Doctors vs the Pace of Change – April 2014

Respondent demogrpahics: 124 GPs (56%), Specialists (36%) and Doctors in Training (7%) responded to questions fashioned following discussion at the Doctors Drum, where “The Pace of Change” was centre stage.

You can read about the event here: http://www.doctorsdrum.com.au/doctors-vs-the-pace-of-change.html

 

Given the ‘health information overload’ online, is it a good idea for doctors to offer expert advice on the usefulness of some of this information?

ED. Surveyed doctors and those at the breakfast agreed – patients are in information overload and only a few want us to agree with their Internet expert opinion, while most want guidance on where to get good information.

Will health professionals outside hospitals find time to adopt worthwhile technology if there is no financial incentive?

ED. For whatever reason, ‘money speaks’ in a large section of the profession. Are those doctors greedy, needy or just business minded? See responses to the next question…maybe we missed mentioning investing in better patient outcomes.

This requires deep thought! Does a litigious society make medical innovation safer by slowing the pace of change?

ED. The lawyer panellist at the breakfast disagreed with our surveyed doctors. The panellist said wariness fuels better learning and more cautious adoption of innovations, whereas market forces or money can speed things to the health consumers’ detriment.

What’s the most important driving force for innovation in medicine?

Who has the most power for bringing about innovative change in medicine?

ED. Interestingly the Doctors Drum breakfast talked little of money whereas surveyed doctors feel commercial interests, presumably other than doctors, were the biggest drivers of change. Certainly, there seems no shortage of people jostling for top spot in the technology stakes.

Survey comments

The big-end of town – pharma and medical technology companies – with the profit motive and the organisation to make it happen (with the danger of monopolising) drew most comment. There was regret that doctors weren’t in a position to lead the innovation charge, with one suggesting non-doctor innovation has been harmful to best outcomes. Some blamed an embarrassingly slow pace of change on government, and slow uptake of technology by doctors to some extent. Safe, effective change takes great care, forethought and research, said one. “Now we have the technology to form groups with special interests beyond geographical and time restrictions. The support, shared workload and feedback should make us vastly more effective in driving change. But does it happen?” one doctor commented.

Which of the following do you think will encourage medical innovation that has broader community interests in mind?

ED. Maybe people are tired of cost blowouts and surprises and treating taxpayer funds like they are a gift from a political party or suchlike? There is a sense that soon the honeymoon will be over.

Survey comments

Personalised health budgets were treated warily by those who commented but there was a strong agreement that if the consumer knew the cost of some treatments and had to bear some of the brunt, they would keep themselves healthier. Several thought consumer and community input vital to efficient health systems. One doctor suggesting community controlled health services. However, another view was for greater uptake of doctor-directed innovations and as technology is embraced more widely, costs would come down.

If you believe state or federal governments allocate some health funds inappropriately, what are the most important factors, in your view?