Nick Bennett MD
Pediatric Infectious Disease physician, with over 20 years of experience in research, academia, and clinical trials. Available for consultations in the areas of infectious diseases and clinical trials. Opinions are my own and not those of my employer or clients.
LEAPP-ING to childrens’ defense
Posted in Children, Patient-Centered Care on August 10, 2011
Several years ago, before our children’s hospital was built, I remember spending time chatting with one of our child-life specialists about various incidents in the hospital. And by “chatting” I mean rants about procedures or events that involved some degree of non-patient-centered care.
This wasn’t just your every-day “I didn’t ask them what they thought of the plan” kind of failing, this was the “we do this procedure on adults all the time in the office, so we’re not going to use pain meds on your 3 year old” kind of failing.
There were various kinds of issues. The “treating kids like small adults” was just one, others included the “sneak attack” where doctors (usually surgeons) would rush into a patient’s room, and perform some kind of invasive procedure – whether it be a dressing change, a drain removal, or some other kind of “quick” thing – that would often degrade into a messy charade of “we’re nearly done” and “this doesn’t hurt” while the nurses are stat-paging child-life to come sort out the screaming child. Sometimes even a relatively well planned attempt would fall flat due to missing items or drugs wearing off. Some procedures, which I shan’t reveal here for risk of HIPAA violation and upsetting my readers too much, were nothing less than torture.
As it happens, she and I were far from the only ones thinking about this. One of the pediatric Attendings who was working on a project grant for child advocacy, one of my co-residents (now an Attending in her own right) who helped teach my Communication Skills course, and a couple of nurses were also keen to fix things. Several brain-storming sessions later we came up with the core idea, and our residency director (grabbing coffee outside the meeting room and overhearing us) coined the acronym – LEAPP.
Listen – Evaluate – Anticipate – Plan – Proceed.
Listen – to the concerns of the parents, the nurses, and the patient. Does this child have a specific fear or pattern of behavior, or coping strategy? What worked well, or didn’t, in the past?
Evaluate – the current situation. Has this child already gone through a traumatic event, such as a burn, amputation or other situation that puts them at high risk for Medical Traumatic Stress? What is their current pain level? How anxious are they?
Anticipate – what could go wrong? What if the child acts out? Should we have a plan B? What kinds of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions can we use to reduce pain and anxiety?
Plan – get your stuff together, get the treatment room ready (patient beds are NOT the place to do procedures – they should be the one safe haven a kid has in the hospital), get the people ready: doctors, nurses, child life. Who is going to be “the voice” for the child during the procedure? How long will this take? Have enough meds ready to hand without needing more from pharmacy.
Proceed – only when everyone, including the patient, is ready. This means waiting for meds to take effect!
This grand ideology, invented in a small conference room by half a dozen disparate people of entirely different roles, got itself some legs. We did research, surveys of the parents, doctors and staff as they performed procedures on the floor. We drew up plans to teach these principles, created quizzes and slides, and somehow convinced the Graduate Medical Education Office to put it online for us. We scripted, acted and filmed an educational video to illustrate the points, with interviews from the best patient-advocates we knew – the big-time surgical and ER pediatric faculty who could lead by example to teach their residents what was REALLY important in medicine: caring for patients.
At some point an email came my way with a hospital policy on it. And I blinked.
Hospital policy. An institutional policy for pediatric procedural pain management. And I looked at what we had done.
It had taken us two years, but we had created a mandatory educational initiative for EVERY resident (not just pediatric residents) at our hospital. We had made it hospital policy to LEAPP for every pediatric procedure – meaning that if a resident or attending didn’t follow it, they were in breach of an OFFICIAL policy. This wasn’t touchy-feely stuff any more – this was serious.
I was stunned. I had heard the phrase – “Never doubt that a small group of determined individuals can change the world – indeed, it is the only thing that ever has” – but until that moment I had never really seen it in action.
Now you can walk about our shiny, roomy, children’s hospital and see our green froggy sticker on patient rooms who are due to have a procedure. The LEAPP manual is at the nursing station. Child Life is no longer performing damage limitation, but instead is preventing the damage from occurring in the first places. Nurses and doctors are working together to best plan how things should be done.
At least, they should be. There have been hiccups. We’d like to think things are better.
But you know what….we’re doing a survey about that.
Vaccines, choice, and training rabbits
Posted in Antivax, Patient-Centered Care, Personal Choice, Public Health, Vaccines on August 7, 2011
Just for a moment I’m going to take the view that vaccines are, you know, safe and effective. Sure, there are known side effects, mostly mild short-lived things like injection-site reactions or fever, but Bad Things do happen (e.g. Vaccine Associated Paralytic Polio from the live oral polio vaccine). On balance though it is clear that the benefits of vaccination to society as a whole outweigh the risks to society as a whole. Their success is measured in what we DON’T see – the 20,000 HiB cases a year, the 80-90% drop in pneumococcal disease from vaccine strains, the congenital rubella cases that every medical student knows how to spot (“Blueberry Muffin” baby, cataracts, persistent ductus arteriosus) but will likely never see in their professional lifetime. Safety monitoring is there, as imperfect as it is, which is why for example we don’t have oral polio vaccine in the US any more, and why the first rotavirus vaccine was pulled from the market.
So if we were to take a purely logical view on the matter, vaccination is a no-brainer. For many Docs this is why they get so irate about vaccine refusers. We learn about the diseases and the successes, and find it hard to fathom how you could come to any different conclusion. But clearly people do. There are unfounded fears about “too many too soon”, or aluminum adjuvants that add less exposure than breastmilk, or the fraudulent claim of autism causation that ended up being a scam for one Doc (the infamous Andrew Wakefield) to sell his own measles vaccine. Some parents are simply worried based on a previous bad reaction (I know I was, based on the way my eldest acted after his 2 month shots). Others have a genuine religious belief about medical interventions, and vaccination is just one aspect of that.
So then we run up against the problem of how to deal with this issue. As a general rule of thumb, it is accepted that a patient has the right to refuse aspects of their healthcare. There are very few exceptions to that rule, usually in the interests of others in society – forced hospitalization of mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves or others, or cases of medical neglect where the State assumes responsibility for the medical decisions of a child when the parent puts them at risk, or Directly Observed Therapy for TB, where optimal treatment is paramount and doses should not be skipped. Things like that.
But vaccines are put into a different category. Why? I think the biggest, most obvious difference is that we’re not talking about treatment of someone with a disease, where inaction has obvious consequences, but rather an intervention to a typically healthy individual. In fact, moderate illness (enough to require hospitalization) is one reason to consider delaying vaccination, as the immunization might not work as well. As such, even though the results of inaction can be severe, resulting in death or disability, and inaction certainly has an impact on others in society, there is a natural reluctance to literally force vaccination upon people. Instead, there are more insidious ways to encourage vaccination through school mandates etc. Vaccines are not mandatory, you just have to get them. (If you can understand that, let me know, as that was how a non-mandatory examination was explained to us in medical school…)
As one approach, I am going to use the analogy of rabbits. Above you can see Princess Lulu Merryweather, an Old English Mini-Lop who was with us for over 8 years before succumbing to a pasteurella abscess. Lulu was a house rabbit and was pretty much housetrained. She knew a basic list of commands and would poop in her cage. The training of a bunny is interesting – as a prey animal they do not respond well to the typical training one might use with a predator animal such as a dog or cat. They are more like a horse, and respond best to coercion rather than discipline. In fact, an effective way to get them to do what you want is to embarrass them. This is difficult to do. It generally involves stamping your foot, turning your back on them, but trying to make eye contact so you know that they know that you are displeased. If you’ve ever had a bunny and told them off for something, you’ve probably seen them do this to you. There were several occasions when, as a kitten, she would pee on the couch and we would both end up stamping and back-turning on each other as I would tell her not to do that, and she would try to tell me not to shoo her off the couch. It was her couch, after all. (Did I mention the “Princess” part was added later? It was more a description than a title…)
So, since the decision not to vaccinate is often based more on emotion than logic, it seems reasonable that for some people (not all of course) an emotional approach will work better than a logical one. Human beings are hard-wired to fear bad things from an action (to vaccinate) more than from inaction (not vaccinating), even though a decision to do nothing is still technically a decision, and fear after all is an emotion. I wonder then if pressure from society, an explicit message that says that unvaccinated kids are an unacceptable risk to others would work. Peer pressure. At the moment we have an attitude of tolerance on the whole – barely more than a raised eyebrow, more often a nod of understanding. There may be pressure from the Docs and schools who are trying to protect society from itself, but there needs to be a grass-roots movement among the parents in my opinion.
I’m not entirely sure yet how exactly to go about doing this. I don’t agree with literally holding a parent back while we forcibly inject their child – since after all we do live in an age where many of the preventable diseases are at very low levels, and that goes against every fiber of my “patient-centered” being. I would much rather have informed decision-making – I just realize that for many their mind is made up no matter what facts I lay out and what misconceptions I correct. What I would like to see is an attitude of personal responsibility to temper the push for personal freedoms. Parents should WANT to vaccinate. Currently most fall into the “I don’t care” or the “I don’t want to” camps. That kind of paradigm shift may be slow coming, and I’m open for suggestions on how that might occur. We can’t use a stick, we need to use the carrot.
And maybe some foot-stomping.
An explanation
Posted in Uncategorized on August 6, 2011
After a long hiatus, I guess I’m back to blogging. Why? You may ask. Or you may not, but I’m going to tell you anyway.
After spending a good portion of the past year or more on Twitter, I have found that (a) some people actually are interested in what I have to say and (b) Twitter has it’s limitations in how I get to say it. Sometimes nothing beats a good old fashioned diary entry.
That’s why I’m here. But why not just resurrect the old site, aidsmyth.blogspot.com? I guess because it had a limited remit, and I’ve wandered off from that track a bit. I’ll still throw up anti-AIDS-denialist stuff, but the anti-vaccine movement is rather closer to home for me right now as well as my other professional interests in antibiotic overuse.
The other thing I spend my time doing is practicing and teaching patient-centred care – the idea that medicine should take into account patient fears, ideas and expectations. Now I can pass comment more fully on what are often complex issues, that a simple re-tweet or Twitter-rant can’t fully do justice to.
Hence the title of the blog, a double-meaning combining aspects of both infectious disease and patient-centered care. Culture. Sensitivity. Geddit?

