Health Care Academics' Unrest and Bad Health Care Leadership?

Last month we discussed a recent, large scale study of physician burnout, and wondered whether it would finally inspire some discourse about why physicians are really so upset.  In particular, we hypothesized,  based on some real, if limited data, that physician angst, dissatisfaction, burnout, etc may mainly be a response to the problems with leadership and governance of health care organization we post about on Health Care Renewal.

After that post, one of our scouts found a very interesting and relevant article from earlier this year which got little attention at the time, but deserves more.  [Pololi LH, Krupat E, Civian JT, Ash AS, Brennan RT. Why are a quarter of faculty considering leaving academic medicine? A study of their perceptions of institutional culture and intentions to leave at 26 representative U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2012; 87: 859-69. Link here.]

Study Design

This was a cross-sectional survey of faculty at 26 medical schools in the US, selected to be similar to the general population of medical schools in the country.  At each school, 150 faculty were randomly chosen stratified by sex and age, and then the sample was enriched to include additional minority faculty and women surgeons, for a total of 4578.

The faculty were sent a multi item survey to assess their perception of the organizational culture of their institutions, and asked about their intentions to continue in or leave their current positions and academic medicine.  Responses to each survey item were allowed to be from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree.  The items on the survey were combined into various scales.  A number of items on the survey seemed to be related to issues we frequently discuss on Health Care Renewal.  These items ended up in three different scales, entitled Relatedness/Inclusion, Values Alignment, and Ethical/Moral Distress.  The survey items are listed below, grouped by issue, with the scales into which they were combined noted.

Issue: Mission-Hostile Leadership

Administration only interested in me for revenue   (Reverse coded) (Values Alignment)
Institution committed to serving the public (VA)
Institution's actions well-aligned with stated values and mission (VA)
Institution puts own needs ahead of educational/clinical missions (RC) (VA)
My values well-aligned with school's (VA)
Institution awards excellence in clinical care (VA)
Institution does not value teaching (RC) (VA)
Have to compromise values to work here (Ethical/Moral Distress)

Issue: Deceptive, Unethical Leadership

Felt pressure to behave unethically (Ethical/Moral Distress)
Need to be deceitful in order to succeed (EMD)
Others have taken credit for my work (EMD)

Issue: Generation of the Anechoic Effect by  Suppression of Free Speech, Academic Freedom, Dissent, Whistle-Blowing,

Feel ignored/ invisible (RC) (Relatedness/Inclusion)
Hide what I think and feel (RC) (R/I)
Reluctant to express opinion/ fear negative consequences (RC) (R/I)

So in summary, the survey contained quite a few questions about mission-hostile management, comprising nearly all of the Values Alignment scale, some questions about deceptive or unethical leadership, all in the Ethical/Moral Distress scale, and some about generation of the anechoic effect by suppression of free speech, academic freedom, dissent, and whistle-blowing, all in the Relatedness/Inclusion scale.

Results

The response rate was 52% (N=2381.)

Unfortunately, the article did not include the distributions of the responses to individual survey items, and only included the mean and standard error of the scale scores.  The values for the scales of most interest were:
Relatedness/Inclusion  3.56 SE= 0.022
Values Alignment  3.25 SE=0.028
Ethical/Moral Distress 2.36 SE=0.022

Note that the article did not address the degree individual items, especially those listed above, contributed to variation in the scale scores.


A small majority of faculty indicated their intentions to stay at their institutions (57%).  Of the remainder, 14% were considering leaving their school due to dissatisfaction, and another 21% were considering leaving academic medicine due to dissatisfaction.  The remainder were considering leaving due to personal/ family reasons or to retire.

The authors did complex multinomial logit modeling to assess the relationships among the various scales, demographic factors, and intention to leave.  Most relevant to us, Relatedness/Inclusion was significantly related to intention to leave the institution due to dissatisfaction (Coefficient -0.69, p lt 0.001, OR =0.50), as was Values Alignment (-0.39, p=0.04, OR=0.68), but not Ethical/ Moral Distress.  Furthermore, Relatedness/Inclusion was related to intention to leave academic medicine due to dissatisfaction (-0.48, p lt 0.001, 0.62), as was Ethical/Moral Distress (0.60, p lt 0.001, OR =1.82). The article did not address whether individual survey items, including those of most interest listed above, were related to intention to leave.  The article also did not address whether responses to the survey or intention to leave varied across faculty characteristics, medical school characteristics, or individual medical schools. 

Summary and Comments

This very large survey of faculty from multiple US medical schools showed that more than one-third were considering leaving their institutions or academic medicine due to dissatisfaction, indicating a striking prevalence of faculty distress.  Their responses to questions about perceived organizational cultural and leadership problems, including those possibly related to leadership's perceived hostility to the mission, leadership's perceived dishonesty or unethical behavior, and leadership's suppression of dissent, free speech, academic freedom, and whistle-blowing were related to their intentions to leave due to dissatisfaction.

These results suggest the hypothesis that much of faculty angst may be due to the sorts of problems with leadership and hence organizational culture that we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  Since this was a cross-sectional survey, it certainly does not offer scientific proof of this hypothesis.  Note that there is other evidence from numerous cases discussed in Health Care Renewal, qualitative studies and our much smaller study published only in abstract form that also supports this hypothesis (look here). 

One part of the author's discussion of their findings was particularly relevant:

Our findings are congruent with metaanalyses of 25 years of organizational justice research outside medicine. These studies suggest that employee perceptions of organizational justice and an ethical climate are related to increased job satisfaction, trust in leadership, enhanced performance, commitment to one’s employer, and reduced turnover.

 The scale of ethical/moral distress (see Table 1) reflects reactions to the prevailing norms and possible erosion of professionalism and increased organizational self-interest. There is a growing belief that organizations influence and are responsible for the ethical or unethical behaviors of their employees.To our knowledge, faculty perceptions of 'moral atmosphere' and 'just community' embedded in our survey have not been previously investigated in academic medicine, even though the ethical concepts of professionalism and justice can be used to guide the pursuit of excellence in the missions of medical schools. Several scholars have called for academic medicine to attend to its social justice and moral mission. Faculty perceptions
of organizational justice are pivotal to the critical issue of professionalism in medicine. The ethical/moral distress scale in the survey reported here included items such as 'the culture of my institution discourages altruism' and 'I find working here to be dehumanizing.' (See Table 1 for other items in this scale.) In that ethical/moral distress was more strongly related to intent to leave academic medicine entirely than intent to leave one’s own institution, these negative feelings among faculty must be particularly disheartening to them and may color major career decisions.

I believe that the study by Pololi et al adds to the evidence that physician distress is a symptom of a dysfunctional system in which major health care organizations have been taken over by leaders more devoted to self-interest and short-term revenue than the values prized by health care professionals and academics.  This applies obviously to academic medical institutions, but also to other organizations that might have been expected to defend such professional and academic values, such as professional associations, accrediting organizations, and health care foundations.  As we said before, if physicians really want to address what is making them burned out and dissatisfied, they will have to regain control of their own societies, organizations, and academic institutions, and ensure that these organizations put core values, not revenue generation and providing  cushy compensation to their executives, first.  

Administrators at Pepper Spray U Found to Have Violated Medical Professor's Academic Freedom

There they, the management of University of California - Davis, go again.

The Wilkes and Hoffman Op-Ed Questioning A University Sponsored Aggressive Prostate Cancer Screening Program

According to the Los Angeles Times, and a post in Inside Higher Ed, the trouble began when Dr Michael Wilkes, a professor of medicine at University of California - Davis, and Jerome Hoffman, a professor of emergency medicine, wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2010 questioning the wisdom of a program run by UC-Davis promoting aggressive screening for prostate cancer with the PSA test.  They brought up problems with using PSA for screening that have been known for a while, including the poor ability of the test to detect cancer, the inability of the test or of prostate biopsy performed in response to the test to differentiate aggressive prostate cancer from cancer that will not progress, which is more common, the risks of such biopsies, and the poor effectiveness of available prostate cancer treatments, compared with the frequency with which they produce harms.  All these issues have again been brought to the fore by US Preventive Services Taskforce's latest recommendations not to screen for prostate cancer, based on similar concerns.

Not only did Wilkes and Hoffman question the basis for the university sponsored program's aggressiveness, they speculated that it might have to do with money.  The program was sponsored not only by UC-Davis but by the American Urological Association Foundation.  In fact, that foundation's current corporate sponsors include:  Astellas Pharma, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Qualigen, Inc., although the op-ed did not specifically list its commercial support.

The University Slap(p?)s Back

Nonetheless, per the Inside Higher Ed post,

Michael Wilkes received an e-mail from an administrator at the University of California at Davis. Wilkes, a professor at the medical school, was told that he would no longer lead a program sequence that taught better patient care, and support for a Hungarian student exchange program he headed would be withdrawn.

Within weeks, Wilkes was told that he would be removed as director of global health for the UC Davis Health System. He also received letters from the university’s health system counsel suggesting that the university could potentially sue him for defamation over the op-ed.

Again, this occurred despite the facts that many distinguished people have questioned the wisdom of aggressive prostate cancer screening, and that this particular prostate cancer program was supported by an organization that in turn is supported by money from pharmaceutical devices and drug companies that may stand to gain from selling drugs and devices related to screening for prostate cancer, and the diagnosis and treatment of such cancer. Wilkes and Hoffman were raising valid clinical and policy concerns about the public actions of a government-supported university, in my humble opinion.

Thus the university lawyer's apparent threat of defamation suits thus appears to be a SLAPP, a threat of strategic litigation against public participation. In California, a 1993 law provides recourse for people who have been threatened with SLAPPs (look here).

The Faculty Committee Responds

Regardless, Prof Wilkes filed an internal complaint, and again, per Inside Higher Ed,

Now, a committee on academic freedom at the university that investigated allegations of intimidation and harassment against Wilkes has found them to be true. The faculty committee said in its report, a copy of which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed, that the actions of the university administrators cast doubt on its ability to be a 'truthful and accountable purveyor of knowledge and services.'

The group has asked the dean and other top officials at the university’s school of medicine to write letters of apology to the professor, admit to errors of judgment, stop proposed disciplinary actions against him and take steps to prevent future violations of academic freedom. This week, representatives of the university’s Academic Senate are expected to vote on similar resolutions against the administrators.

Now, according to the LA Times,

The next step is up to campus Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, who in consultation with Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi is expected to decide by fall whether to impose any discipline on the medical school executives, campus officials said.

Good luck with that.

The Context at UC-Davis

I would be surprised if any such punishment occurs. After all, UC-Davis has a record of not tolerating dissent, but tolerating administrators who suppress such dissent.  We have previously discussed:
- How the UC-Davis police infamously pepper sprayed peaceful student demonstrators, apparently at least partially in response to Chancellor Katehi's vague orders to clear the campus (see post here).
- A subsequent report blamed this incident on incompetent, or worse leadership by Katehi's administration, but so far it is not obvious that this has lead to any changes (see post here).
- How UC-Davis adminstrators tried to punish a medical student who got in a dispute with an overly officious student who apparently was "monitoring" his actions on an email list server, apparently on behalf of the administration, invoking "professionalism" as if that meant blind obedience to academic administrators (see post here).

Furthemore, Chancellor Katehi has a record of her own relationships to industry.  Here we noted that she sits on the board of a large publishing conglomerate that includes a medical education and communication company (a MECC) as a subsidy.  So I suspect she may not rush to punish subordinate executives because they suppressed criticism of the role of commercial money in medical academics.

Summary

So UC-Davis seems to be another academic medical institution run by people more interested in bringing in commercial support than the academic medical mission, including the support of free speech and academic freedom.  Its case is another example of how leadership that seems hostile to the mission in one instance is likely to be hostile to the mission in other instances.

Here I summarized what I believe to be the real threats against professionalism in the academic medical context.  As we have said again and again, true health care reform would encourage leadership who understand the mission and will put its support ahead of financial concerns and ahead of their own self-interest.

See also posts in the Health News Review blog, and the University Diaries blog.

The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Case as Illustrative of Problems with the Leadership of Health Care

The aggressive actions by University of California-Davis police against unarmed, peaceful student protesters turn out to be the latest illustration of the problems with leadership and governance we discuss on Health Care Renewal. 

The University of California - Davis Pepper Spray Incident

To summarize the current episode, I start with quotes about its background from Reuters,

Student protesters at Davis had set up an encampment in the university's quad area earlier this month as part of the nationwide Occupy movement against economic inequality and excesses of the financial system.

Their demonstrations, which had been endorsed by a faculty association, included protests against tuition increases and what they viewed as police brutality on University of California campuses in response to recent protests.

The students had set up roughly 25 tents in a quad area, but they had been asked not to stay overnight and were told they would not be able to stay during the weekend, due to a lack of university resources, [university Chancellor Linda] Katehi said.

Some protesters took their tents down voluntarily while others stayed.

Then,

The pepper spray incident appeared to take place on Friday afternoon, when campus police moved in to forcibly evict the protesters.

Then, as per the (London, UK) Independent,

A police officer saunters up to a group of young protestors who are sat in a line on the ground, with their arms linked. Then he removes a canister of pepper spray from his belt, with a flourish, before casually proceeding to unload its contents into their faces.

The demonstrators remain silent and motionless, with their heads bowed. So the policeman carries on, methodically covering them, from point blank range. By the time he’s finished, their heads and faces are covered in a thick layer of the toxic red liquid.

The actual video is below:


The UC-Davis Chancellor's Defense of the Police Actions

The Independent's coverage emphasized that initially the leadership of the campus police defended the use of pepper spray on apparently unarmed, peaceful students:

Annette Spicuzza, the head of the UC Davis Campus Police, who were responsible for Friday’s incident .... told reporters that her officers had been 'forced' to use the pepper spray, after demonstrators surrounded them. Lt Pike gave his victims sufficient warning of the impending attack, she added, and emptied the canister with a sweeping motion, in keeping with official procedures.

'When you are encircled by 200 individuals, I don’t know if I want to say ‘afraid,’ but I think they were quite concerned about their safety,' she said, regarding the circumstances her officers faced. 'There was no way out of that circle... It's a very volatile situation.'

That coverage also made clear that the directive to clear the demonstrators came from the top:

Linda Katehi, the Chancellor of UC Davis ... had asked the police to clear demonstrators from her campus, a couple of hours north of San Francisco. In the aftermath of the incident, she had initially joined Spicuzza in defending the force's methods, saying that they had 'no option' but to adopt a hard line.

Ms Katehi later backed off, but only after her first response

sparked immediate outrage, and within hours, the university’s Faculty Association, representing Ms Katehi’s employees, issued a statement called for her resignation, saying that her authorisation of 'excessive' force had amounted to a 'gross failure of leadership.'

Nathan Brown, an assistant English professor who witnessed the incident, wrote in an open letter: 'Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood... You are responsible.'

Other comments likened the police actions to something "coming from some riot-control unit in China, or in Syria," [James Fallows in the Atlantic] called them indicative of "a police state in its pure form," [Glenn Greenwald in Salon], or otherwise denounced them as "outrageous" or "awful." (Clark McPhail, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Illinois, and Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, respectively, via Inside Higher Ed.)

This aggressive, violent response to peaceful protest seems to be the latest example of the arrogance of some current leaders of our important organizations.

Our Previous Discussion of the Chancellor in Health Care Renewal

This case appears directly related to the problems in leadership and governance we discuss on Health Care Renewal Ms Katehi has the distinction of having been already written up twice on Health Care Renewal for questions about her leadership.

On her arrival at UC-Davis in 2009, she promised to "help UC Davis to become more aggressive in taking new biotechnology and agriculture products to market." This indicates at best ignorance of, at worst hostility to the fundamental university mission, which is hardly developing and particularly marketing products, but discovering and disseminating knowledge (see this post).

At that time, I called this an example of "how the leaders of academic institutions seem to be forgetting or radically deconstructing their academic missions."

In 2011, Ms Katehi defended the payment to the medical center CEO, whom she called a "great CEO,' of nearly a million dollars yearly in compensation. However, that CEO was part of a group of top university leaders demanding large increases in their pensions at a time when the university was under great financial distress. For that, some called them not great leaders, but greedy and "despicable." Thus, Ms Katehi seemed to stand up for top leaders' privilege and exceptionalism, including their entitlement to huge compensation whatever the circumstance, even in a time of financial travail (see this post).

I could not have predicted that Chancellor Katehi would preside over the pepper spraying unarmed students for peaceful, legitimate protest. However, it is not surprising that a leader who does not understand the fundamental academic mission and who supports executive privilege and exceptionalism would foster an authoritarian climate in which such an incident could happen.

This example clearly illustrates the issues we have been discussing on Health Care Renewal for a long time. In particular, leaders who are more dedicated to their own and their fellow executives' privilege and exceptionalism than their organizations' missions are likely to end up promoting actions that threaten those  missions.

The Moral of the Story

Instead, as we have been preaching endlessly,... health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

You heard it here first on Health Care Renewal .

Keep your eye on Health Care Renewal for continued discussion of parallels between problems in health care and in the larger political economy.

Who Is Really "Bullying?" - Academic Leaders and the Stifling of Critics of Conflicts of Interests

Universities, which are supposed to discover and disseminate knowledge, ought to be the foremost defenders of free speech and a free press.  However, in the past decades, university executives have become notorious for trying to control speech that offends their political sensibilities (for numerous examples, see the FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education web-site.) 

It seems that academic leaders get even more upset when their or their faculties' conflicts of interest are criticized, as demonstrated by updates about two important cases we have discussed.

Columbia University

We recently posted about reactions at the university to revelations in the movie "Inside Job" that the Dean of the Business School and one of its prominent professors failed to disclose pay they received that might have motivated their enthusiastic promotion of economic policies that helped contribute to the Great Recession. 

These reactions occurred six months after the movie came out.  A Columbia Spectator student columnist asked why it took so long:

Why have students waited until April to address the consequences of “Inside Job” when the film was released in October? Why has our reaction been delayed by seven months?

Her postulated answer:

Why should Columbia need an outside documentary to point out its ethical failures?

Embedded in the Spectator news article about the film—published April 15— is a quote from University Senator Liya Yu that offers a frightening answer to our question about the delayed student reaction. 'I think people in the Business School haven’t responded because they are afraid,' Yu was quoted saying. 'If you are the dean of a school, obviously all the students are going to be dependent on you for their careers and futures. It’s hard for them to do anything.' I think this explanation extends to students beyond those currently enrolled in the Business School. In fact, its implications pose a threat to student journalism as a whole. For the first time in history, everything that a student journalist writes during his or her time in college is published on the Internet. This is a good thing for many reasons: It increases readership, allows writers to cross-reference easily, etc. But it also creates a permanent, compromising memory that is available forever to anyone who seeks it.

From the moment the college application process began, we were told that the content of our Facebook profiles could be used against us in admissions. We have learned to censor our traceable online behavior so as not to compromise our professional or educational prospects. Unfortunately, this has led to journalistic over-caution. We fear that anything we say now will be used against us later. And maybe it’s true. After all, not enough time has passed for us to take a careful account of the degree to which students’ first publications can affect their futures. Even editors have advised me to mitigate the strongest claims in my columns for fear of consequences to come. Perhaps they are right. But the most insidious kind of censorship—the hardest to recognize, the hardest to combat—is self-censorship, the persistent imaginative failure that prevents us from even recognizing what we should be writing about.

In the Internet age, bravery in student journalism is not trailing a military unit on the Iraqi front lines. Rather, it is the willingness to address controversial issues as they surface, not once these points of view have become popular. Our brand of fear—which is frankly selfish—censors our thoughts almost unnoticed. Next time, let’s skip the delayed reaction. I for one hope to do better.

So students may fear challenging conflicted faculty or administrators for fear of immediate academic punishment and future harm to career prospects in a society in which criticism of acquisitive leaders is decreasingly tolerated.

University of Minnesota

Earlier this year we posted about the troubling case of the death of an ostensibly voluntary participant in a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota years ago.  A particular concern was whether the money they received from the trial's sponsor influenced faculty and university leaders to overlook problems that might have put patients at risk in a trial whose main goal was marketing, not science.

The case got recent attention in an article by Dr Carl Elliott, a university professor of bioethics, and a letter he signed with other faculty requesting a new university inquiry into the case.  Not only did the university administration rebuff this request, but it now seems to be looking for ways to deter any future criticism of the institution's human research.  As reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education,

At the prompting of the University of Minnesota's general counsel, a committee of the University Senate has taken up the question of how faculty should collectively respond to "factually incorrect attacks" on particular faculty research.

Some faculty members say that direct appeal from the general counsel, Mark B. Rotenberg, is an attempt to quiet some faculty members' criticism of drug trials conducted at the university, including one seven years ago in which a participant, Dan Markingson, committed suicide. Before they took up the general counsel's question at a meeting this month, members of the university's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee were provided with copies of material related to that case, including a letter sent by eight bioethicists to the Board of Regents last fall, asking it to appoint a panel of outside experts to examine the ethical issues raised by the death.

Committee members discussed with two administrators who attended that meeting, on April 8, whether faculty members have a responsibility to respond to attacks on fellow faculty members, according to minutes from the meeting; failure to do so, one professor said, could be seen as parallel to 'bullying.'

Professor Carl Elliott, who wrote the Mother Jones article that brought the recent unpleasantness of the Markingson case back into the public view, was concerned:

In an interview, Mr. Elliott said the general counsel's actions are troubling. Instead of fostering an open discussion about research practices, Mr. Rotenberg, and by extension the university administration, is attempting to use the faculty senate as a 'stalking horse' for intimidation and punitive action, Mr. Elliott said.

It defies common sense that Dr Elliott, representing only his own intellect and knowledge of ethics, was the "bully" in this case, while Mr Rotenberg, representing the university hierarchy, and the faculty members who ran the trial in which Mr Markingson died were the victims. As University of Minnesota faculty member Karen-Sue Taussig, a medical anthropologist, said per the Bioethics Forum:

I was worried the committee might be being used to intimidate a member of the faculty who was critical of the University. It seemed to me that there was a logical inconsistency in the University counsel's position: he did not provide any evidence that any individual faculty member felt chilled by Carl's work, yet his bringing up the issue clearly posed the threat of chilling Carl's speech. . . . In short, I was concerned about the possibility of an Orwellian attempt to invoke academic freedom in order to chill academic freedom.

By the way, there is also nothing to suggest that Dr Elliott's work was "factually incorrect."  Per the Bioethics Forum:

Philosopher and historian of science Ken Waters, who also attended the second meeting, was just as concerned. 'The University's general council planted a false question, the implicature of which [the committee] seemed to be uncritically accepting (that Carl was advancing factually incorrect claims),' he wrote to me in an e-mail. 'And in planting the question, the counsel was trying to turn the tables and squelch my colleagues' academic freedom by somehow suggesting that they were impinging upon the academic freedom of others.'

In the 1980s and 1990s, university administrators tended to attack speech they felt was hurtful to minorities and women, using speech codes (again as has been amply demonstrated by FIRE). Now they seem most sensitive to speech critical of their own exercise of power, and of the cozy financial relationships that generate conflicts of interest and threaten the academic mission.  Furthermore, now that it has become fashionable to decry "bullying," "anti-bullying" initiatives may become the chief way to quell criticism that make academic leaders uncomfortable.

Summary

At one time, university administrators and favored faculty justified attacks on free enquiry, a crucial part of the academic, by claiming a higher political or social purpose.  Now they seem to be willing to trash the core values of academia to stifle critics of their own actions, especially those involving lucrative conflicts of interest.   Such actions may be a major cause of the anechoic effect.
Increasingly, academic institutuions seem to be run more for the personal benefit of their leaders and their cronies than to discover and disseminate knowledge.  True health care reform would return academic medicine to its fundamental purpose, and return its leadership to those who would uphold the mission rather than fill their pockets.  

Hat tip to Ed Silverman in the PharmaLot blog re the University of Minnesota case.  See also comments by Prof William Gleason in the Periodic Table blog, e.g., here and here, and by Gary Schwitzer in the HealthNewsReview blog.

American Medical Schools Are "Only In It for the Money" Say Their Faculty

We recently discussed the plight of young medical faculty.  It appears that their plight is even worse than we imagined.

Last month, an abstract was presented at the Annual  Conference on Research in Medical Education at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges, in a session entitled "Your Career is More than Your Specialty."  The citation would be: Pololi L, Ash A, Krupat E.  Faculty Values in the Culture of Academic Medicine: Findings of a National Faculty Survey.

The authors described a large survey, of over 5000 faculty at 26 US nationally representative medical schools, done as part of the National Initiative on Gender, Culture, and Leadership in Medicine (known as C ‐ Change) project.  The overall response rate was good (53%).   Here are the striking results:

51% agreed that 'the administration is only interested in me for the revenue I generate'; 31%; that 'the culture of my institution discourages altruism'; 31%, that other people have taken credit for my work'; and 30% that 'I am reluctant to express my opinion for fear of negative consequences.' Half perceived that the institution does not value teaching and 27% that it does not reward clinical excellence; Over half disagreed with the statement that their own values are aligned with those of the institution. Also, 30% had seriously considered leaving academic medicine and 46% their own institution, both in the prior year.

These results show that US medical education is in moral crisis, and probably close to catastrophe.  These results should provoke shame and outrage, and cause widespread discussion. On the other hand, it is remarkable that they were allowed to see the light of day at all, given the persistent strength of the anechoic effect.  Pololi and colleagues obviously never got the message that one is never ever supposed to discuss such things in public.

Instead of being about discovery and dissemination of knowledge, the fundamental mission of education, a majority of large sample of faculty surveyed says American medical schools are about making money.  Instead of putting teaching first, half of the faculty said their institutions explicitly do not value teaching. Instead of supporting free speech, free enquiry, and academic, a significant minority of faculty say that are afraid to speak out.

It is no wonder that nearly half of the faculty are considering leaving.

On Health Care Renewal, we have discussed evidence, mostly anecdotal, about the rot within the foundations of medicine and health care.  (Note, posts on conflicts of interest, often affecting medical school faculty and leadership, are here; we have posted about how academic medicine has often allowed suppression and manipulation of research;  posts on excessive compensation of health care executives, including those of academic institutions, not based on upholding the academic mission are here.)  Now it appears that the rot is so severe that the whole edifice is about to fall down.

Our foolish transformation of the calling and profession of medicine into a business (see posts here and here)  at a time when businesses were taken over by the arrogance, greed, unscrupulousness, and amorality that lead to the global financial collapse will surely also lead to a global health care collapse if something is not done very soon.

We need a new effort much bigger than but at least as influential as the Flexner Report to re-imagine academic medicine again as valuing teaching, learning, research and patient care, while regarding its financing only as the means to reach those ends.

The Carnegie Foundation sponsored the original Flexner Report, and the Rockefeller Foundation then hired Dr Flexner to reform medical education (see Mitka M.  he Flexner Report at the century mark:  a wake-up call for reforming medical education .  JAMA 2010; 303(15):1465-1466. Link here.) Will anyone or any organization have the courage to sponsor a new, bigger, and likely much more contentious effort?

Meanwhile, the academic leaders who have personally profited from and colluded with the transformation of the system into one that is only in it for the money should resign. The few remaining leaders will need to draw upon all their honesty, integrity, knowledge, and determination to rebuild the system.

Finally, shame on all of us for letting us get to this place.

With apologies to the late Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention.

A Confidentiality Clause or an Oath of Fealty?

The advancement of modern scientific medicine depends on the search for and dissemination of truth. Academic medicine, like the rest of academia, ought to be based on openness, transparency, and academic freedom. The 1940 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure opened with:

The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.

Yet we have written about dark clouds of secrecy spreading over medicine and health care. The increasingly powerful leaders of health care increasingly use opacity and secrecy to keep what they are doing out of the public eye. We have frequently discussed the anechoic effect, how it is just not done to discuss certain topics, particularly those related to the adverse effects of bad (ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or corrupt) leadership and bad (opaque, unaccountable, mission-hostile, unethical) governance of health care organizations.  People may feel it is unseemly to speak badly of renowned institutions such as hospitals and universities.  People with conflicts of interest may not be inclined to criticize those who pay them.  Now people employed by contemporary health care organizations may have to pledge theri silence to keep their jobs.

The latest story in this regard comes from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), which includes VCU Health Systems, and MCV Hospital and Physicians.  (Full disclosure: I was a VCU full-time faculty member from 1987-1994, and still am on the adjunct faculty.)  In 2008, the VCU President resigned after the university's secret research contract with a tobacco company, and the President's own position on the board of directors of another tobacco company were revealed (see blog post here and others here).

Michael Rao, the President since 2008, is now under outside review after it was revealed that he required his staff to sign a secrecy pledge.  The story appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Virginia Commonwealth University President Michael Rao asks employees who work in his office to sign an unusual confidentiality agreement that bars them from talking about what they observe about him or his family.

The prohibition goes beyond the standard agreement that university employees sign acknowledging that they can't disclose personal or proprietary information.

The agreement, a copy of which was obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, covers interactions at Rao's office and at his residence. It bars disclosure not just to the news media, family or friends, but also to colleagues, 'clergy and attorneys, or to any other person not otherwise identified.'

'I agree that any such disclosure in violation of this nondisclosure agreement could result in irreparable damage and harm to VCU, President Rao, and/or his family'" the agreement states. 'Any such violation or anticipated violation' would entitle Rao to seek 'injunctive relief' in Richmond or Henrico County circuit courts.

VCU spokeswoman Pam Lepley said she could not comment immediately yesterday.

Several current or former employees of the president's office confirmed that they had been asked to sign the agreement, including Kimberley Busch, Rao's former scheduler.

She described it as a 'what happens in the president's office stays in the president's office' agreement.

The newly uncovered confidentiality clause provoked strong criticism:

Raymond D. Cotton, a Washington attorney who specializes in higher-education governance, said such a confidentiality agreement is highly unusual and goes against the culture of openness and transparency in higher education.

'There is this concept of academic freedom that is broader than the First Amendment,' he said.

In fact, since Virginia Commonwealth University is a state-supported institution, the confidentiality clause may be unconstitutional, as reported by WTVR:

Kent Willis with the Virginia American Civil Liberties Union said the agreement doesn't pass constitutional muster.

'A public employee, no matter where they are in the government, has a right to speak out on matters of public concern,' Willis said. 'That's a U.S. Supreme Court case, it's guaranteed to every public employee by the First Amendment to the Constitution.'

Willis said there are numerous legal issues raised by the contract. But, he said, the bottom line problem with the contract 'is the attitude. This is a contract that says 'I'm not transparent. I don't want you to know what is going on. I'm running a closed shop.''

Times-Dispatch columnist Michael Paul Williams wrote:

VCU, we have a problem. This confidentiality agreement does not inspire confidence. The lack of transparency only gives the appearance that someone's hiding something.

He also further quoted Kent Willis:

Rao's contract 'fails to address this whistle-blower right and could create conflicts for employees, who are silenced by the employment contract,' yet have a constitutional right to speak out on some matters, Willis said.

And as Willis points out, even if a person's constitutional right trumps the contract, how many employees are willing to take that risk?

'Particularly disturbing is the prohibition against talking to an attorney,' he said. 'If an employee believes something illegal is going on at work, an attorney is precisely the person he or she should be talking with.'

We just posted about how a pharmaceutical company included a confidentiality clause in a consulting contract, suggesting the deliberate creation of a conflict of interest in order to prevent criticism of the company's products or practices. 

However, in several ways, the present example is more insidious.  First, it involves a university, whose mission is to discover and disseminate the truth.  Thus, as noted above, the confidentiality agreement subverts the university's core mission.  Second, it was required of full-time employees who wanted to keep  their jobs, making choose between secrecy and unemployment.  Third, it was particularly harsh, addressing incipient as well as actual disclosure, and including injunctive relief as well as the threat of  termination.  Fourth, it protected not just the organization and its products, but personally protected the organization's leader and his family.  It was not just a contract, but an oath of fealty, as if the CEO were nobility, or even royalty.

The good news is that this confidentiality agreement now sits in the glare of sunlight.  One does wonder, however, how many other such agreements are already in force so that the would be nobility who now run too much of health care to avoid any embarassing revelations about what their leadership really is about.

We are a long way from the transparency that true health care reform requires. 

"We are unable to share documents relating to problematic EHR's as our contract with Cerner includes a confidentiality clause ..."

In my post "Academic Freedom and ED EHR's Down Under: Another Update and a Welcome Development" I reported on the Univ. of Sydney's somewhat belated support for academic freedom, and the reappearance of an essay on ED electronic health records problems in NSW by one of its informatics faculty, Prof. Jon Patrick, after an apparently government-initiated attempt at censorship.

A new update of the paper "A Critical Essay on the Deployment of an ED Clinical Information System - Systemic Failure or Bad Luck" version 6, has now been posted by Dr. Patrick at this link on his department's web pages (a direct link at this time to the PDF is here).

The press has started to take notice. A piece in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Health department accused of censorship" appeared on Nov. 28 here.

That piece was noted by Computer Weekly in the U.K. in a piece entitled "Claim of censorship over Cerner system" here. The U.K. suffers a severe EHR epidemic (the UK Public Accounts Committee report on disastrous problems in their £12.7 billion national EMR program is here.)

[12/3/09 update: the piece has disappeared, then reappeared, at Computer Weekly. In case it disappears again, a copy of the article from Google's cache is here.]

From the U.K. Computer Weekly article:

The Sydney Morning Herald and ZDNet in Australia report that the University of Sydney removed from its website - temporarily - a negative essay about a Cerner system which had been installed at hospitals in New South Wales.

The author of the essay is a medical IT professor, Jon Patrick, who is reported to have claimed that NSW Health, which is part of the government of New South Wales, put pressure on the university to take down the paper.

If true, it would tie in with what's been happening in England where mentions of Cerner in a negative context are being officially discouraged.

Cerner is due to be installed at hospitals across London as part of the National Programme for IT [NPfIT] but several trusts that have already gone live - including the Royal Free and Hampstead, Barnet and Chase Farm, and Barts and The London - have run into serious problems, including the losing of patient appointments and patients not being treated.

A showcase Cerner site at Homerton ceased mentioning Cerner in its public board papers after doing a deal with NHS Connecting for Health and the Department of Health. Homerton also rejects FOI requests related to its discussions on Cerner.

Homerton told me: "We are unable to share documents relating to these meetings as our contract with Cerner includes a confidentiality clause and as such disclosure of the information could give rise to an actionable breach of confidence."

I am repeating that last sentence for effect:

We are unable to share documents relating to these meetings as our contract with Cerner includes a confidentiality clause and as such disclosure of the information could give rise to an actionable breach of confidence.

This is solid evidence of such confidentiality clauses in HIT contracts and the chilling effect they have, along with dangers of "hold harmless" clauses. This style of EHR contracting is a practice now under investigation by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, as in their Oct. 16, 2009 letter to major healthcare IT vendors and management consultants from Senator Charles E. Grassley (ranking member). A copy of that letter is here (PDF).

I have written on the dangers of such clauses before as in my July 22, 2009 letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association "Health Care Information Technology, Hospital Responsibilities, and Joint Commission Standards" (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/302/4/382), as well as my much more thorough posting on these issues in the essay at my Drexel University website here.

In that essay I observed:

Regarding healthcare IT "Hold Harmless" and Defects Gag Clauses, I also question whether hospital executives violated their fiduciary responsibilities by signing such contracts, and violated Joint Commission standards of hospital leadership conduct as well ...

Let's look at the Joint Commission Hospital Accreditation Program Leadership Chapter, and its standards for hospital leadership (link, PDF):

Leadership
LD.01.03.01

Standard LD.01.03.01
The governing body is ultimately accountable for the safety and quality of care, treatment, and services.

Rationale for LD.01.03.01
The governing body’s ultimate responsibility for safety and quality derives from their legal responsibility and operational authority for [organization] performance. In this context, the governing body provides for internal structures and resources, including staff, that support safety and quality.

The governing body has a legal responsibility for safety and quality, not just a moral obligation. One of the "internal structures" is healthcare IT that is safe and effective and that does not expose patients or staff to undue risks.

How does signing "hold harmless" and "defects gag order" clauses with an HIT vendor serve such a purpose, exactly?

Hospital executives know, should know, or should have known that such provisions would remove incentives for health IT vendors to produce the best products and to correct deficiencies rapidly, thus increasing risk to patients and clinicians.

Elements of Performance for LD.01.03.01
5. The governing body provides for the resources needed to maintain safe, quality care, treatment, and services.

One of those resources is health IT.

Standard LD.02.01.01
The mission, vision, and goals of the [organization] support the safety and quality of care, treatment, and services.

Rationale for LD.02.01.01
The primary responsibility of leaders is to provide for the safety and quality of care, treatment, and services. The purpose of the [organization]’s mission, vision, and goals, is to define how the [organization] will achieve safety and quality. The leaders are more likely to be aligned with the mission, vision, and goals when they create them together. The common purpose of the [organization] is most likely achieved when it is understood by all who work in or are served by the [organization].

How is a contract with an HIT vendor that calls for hiding defects in health IT and exposing staff to liability for defects in same serving the above purposes?

Standard LD.02.03.01
The governing body, senior managers and leaders of the organized medical staff regularly communicate with each other on issues of safety and quality.

Does that include communication on health IT defects? Can a medical staff member ask to see a database of such defects when the hospital has signed a nondisclosure of defects agreement with an HIT vendor?

Rationale for LD.02.03.01
Leaders, who provide for safety and quality, must communicate with each other on matters affecting the [organization] and those it serves.

I ask the same question as above.

Standard LD.03.01.01
Leaders create and maintain a culture of safety and quality throughout the [organization].

Safety for whom, exactly? Patients, or patients and staff?

How is exposing professional staff to undeserved liability from defective health IT serving the creation of a culture of safety and quality for them? How is suppressing information on health IT defects and problems helping patient safety and care quality?

How is lack of seeking informed consent on health IT use from patients whose care is mediated by health IT devices with known but undisclosable defects creating a culture of quality?

How is hiding such defects creating a culture of quality in the community's other hospitals, that may be considering purchase of the very same health IT?

Standard LD.03.04.01
The [organization] communicates information related to safety and quality to those who need it, including staff, licensed independent practitioners, [patient]s, families, and external interested parties.

Rationale for LD.03.04.01
Effective communication is essential among individuals and groups within the [organization], and between the [organization] and external parties. Poor communication often contributes to adverse events and can compromise safety and quality of care, treatment, and services. Effective communication is timely, accurate, and usable by the audience.

Are physicians and nurses explicitly informed by administration that clinicians are liable for bad outcomes due to software problems? Are they informed of the gag clause? Are patients informed of unremediated health IT defects existing at time of service?

This standard seems a veritable smoking gun regarding breach of fiduciary responsibility and Joint Commission obligations when hospital leadership signs agreements specifically excluding the sharing information about health IT defects and complaints. It is already known that hospitals maintain lists of health IT defects, some in the thousands of items. A number of the defects rise to the level of creating considerable risk to patients, and nobody is in a hurry to remediate them. (See my proposed although somewhat tongue in cheek "HIT Informed Consent" that describes some of these known defect categories here).

Standard LD.04.04.03
New or modified services or processes are well-designed.

... 3. The hospital's design of new or modified services or processes incorporates: Information about potential risks to patients.

4. The hospital's design of new or modified services or processes incorporates: Evidence-based information in the decision-making process. Note: For example, evidence-based information could include practice guidelines, successful practices, information from current literature, and clinical standards.

How does the contractual inability to communicate about health IT defects, which its executives willingly sign, serve this purpose?

Standard LD.04.04.05
The [organization] has an organization-wide, integrated [patient] safety program.

... 12. The hospital disseminates lessons learned from root cause analyses, system or process failures, and the results of proactive risk assessments to all staff who provide services for the specific situation.

Disseminates lessons learned, except when the HIT contract they've signed with a vendor forbids it, that is.

The practices of the health IT industry, and the dealings of the hospital leadership with that industry, may in fact be a scandal of national (or international) proportions.

International scandal, indeed.

I predict these EHR confidentiality clauses will end up causing great loss of money in failed systems, and/or harming patients, due to the chilling effect they have on revelation of defects and problems by clinicians and executives alike.

Those who signed them will very likely be held liable, at least in the U.S., as the clauses breach the safety standards of the accrediting agency for hospitals here, the Joint Commission. I wish the signers of such contracts good luck in the courtroom.

In Australia and the U.K., I cannot comment, but also wish good luck to those who signed these clauses when lawyers go full court press on EHR-mediated debacles.

-- SS

No Free Speech for Comparative Effectiveness Researchers?

We have repeatedly argued why comparative effectiveness research, under ideal circumstances, would be a good idea.  As I said before:

Physicians spend a lot of time trying to figure out the best treatments for particular patients' problems. Doing so is often hard. In many situations, there are many plausible treatments, but the trick is picking the one most likely to do the most good and least harm for a particular patient. Ideally, this is where evidence based medicine comes in. But the biggest problem with using the EBM approach is that often the best available evidence does not help much. In particular, for many clinical problems, and for many sorts of patients, no one has ever done a good quality study that compares the plausible treatments for those problems and those patients. When the only studies done compared individual treatments to placebos, and when even those were restricted to narrow patient populations unlike those patient usually seen in daily practice, physicians are left juggling oranges, tomatoes, and carburetors.

Comparative effectiveness studies are simply studies that compare plausible treatments that could be used for patients with particular problems, and which are designed to be generalizable to the sorts of patients usually seen in practice. As a physician, I welcome such studies, because they may provide very useful information that could help me select the optimal treatments for individual patients.

Because I believe that comparative effectiveness studies could be very useful to improve patient care, it upsets me to see this particular kind of clinical study get caught in political, ideological, and economic battles.

However, when comparative effectiveness research was proposed as an element of US health care reform, it was attacked as a vehicle for the dreaded rationing of health care (even though in the US health care is already rationed, especially to those without generous insurance or the means to pay for expensive tests and treatments), using arguments based more on emotions, or outright fallacies than on logic and evidence. For example, see our blog posts here, here, here, and here.

Those opposed to the sort of comparative effectiveness research I described above then seemingly decided, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."  Thus, a provision appeared in a recent version of health care reform legislation proposed in the US Senate for comparative effectiveness research to be sponsored by an "independent" institute whose board of directors would have to include a substantial minority of representatives of industry (that is, drug, biotechnology, device, health insurance corporations, and other corporations as "payers.")  This would seems to be a fairly shameless form of "regulatory capture," that is, an instance in which a government agency whose mission seems to be to improve health care is "captured" by those with vested interests in promoting certain health care products and services.  (See post here.)

My concern has now seemingly gone mainstream, in that it was addressed in a commentary published on-line in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.  [Selker HP, Wood AJJ.  Industry influence on comparative-effectiveness research funded through health care reform.  N Engl J Med 2009.  Link here.]

Selker and Wood addressed the issue of regulatory capture thus.

Although most observers agree on the value of funding CER, many are unaware that embedded in the legislation are provisions ceding substantial influence to the medical products industries that have a major interest in the outcomes of such research.

The Senate Finance Committee bill mandates the creation of an entirely new private–public research entity and, owing to industry lobbying, guarantees industry three seats on this entity’s 15-member governing board, as well as representation on its methodology committee

Note that the situation is worse considering that the insurance industry and other "payers" also have seats on the board.

However, Selker and Wood discovered an even more outrageous provision:

The Finance Committee bill also includes language requested by industry lobbyists (pages 1138–1139) that threatens to withdraw federal funding for 5 years from any investigator who publishes a report on research funded by the proposed institute that is not within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence.' Determinations regarding such consistency would be made by the newly created research entity, which would have industry involvement both in its governance and in study design. To allow scientists — and their institutions, which receive the support for the conduct of research — to be punished for the publication of work that is not approved by this entity is essentially to cede authority over the dissemination of government-funded research to a body that is at least partially controlled by persons with a potential commercial interest in its outcome.

As Selker and Wood noted, it is unprecedented for a US government agency that is meant to sponsor science to be empowered to punish researchers for conclusions or opinions with which the agency disagrees. This suggests that the new agency would be meant to produce only results that support the vested interests of its leadership, that is, that favor the latest, and most expensive drugs and devices. The research sponsored by such an agency would not only be biased, it would likely be of poor quality, because researchers of integrity would likely avoid sponsorship by an agency that would be so threatening to their scientific independence.

This part of the bill does not promote health reform, but blatantly attempts to serve health care corporations while sacrificing the interests of patients and doctors.

As Selker and Wood politely put it:

If health care reform legislation does not promote CER that is free of the potential taint of commercial and political meddling, the public will have little confidence in the results of such research. This outcome would be extremely unfortunate, since such research has the potential to improve patients’ lives by leading to more effective medical care. The U.S. biomedical research enterprise has a long and storied history that has made it a model for other countries. It would be a tragedy if we were to squander its achievements for political expediency, in the service of short-term commercial interests. The current proposals for controlling CER in a manner unlike anything we have seen in federally sponsored biomedical research therefore should be rejected.

It seems to be almost gilding the lilly to note that the provision cited above seems to violate the free speech and free press provisions of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution, since they threaten government punishment of private citizens (e.g., by withdrawal of existing funding) purely for speech that the government does not like.

So I ask the anonymous Senate aide who drafted this provision, and the anonymous lobbyist(s) who influenced him or her, have they no shame? 

Finally, I have yet to see coverage of the Selker and Wood article in the mainstream media.  I hope they will eventually conclude that this attempt to co-opt clinical science and mock the 1st amendment is actually news and comment worthy. 

Academic Freedom and ED EHR's Down Under: Another Update and a Welcome Development

In "Academic Freedom and ED EHR's Down Under: An Update" I wrote about the disputed essay on electronic health record (EHR) problems in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) by medical informatics professor Dr. Jon Patrick, Health Information Technologies Research Laboratory (HITRL), University of Sydney.

The essay was entitled "A Critical Essay on the Deployment of an ED Clinical Information System ‐ Systemic Failure or Bad Luck?"

I am happy to report that an updated version of the essay, version 5, is now available from Dr. Patrick's university web site at http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146 . It can be downloaded from the icon at Item 6.

This is a welcome development.

The essay is now labeled as an Op-Ed (Opinion Editorial).

-- SS

Academic Freedom and ED EHR's Down Under: An Update

At the post "Academic Freedom Curtailed?" I wrote:

The essay on Emergency Department electronic health record (EHR) problems in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) by medical informatics professor Dr. Jon Patrick, Health Information Technologies Research Laboratory (HITRL), University of Sydney, that I referenced in my posts "The Story of the Deployment of an ED Clinical Information System ‐ Systemic Failure or Bad Luck" and "NSW Nightmare and Overuse of Computers" appears to have been censored. This apparently occurred at the level of the the government.

Professor Patrick has updated his web page that formerly contained a link to his essay on problems with EHR's in that state's EDs.

He advises:

... This document has been temporarily withdrawn by the university following a complaint from NSWHealth. I think the University has acted appropriately by investigating the complaint and I do not yet consider it an act of censorship. I am working through the issues with the University and expect that the essay will be re-published.

I would like to thank all the people who have written to me to offer support and I would encourage you to write to me if you are interested in the matter so that i can demonstrate to the university the importance of this issue to both the Australian and international communities. I do not wish for people to write to anyone else but me. I have no wish to run a public campaign and I am not available for statements to the press about this particular matter. This matter has brought to light many interesting and illuminating things that i will be happy to share in the next version of the Critical Essay.

Jon Patrick 27th October 2009 0930 Eastern Australian Summer time

He then follows up with this:

Update on the withdrawal of "Essay No.6"

It is now two weeks since the original essay was withdrawn. In that time I have been able to establish confidently that NSWHealth phoned my Head of Department and asked him to remove the article without giving a specific complaint. He refused. Subsequently a person from another faculty took up the cause and succeeded in persuading an appropriate person to order withdrawal of the essay. To this time i have not received a specific complaint let alone a written complaint. The Univeristy's Office of General Counsel has studied the essay at my request through my Dean, and found that it is "consistent with the University's Public Comment Policy". I am awaiting further investigations by the University.

Subsequently I have received many messages of support from around the world, and importantly much more information to be included in the essay. I am preparing a much enhanced version.

5th November 2009 1150 Eastern Australian Summer time

I sincerely hope this matter will be resolved in favor of dissemination of the enhanced and updated piece. I think it contains information that is quite valuable to a worldwide audience of clinicians, IT vendors and patients.

I also note that those who aim to suppress a document such as this in the age of informational computing, one product of which is the Internet, should be confined to using only the Commodore PET due to their technological and sociological ineptitude:

State-of-the-art computing for the would-be Health IT article police

-- SS

Addendum

Nov. 10, 2009, evening EST:

The essay in version 5 is once again available as Item 6 at http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146 .

-- SS

Academic Freedom Curtailed: Censorship Down Under On EHR's for the Emergency Department?

In a stunning development:

The essay on Emergency Department electronic health record (EHR) problems in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) by medical informatics professor Dr. Jon Patrick, Health Information Technologies Research Laboratory (HITRL), University of Sydney, that I referenced in my posts "The Story of the Deployment of an ED Clinical Information System ‐ Systemic Failure or Bad Luck" and "NSW Nightmare and Overuse of Computers" appears to have been censored. This apparently occurred at the level of the the government.

The essay was available as item 6 at http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~hitru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=146 . Attempts to download now provide a message "This document is not currently available." I do not know if the vendor was involved.

(A copy of vers. 3 of Professor Patrick's report is still available here in PDF; it was a work in progress when it was pulled.) [Oct. 24 - see addendum below - ed.]

This appears to be an overt example of suppression of academic freedom that I believe should receive widespread attention, most especially if there is retaliation of any kind against the professor.

I also believe censorship of a document such as this could escalate to a human rights issue regarding what appears to be deliberate censorship of critical information about IT systems that could possibly be putting large numbers of patients at risk. Imagine if this was a report about potentially defective nuclear reactor control systems or containment processes at biological hazards research sites.

I believe addressing the issues raised in the report would have been a far more responsible approach than censorship.

-- SS

Addendum 10/24: The author of the paper asked me to remove it from my server as well. It is currently unavailable. This situation is in flux and hopefully will be resolved soon. Hopefully, the issues in the report will be addressed.