunteered to fight and sacrifice their lives for their British rulers. Even the great Gandhi asked people to join the armed forces.

This is a remarkable achievement of the British Empire to encourage and motivate people to support them; that ability is truly amazing and deserves congratulations.

The intriguing question is why so many Indian’s volunteered to fight and die for their colonial masters? Why did they allow so many resources to be plundered?

Did the Indians feel that given a choice of their previous muslim rulers or their own local kings and princes versus the British – supporting the Empire was the better option? Did the Indians have genuine loyalty and affection towards the British? Did the Indians have an inkling that this was a long term game and playing with the British was appropriate in 1917? Or is there something in the Indian psyche that makes them support their invaders and colonisers more than their own local people (caste, local rulers’ oppressiveness, lack of local opportunities, personal greed may have all played a part)? Given the long history of these things there seems a certain naivety or gullibility or personal selfishness that becomes apparent.

Make no mistake – I am not talking here about the extraordinarily tragic stories of people who were made indentured labour, oppressed populations and other aspects of cruel history. I am only talking here about volunteers – people who had a choice and chose the colonial British.

My knowledge and analytical ability has to take a pause as I am unable to give more reasons. But, I would like to move to looking at this through a healthcare lens.

Some stats (as though stats convinced anyone!)

The population of India is 1.278 billion

The number of registered doctors in India 885233 as of 2013

India hence has less than 0.69 doctors per 1000 population

The intake into medical colleges in India as of 2013 is 41569

The number of registered doctors in UK is 267146

The UK population is 64.1 million.

This means the UK has 4.6 doctors per 1000 population

If the number of non-practising doctors are removed from the calculation then the UK  has 3.68 per 1000

If we removed the doctors who obtained their primary medical qualification outside UK then the UK would have less than 2.63 per 1000 population

The intake into medical schools in UK is 7900 per year (as of 2013)

36.8% of doctors registered in the UK are from outside UK (their primary medical qualification i.e. MBBS is from outside the UK)

The number of doctors with a primary medical qualification in India registered in UK 24995 (as of 2014)

Stats done, lets move on.

Indian doctors abroad (especially in the UK)

From conventional economics point of view doctors in India are in short supply with great demand and even in a low income situation it should be very attractive for doctors in India to remain in India; potentially and in reality often doctors in India are relative high earners.

Yet about 25000 Indian qualified doctors work in UK. About 125000 doctors of Indian origin working in the western English speaking world, with possibly tens of thousands more working in other countries (eg middle east).

It is also thought and even recognised that Indian doctors are significantly disadvantaged and possibly even discriminated when they work abroad. I have personal knowledge of UK where the statistics and the narrative certainly does not show Indian qualified doctors are equal, there is a strong feeling and growing evidence that they are discriminated against. Examination results, sanctions by the regulators, senior posts, etc all show that International Medical Graduates and Black and Minority Ethnic do not do well in the UK.

Yet, non-UK primary medical qualification holders form 36.8% of the doctors in UK of whom 25.8% are from non-European countries with 9.4% from India. No one forced them to come to UK. They are voluntarily coming to UK.

What is happening here? 

Indians (especially Indians abroad even more especially Indian doctors abroad) need to think about how they make their choices

Is discrimination the reason? Like the rest of the world, India has discrimination too, worse in some areas than others. If discrimination was the reason, why have Indian doctors working in the UK chosen to be subject to UK style discrimination than Indian style of discrimination?

Is it the ability to contribute to the health of the population? Why do Indian doctors want to contribute to the health of the British population when the need for the Indian population is much higher?

We can talk about many aspects such as opportunities, economics, corruption, ethics, etc. The point is that the evidence shows that BME population in white societies do get the wrong end of the stick. My main question is why do Indians and in the context of this writing Indian doctors choose the wrong end of the British stick (and choose not to subject themselves to the wrong end of the Indian stick)?

A lesson for India is perhaps that the Indian stick is much harsher in day to day terms and India needs to do something about that.

But for individuals, is there a different explanation? Are Indian doctors in the UK and in the rest of the western world the equivalent of the WW1 Indian volunteers? Remember the aged prince who went to the viceroy demanding he personally fight on behalf of the British empire?

There will always be mobility of labour. The mobility of labour that the western citizen generally seem to choose is one where he/she will be treated well, the western person does not seem to volunteer to work for or sacrifice his/her life for populations who treat them badly (that is why the British people left India along with their imperial government, as they did in many other countries).

The more I think about this topic the more I am convinced that there is something about seeing oneself as a winner (which is slightly different from actually being the winner), or siding with whom we think as the winners. Power is a great influencer of cultural values, especially conventional power (money and military).  Conventional power has a certain vicious attraction where even those who suffer its negative effects begin to support it. Might propagates culture and might is often very harmful.

This makes very uncomfortable reading but those of us who have chosen to leave families behind voluntarily, who have chosen to benefit an even more an already advantaged population, those of us who have chosen to submit ourselves to disadvantage and discrimination by the west, do have to wonder whether we are naïve, whether we are gullible and whether we are selfish. Indians abroad often see themselves as winners, Indians in India often see their compatriots abroad as winners.This illusion of feeling as though you are winning while losing can be addictive and almost permanently disorienting.

If we are the new era equivalents of the Indians who volunteered to fight for the British imperial masters in WW1, our development needs are so profound that it will not be a surprise if takes generations to address.  If we really want to be winners (not just seen as winners) there needs to be a different mind set where volunteering into a generally negative situation is not a trade off for personal benefits or for some vague notions of future benefits (which will mostly remain unrealised).

If we willingly subject ourselves to abuse, there will always be someone who will willingly abuse us.

©M HEMADRI 

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

References

http://www.cwgc.org/foreverindia/

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp

http://www.mciindia.org/AboutMCI/AnnualReports.aspx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04l0zq5

PS:

I am a doctor with a primary medical qualification from India and every word above is applicable to me.

Will be grateful if you can follow this blog

Things that we should not learn from airlines

The Event

Recently (Feb 2015) I was waiting at Stockholm to board BA781. It was scheduled to depart at 1850. The departure monitor showed a delayed expected departure time of 2010. Naturally, I was anxious and annoyed. I changed my arrangements in UK to suit a delayed arrival.

I then checked London Heathrow Terminal 5 arrival board which said the flight was on time (in contradiction to the Stockholm departure board). I then checked BA's website which also showed that the flight was on time.

Now my hopes raised slightly. Suddenly Stockholm departure board showed a new departure time reducing the delay and a little later the board at Stockholm stated that the flight will depart on time. We were allowed to board at the originally scheduled departure time without any delays.

I boarded the flight and then cancelled my changed arrangements in UK.

Once we were settled in our seats and the doors were locked the captain made an announcement.

The captain said that there was some equipment which was faulty. Replacement equipment was arriving soon by the next BA flight from London. The new equipment will be fitted in by the engineer and only then we will leave. There will be a delay expected to be around 50 minutes or so.

All these happened and the aircraft finally took off at about 1945 hours.

Of course the reasons were explained (apparently there was only one aerobridge for that kind of aircraft), BA staff were polite and courteous.

The Issues

However, the above episode means

That BA had information about the issue before asking customers to board the flight.

They withheld information from their customers before the customers boarded the flight.

The announcement on the ‘departure’ board about the flight time was wrong, deliberately wrong.

Customers were invited to board the aircraft under what seems like a false premise of a departure Customers had no say or choice in the situation, we were blissfully unaware.

I wonder if the event would have technically qualified to be counted as wrongful restraint or false imprisonment in case someone wanted to leave the aircraft or press charges.

That statement could have shocked you. But, just think about it, change the scenario away from an aircraft to another location. Just because it was air transport by private companies we are attuned to accepting many things to the point that we are no longer shocked by whatever they do. Never mind shocked, we are often not even mildly annoyed at the concept of locking you in a plane when they know it will not take off and fully accept their justification for doing so.

It also meant that I had to make yet more changes to my arrangements in UK.

At this point let me reiterate that it is not just BA, they happen to be the illustration for this blog because I personally experienced this. Every airline company does this, every airport does this, they are probably even allowed to do all these. I have already stated that the pilot and cabin crew were polite, it is not the staff behaviour that I am complaining about. It is about the underlying core attitudes which airlines do and perhaps allowed to do.

What NOT to learn

We in healthcare are asked to learn from airlines, especially scheduled airlines. In healthcare we are asked to co-create with patients. In health care we are patient centric and are asked to be even more patient centric, quite rightly.

If a doctor or nurse or other healthcare professional staff deliberately with held information from  or provided false information to patients, for the doctor's convenience or her organisations convenience that doctor, nurse or healthcare staff is at the risk of being investigated and reprimanded.

For pilots and airlines there seem to be no such issues.

Stop asking health care to learn from pilots and airlines as though it was a one-way street, especially about customer centeredness. In airlines it is often take it or leave it presented in a way that misleads you to thinking you have real choices.

In health care patient (customer) autonomy is a core value. There are numerous other fundamental values around honesty, choice, candour and others. These are at the risk of being changed so that the presentation of these values to the patient on how good  these look, feel or sound  rather than how good the values themselves are. If healthcare was persistent on this learning from commerce, we could one day convince the patients that the presentation was more important than the value being presented. We in healthcare will be lesser that day.

It is important to constantly look for what not to learn and make sure we do not learn it.

©M HEMADRI 

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

Note:

I have already blogged on learning (or not) from airlines, they can be found by clicking the following links:

Healthcare is not similar to aviation but lessons can be learned http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/healthcare-not-similar-to-aviation-but.html

Scheduled airlines are safe, just like outpatient clinics

http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/scheduled-airlines-are-safe-just-like.html

Blondes, pilots and doctors: Who should learn from whom?

http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/blondes-pilots-and-doctors-who-should.html

Body Weight, Shape and Fitness

What do you want to do with your body?

Body weight, body shape and body fitness are primarily three different things. They may be linked secondarily, for instance as you lose or gain weight your body shape changes but in dealing with the issues we need to think clearly.

Get out of confusion, get clarity.

What to you want to do?

There are three different things that one would want to get right of one’s body (actually there are many things one wants but read on to get context).

The right weight – if you want to lose weight you must eat less; if you want to put on weight you must eat more. (Does not apply to people with specific medical conditions)

The right body shape – you need to get to the gym

The right ‘fitness’ - you need to do some dynamic exercise (like aerobics or running).

Ideally our body needs a mix of these, with the proportions dependent on personal needs.

Get out of the confusion

Very often people confuse between these things and get it wrong. To lose weight people go to the gym while maintaining the same food intake. This will only shape your muscles with the shape of those muscles never being revealed to due overlying body fat.

To lose weight people start running (without addressing the food issue) this will make you fit, your stamina will increase, you will be able to do more without getting tired but it is important to remember that people who look or are actually overweight can be fit.

To put on weight people go to the gym – without eating the right stuff. To get ‘fit’ people start eating less or different without dynamic/aerobic exercises, you may be able to fit into a dress but that is different from ‘fitness’

Get Clarity

So be clear on what you want to achieve.

Increase weight – eat more

Decrease weight – eat less

No Change in weight – continue eating as you are

Get into a better body shape (abs, chest, biceps, etc) go to gym for weights, crunches, push-ups, sit-ups etc. Eat different (more protein). However, your new/different/better body shape may not be visible if you have a weight problem, especially an overweight problem. You may not want a different shape to your body, you may just want to get ‘fit’ – see next.

Get ‘fit’ (the ability to do more, faster, without getting too tired) – aerobic exercise, running, jogging, swimming, very vigorous dancing, cardio, etc. You may already be ‘fit’ or you may not want to get fitter than you are, you may just want to get a better/different body shape – see above go to the gym or eat less or more.

To do one thing and expect the results of the other is not going to happen. Often you will need to combine all three to suit your personal requirement.

©M HEMADRI 

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

Post Script

Where does Yoga sit in all this?

Yoga is for the mind – anything it does to the body is either through the mind or a side effect or for us to reach our mind through our body. Yes, you can achieve all the three by yoga as well but for that your teacher must be superior and your own levels of mental and physical discipline must be outstanding; of course it will take longer (perhaps it will be more sustained).

Disclaimer

These are personal thoughts. This is not professional advice on weight, fitness etc. Consult dieticians, personal trainers, yoga instructors or other trained people according to your requirements.

The Problem with PDSA in healthcare

In healthcare it is now generally understood that using the PDSA cycle is a good and valid method to try to achieve improvement. The PDSA is very widely known in healthcare and often used, though it is thought it ought to be used even more. Yet, when we look at health organisations that are using the PDSA we do not find the improvement at a range or scale or impact that is very often found in other industries who use PDSA.

Why?

To resolve the angst around this we need to know what comes before and after any particular individual PDSA cycle.

Before a PDSA

How is the specific individual PDSA cycle conceived? Why was this particular PDSA chosen over many possible PDSAs that could have been done?

Before choosing to do any one particular PDSA there are at least five prior major detailed outlining steps to be completed that involves objective and subjective methods, data analysis, prioritisation, setting aims, measures and interventions. Only after this a PDSA ought to be done by a very small team which has mostly understood the prior steps as a matter of overall context – i.e. the how and the why, the logic that validates your activity, the reason that requires your engagement and the rationale that demands your time and energy.

If you are currently doing a PDSA or soon planning to do a PDSA it is important for you to consider how it was chosen. If you chose it out of an impulse, hunch, suggestion, obligation, instruction that is great for your personal learning of the tool which is of course very important. It may (or may not) show an improvement on that particular cycle or cycles, but you or your organisation should not be under the illusion that this PDSA effort is going to contribute to sustained or widespread improvement. It is important to prove to yourself on where the PDSA fits in within a broader department, division, directorate, organisation context.

One of the ways to identify whether there is any link to anywhere other than to you is to observe if your boss or your boss’ boss is as keen and enthusiastic about your PDSA not because they support you but because your PDSA has an important link to moving the dots in the right direction that they are supposed to move and they can prove it. They should be able to stop further PDSAs that is not working and you should be happy with it.

After a PDSA

What happens to your PDSA after you have completed and you think it shows some positive result? Are you in a position to pilot it further in repeatedly larger areas/scales? Do you have the support for it? Have your bosses confirmed your PDSA cycles have proved as shown by a series of linked organisation wide data that it has led to wider improvement? Eventually after a series of such PDSAs does your intervention, process and outcome become official standard protocol for the area?

The problem with PDSAs as we do it in healthcare right now

Every empowered person does PDSA based improvement activity but there is usually no one to track all of these, guide the people doing PDSA projects, help them do the run or SPC charts, identify where these projects are in the overall organisational improvement effort (say by using a driver diagram), capture and roll out good ideas for the whole organisation's benefit.
I would say that we should stop healthcare employees from doing unsupported PDSAs for at least two reasons a) it wastes individual staff time which could be usefully spent on something more useful b) if the unsupported PDSAs are successful then it leads to small individual areas shining which is usually a drain on resources and general emotion (technically known as sub-optimisation). In theory it is possible to even cause harm by such poorly designed activity.

The issue is Tools vs Philosophy

PDSA has great history and comes from the times of superior masters like Shewhart Juran and Deming. It is a part of an overall philosophy that can be called the QI movement or which after adaptation now more familiarly known as the ‘Lean’ (though some purists, even non-purists will be able to differentiate between the two).

To understand this better, we need to ask ourselves whether the PDSA is used as a tool for individuals or as a part of a philosophy for organisations. Similar to the issue whether Lean is used as a method or philosophy. If you or your organisation are using PDSA (or Lean) as a mere tool or a method – you are designing is poor and destined to fail.

We are at a point in history of improvement healthcare that we are training a large number of people on ‘quality improvement’ and letting them do unsupported PDSAs. We do that under the guise that we do not want to interfere with the freedom of senior and experienced healthcare staff. When these ‘trained’ ‘senior’ people do not see the improvement that the lean system claims that it offers, they then become committed disbelievers in the philosophy while at the same time being obliged to follow the tools and the methods.

We are at the risk of defiling and debunking a well established validated healthcare improvement philosophy because of our unwillingness to adopt it as a philosophy. It will be to the eternal shame of us in healthcare. We are creating proof that lean healthcare does not work, instead of accepting that we do not know how to do lean healthcare properly and we are not doing it as we are supposed to do. We need to act swiftly to avoid this - there is life and limb at risk.

  

©M HEMADRI 

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

Yo BAPIO - What is that Moral Victory thing?

This article was first published in Sushruta Vol 7 Issue 1 by BAPIO

It is now very well known that BAPIO filed for a judicial review of the MRCGP examination, especially with regards to the CSA component; well there is no point beating about the bush, BAPIO lost the case.

That means that the MRCGP was ruled to be a fair examination, by indirect inference it may be assumed that other examinations were also likely to be fair. BAPIO members, BME doctors, IMGs can be reassured that things are rosy and live in joy. I was just about to do that when I found that Prof Rajan Madhok, Chairman, BAPIO tweeted ‘JR judge says: moral success but not legal victory! So our laws go against our morals? Crazy’ It is true. The judge said BAPIO had a moral victory.

So what is that moral victory thing? It is just a judge being polite?

Pause. Reflect.

To understand this, we have to go back to 7 June 1893. One Mr MK Gandhi who had a first-class ticket and was travelling in a first-class rail compartment was thrown off the train. He had a legal right to be on that train but he still lost his seat in the train; Gandhiji had a moral victory. The rest was history and what a history it was.

The judicial review has set off a number of changes which we are beginning to hear about. The GMC is now considering seriously introducing a common licensing examination for UK graduates and IMGs (similar the concept of USMLE). The GMC is introducing English language competency tests for EU doctors (where there is cause for concern). The time allowed for the AKT MCQ examination of the MRCGP is being increased. There could be changes to the way CSA is conducted and assessed. There are numerous other changes and many Royal Colleges and medical educational establishments are engaging with BAPIO and its partners.

The RCGP and GMC activities considered in the Judicial Review were ruled legal. Yet they and other institutions are making changes that further cause of equality. BAPIO contends that these changes would not have happened at this juncture and at this pace, without the Judicial Review? Are we beginning to understand the concept of a legal loss and a moral victory?

By the way, Gandhiji protested and was allowed to travel the next day by first class. In the continuation of the same journey he was beaten by a driver, banned from hotels and subjected to other forms of abuse.

BAPIO should be under no illusion that things are or soon will be rosy. The path is strewn with thorns and BAPIO should be prepared for its skin to be pricked in this journey. What does BAPIO want? BAPIO wants, what you have always wanted. A level playing field, no bias, high standards, fair assessment and equal opportunity to progress.

Here are some suggestions on the specifics that BAPIO should be asking for

1) Real patients rather than role players

2) Increased number of BME/IMG examiners

3) Two examiners on each station

4) Video recording of the session.

5) Improved training of the candidates.

6) Improved training of the trainers and holding to account of trainers with poor record of success of their trainees.

7) Feedback and mentoring for those who fail

8) Removal of hawk examiners/trainers (especially those who have negative impact on BME/IMG doctors)

9) Removal of dove examiners/trainers (especially those who have a negative impact on BME/IMG doctors)

10) Testing and continued monitoring of sub-conscious bias in examiners/trainers.

11) Examiners with extreme bias not to be selected, examiners with non-extreme bias to be provided training followed by monitoring.

12) Pass-fail threshold and other standard setting (such as ARCP/RITA progress) should be tested for impact on various populations with protected characteristics and where there is no evidence of impact on patient outcomes the thresholds should be adjusted to reduce any possible negative impact on doctors with protected characteristics.

13) Objective assessments/examinations for summative, pass-fail, high-stakes situations/examinations/assessments (with any subjective assessments reserved for formative processes)

There are many more ideas that will benefit the system.

If BAPIO decides to ask for these and more, you can be assured BAPIO will be vilified and denounced. The hope is, after the abuse is done, the changes would happen, even if they were slow.

A couple of thousand of years before Gandhi, we hear of one Jesus Christ, who lost a legal case and was crucified; he seemed to have won the moral case quite convincingly. Time will tell, but BAPIO’s moral victory may turn out to be a very strong force for change.

M HEMADRI

 

Innovations in a small hospital

Have you heard of Goole Hospital? If you have not heard of it, that is not surprising. We generally don’t want you to hear about it/us.  It is a small hospital with about 30 beds and we do not do brain transplant.

We have a minor injuries unit, some medical in-patients, elective services in ophthalmology, orthopaedics, general surgery. There are outpatients and other services – you can check out the website http://www.nlg.nhs.uk/hospitals/goole/

What fascinates me is the number of innovations that have happened in Goole. Why it happens could be the subject of another blog post.

I am defining innovation as, ‘use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method’ (Wikipedia).

Goole Innovations

Here I write about a dozen innovations that I have seen or been involved in at Goole.

1)      No clinic letter Clinic notes faxed to GPs as is

This when the general surgery clinic’s doctors’ handwritten notes are faxed to the general practitioner (mostly within 24 hours) instead of a letter first dictated then typed and then cross checked before signing and sending. Saves a load of secretarial time and money.

2)      Tests before OPD (USS OGD Flex Sig)

When we know by reading a general practitioner’s letter that the patient would undoubtedly need a particular test, such as an ultrasound scan, gastroscopy or a flexible sigmoidoscopy the doctor who vets the letter orders the test so that the result of the test is available for discussion at the patient’s first out-patient clinic consultation. Allows sensible discussion, often gives answers.

3)      Same day pre-assessment for general surgery and endoscopy patients

When the doctor tells the patient ‘you need a surgical procedure’, the patient if they have the time are pre-assessed at the same first surgical clinic visit. A kind of a one-stop service. Saves a lot of time for patients. We try to do this as often and as many patients as we practically can.

4)      Single Visit General Surgery

For general surgery patients who are suitable for day case surgery the Goole Single Visit pathway offers for suitable patients the option of visiting the hospital just once. Consultation and operative surgical procedure (occasionally some smaller additional investigations) all done in the same visit. Lumps and bumps right up to gall bladders.

See this link http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/single-visit-surgical-service.html that blogs about the single visit service

5)      Laser Haemorrhoidectomy

Formal surgical operation for piles done with local anaesthesia and laser with patients discharged in two hours. We have been doing this for a few years now. Brief blog about that can be found at http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/laser-surgery-for-piles.html

6)      Entonox for colonoscopy

Entonox, also known as gas & air can be used instead of sedation for colonoscopy. That is neither special nor surprising. In Goole, at the last look, we found approximately 35% of our colonoscopy patients opted for Entonox when the general published number is 17%. All I can say is our patients and staff are very special.

7)      Straight to test two week wait colo-rectal cancer referrals

Overwhelming majority of patients referred as two week wait cancer referrals end up having a colonoscopy. We have a system where suitable patients have their first consultation and colonoscopy at the same visit. http://www.nlg.nhs.uk/news/one-stop-service/

8)      Own reporting software for endoscopy

External software involves purchase cost, maintenance cost and annual licensing costs. We have created our own reporting software with Microsoft Infopath which was already available in trust computers. We have been using this for a few years. Spending your money responsibly, eh?

9)      Single length endoscopic accessories (0 error)

We use the colonoscopy length accessories for colonoscopy and gastroscopy. This has resulted in zero error hence zero waste (since there is no possibility of opening a gastroscope length accessory for a colonoscopy procedure)

10)  Home enemas

Patients who are for flexible sigmoidoscopy need an enema. To have someone unknown administer an enema in an unfamiliar environment and then have to use the unfamiliar toilet can be bothersome. We ask patients if they want to administer the enemas themselves in the comfort of their own homes.

11)   In-situ simulation training

First in-situ simulation training with two scenarios, two trainers, one volunteer ‘patient’ and a professional actor, in our organisation with three hospitals. Even before our nearest tertiary hospital could do it (they have since done it)

12)  Local Anaesthesia option for most inguinal and umbilical hernia repairs

Once the patient is considered suitable the patient has the choice to go for local anaesthesia (with or without sedation) or a general anaesthetic. A large number go for local anaesthetic repairs.

13)  Synchronised test-opd

When routine follow up ultra-sound scans are needed to monitor a situation, we used to get them done a couple of hours earlier than the clinic appointment time. Latest information available. One visit instead of two for the patient. We used to do this typically for patients who were being monitored for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

I said a dozen things done differently at Goole but have listed 13; that would be typical of Goole, we try and often tend to over deliver.

There are a number of innovations from our colleagues in orthopaedics, ophthalmology and other departments.

You will not hear too much from Goole, the people there are a bit shy of fame, a bit skeptical about awards, a shade reluctant to talk about themselves; it is a unique micro-culture - more on that later. There are very specific reasons why innovation happens at Goole (though I do not have too high a regard for CQC ratings you may be interested to know that Goole Hospital scores all greens ‘good’ www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAA1778.pdf  for its services, we at Goole are neither bothered nor surprised about this).

At this point I have to say that I am one of the very few variant ones for Goole, talking and blogging about these things, I suspect my team often wonders why I am so vain.

Many hospitals in the country could be doing one or more of the above, but I do wonder if all these things happen in a small hospital.

©M HEMADRI 

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets

PS: We follow Noble prize winner's Kahneman's methods to improve our patients' experience, I have already blogged about this http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/kahneman-colonoscopy-and-goole.html

Power words to avoid in healthcare

On words such as 'intelligence', 'insight' and 'discretion' used as tools in demonstrating power.........................

A colleague had an email from a clinical director asking to ‘acknowledge that CT Cologram is a scarce resource to be used intelligently’.

When we got talking about this we wondered how one was supposed to respond, react or put this into action. What did that mean? Does it mean that they as a department they were using the resource like a bunch of idiots? Is this saying that they were a part of a group of people with not such a high intelligence? They were talking about doctors most of whom had at least two degrees and many years of training and experience - generally thought of as abundant proof of intelligence.

You can see this has raised my hackles. What is really interesting is this comes from a hospital which had one of the highest utilisation of CT scans in the country. If they were abusing CT facilities already, why would a cologram (colonography) be an exception? 

The issue is not the CT use intelligent or otherwise. The issue is the lack of understanding of how clinical management works and the use of operational management language. It is the lack of analysis and lack of definition behind these statements that are the problem. Of course no manager who imagines he/she is worth his/her salt will ever agree that this type of communication is grossly deficient. In fact the managers will insist that ‘intelligent use of resources’ is essential. And they can prove it. They will prove it by letting others use the resource and then using their higher hierarchical authority by making a post-event, ad hoc individual judgement on others who used the resource intelligently. You can see how it massages the ego of individual managers and riles up everyone else.

There are many other terms which lack analysis or definition yet used very liberally by everyone. Insight is one. Discretion is another.

Many doctors in trouble are accused of lack of insight. A GMC related official described insight as breathtaking arrogance in the face of overwhelming evidence.....  So, it is safe to assume that when evidence is presented to a doctor that he/she is no good and yet the doctor maintains that he/she was good would probably classed as lack of insight. At this point, it may look acceptable.

The point is, the use of ‘lack of insight’ as a reason and sanctions that follow often comes from a people with higher authority and directed against people with lower authority. In medical practice there is none or very little evidence for many things we do. In such a situation evidence becomes the view of a group of people in power who are then not inclined to look at the evidence presented by the weaker party. Insight becomes a power game. 

Let us look at discretion. Let us say that your boss in clinical medicine says that all patients are not the same and you must use your discretion according to the given situation. You are likely to think that your boss has given you a lot of freedom. What you are actually being set up for is another power game where your boss retains the right to question your discretion, pitch your discretion with others discretion and to override your discretion. Now you might think that is why you have bosses. But what actually happens is a clear recipe for failure and conflict. 

There are better ways of dealing with these. At a simple level as a starting point is to stop using such words which have the potential to confuse and cause harm; words such as discretion, insight and intelligence in day to day operational activity. I am not saying these words or their implications are not important, of course they are; I am questioning if they should be used in day to day operational management especially in healthcare. 

Instead clear definitions agreed as a group, in the form of specific and detailed protocols with further second and third order protocols defined when the first one does not fit might be a better way in operational management in healthcare. There will be a situation when these definitions will not work in which case a variation made after very quick group consultation which is then analysed later may be needed.

The main issues are that you will not like this since you might feel your autonomy is being reduced; your boss won’t like it since he/she may feel that his/her power is being reduced. Finally the chances are you, your colleagues and your boss will not agree on most things at an operational level; well you see this is not your fault as clinicians are taught only how to make individual decisions implemented according to a power based hierarchical scale. 


Clinicians have never been taught on how agreements are reached and never experienced the power of agreements between them.

There are clear ways to achieve this. That is when you will find Success in Healthcare.

©M HEMADRI

Follow me on Twitter @HemadriTweets

PS: If you would like to get away from the conventional use of terms such as discretion, insight, intelligence and move to a different approach; if you would like to know what agreement actually means and would like help to achieve it – you are welcome to get in touch with me mr.hemadri at gmail dot com