Are We Teaching Template-Based Medicine? The Forest and the (Very Well Documented!) Trees

Bill Cayley, Jr

Bill Cayley, Jr,
MD MDiv

With the increasing use of electronic medical records (EMRs) and their ever-so-helpful templates, smart-sets, and forms for capturing information needed to support billing and guide protocols, I fear we are losing the narrative forest for the well-documented trees. Especially in family medicine, we have a long tradition of teaching our learners to appreciate narrative and nuance, and the flow of meaning and story that comes from a patient’s history can give far more insight into what may be going on than one gets from simple documentation of location, quality, quantity, etc. Now, however, our use of EMRs is pushing us more and more to documentation of positives and negatives, rather than story.

Case in point #1: As emergency room documentation has moved toward templates and away from dictation, I have found ER notes growing in length, yet declining in their ability to convey meaningful information. Documentation of an ER visit that in the past was captured by a one- or two-page dictated note, now comes in a eight- or nine-page template document that gives no real clue as to what really brought the patient in or what really happened.

Case in point #2: As EMRs use templates to guide information gathering, how often do you find yourself responding to the template in an office visit, or ordering something “because it is there,” rather than listening to the patient’s story? Continue reading

Crowdsourcing Ideas About Open Innovation: How Can STFM Raise the Faculty Development Bar Even Higher?

Rick Bothelo, MD

Rick Botelho, MD

All five goals of STFM’s strategic plan address innovation directly or indirectly, to varying degrees. The STFM 2013 Annual Report documents remarkable progress in innovation. Yet, most STFM members have had little or no training in developing innovations during their formal education. Furthermore, STFM’s achievements were made without developing any formal governance policies on open innovation.

Propose Faculty Development Programs on Innovation
Innovation and leadership development are complementary and separate skill sets. We need faculty development programs for both skills sets, so that we can create an academic home to accelerate our organizational development.1 STFM needs a formalized and structured faculty development process to enhance our capabilities and capacities to develop innovations that build on our significant achievements. What if STFM considered the need for faculty development programs on open innovation to be as important as leadership development?

Foster Open Innovation
Translating this business concept to health care, open innovation involves:

  • Creating new processes, methods, programs, services and products through the collaborative and boundary-less exchange of ideas, between silos within and across organizations, communities, networks and systems2,3
  • Enhancing free-flowing dialogues, inclusive participation and transparent accountability in ways that cultivate bottom-up, horizontal and top-down organizational synergies4,5
  • Coordinating a pro-active, comprehensive and ongoing change management process to foster a membership-wide process of creating leadership, administrative, educational, research, and clinical innovations, such as catalytic innovations.

Create Catalytic Innovations Continue reading

Election Paradox

Stacy Brungardt, CAE STFM Executive Director

Stacy Brungardt, CAE
STFM Executive Director

If you read the actions from the August Board meeting, you saw a list of governance changes the STFM Board approved, including the move from a contested election to a slate. The reasons behind this change are complex and have been debated in robust fashion over the past year. Ultimately, the Board thinks it is better for STFM, its members, and the discipline for STFM to expand its Nominations Committee, have a more open and transparent election process, and move to having members vote on a slate.

A wise member, John Franko, MD, explained that the issue is not a problem, it is a paradox, ie, two different ways to approach an issue, neither of which are entirely right or wrong. This was a key learning from Ralph Jacobsen’s book about organizational processing of paradox. Jacobsen’s perspective is that leaders need to manage the tension created by paradox and use it to create and innovate.

What great insight to help us consider this issue.

There will be members who like the change to a slate and some who disagree. We heard both sides in our discussions with members, committees, Board members, and task force members. Each side has its pros and cons, and as we weighed both approaches, the opportunity to be more intentional about getting the best talent and the appropriate diverse composition on our Board won out. At a minimum, I hope it is apparent that this was a thoughtful process that recognizes the tension created by this paradox.

You’ll be seeing the specific bylaws changes related to these issues in early November.

As always, we welcome hearing from you.