Physicians as Leaders in Improving Health Care

Series Editors: Donald M. Berwick, MD, MPP Thomas W. Nolan, PhD

Cooperation: The Foundation of Improvement Terry P. Clemmer, MD; Vicki J. Spuhler, RN, MSN; Donald M. Berwick, MD, MPP; and Thomas W. Nolan, PhD

Cooperation—working together to produce mutual bene­fit or attain a common purpose—is almost inseparable from the quest for improvement. Although the case for cooperation can be made on ethical grounds, neither the motivation for nor the effects of cooperation need to be interpreted solely in terms of altruism. Cooperation can be a shrewd and pragmatic strategy for accomplishing per­sonal goals in an interdependent system. Earlier papers in this series have explored the conceptual roots of modern approaches to improvement, which lie in systems theory. To improve systems, we must usually attend first and fore­most to interactions. Among humans, "better interaction" is almost synonymous with "better cooperation." Physi­cians have ample opportunities and, indeed, an obligation to cooperate with other physicians in the same or different specialties, with nurses and other clinical workers, with administrators, and with patients and families.

Many intellectual disciplines have made cooperation an object of study. These include anthropology; social psy­chology; genetics; biology; mathematics; game theory; lin­guistics; operations research; economics; and, of course, moral and rational philosophy. Scientifically grounded methods to enhance cooperation include developing a shared purpose; creating an open, safe environment; in­cluding all who share a common purpose and encouraging diverse viewpoints; negotiating agreement; and insisting on fairness and equity in the application of rules. These methods apply at the organizational level and at the level of the individual physician. This paper describes the appli­cation of these methods at the organizational level and focuses on one especially successful example of system-level cooperation in a care delivery site where interactions matter a great deal: the modern intensive care unit.

This paper is also available at http://www.acponline.org.

Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:1004-1009.

From University of Utah School of Medicine and LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah; Institute for Health Care Improvement, Boston, Massachusetts; and Associates in Process Improvement, Silver Spring, Maryland. For current author addresses, see end of text.

Cooperation—working together to produce mu­tual benefit or attain a common purpose—is

almost inseparable from the quest for improvement. Although the case for cooperation can be made on ethical grounds, neither the motivation for nor the effects of cooperation need to be interpreted solely in terms of altruism. Cooperation can be a shrewd and pragmatic strategy for accomplishing personal goals in an interdependent system. Many disciplines have made cooperation an object of study; these include anthropology; social psychology (1); genetics (2); biology (3); mathematics; game theory (4); lin­guistics; operations research; economics (5-7); and, of course, moral and rational philosophy.

Earlier papers in this series have explored the conceptual roots of modern approaches to improve­ment, which lie in systems theory (8). A system is a collection of interdependent elements that interact to achieve a common purpose. Performance—mea­sured in health care by such yardsticks as health outcomes, complication rates, waiting times, and pa­tient satisfaction—is a system property inherent in the work of physicians. To improve systems, we must usually attend first and foremost to interac­tions. Among humans, "better interaction" is almost synonymous with "better cooperation." Those who aim to improve health care must be students and practitioners of cooperation, not because it is nice (although it often is nice) but rather because mutual aims require it.

Actually, cooperation is not always essential for improvement. The degree of interdependence in the system makes a difference. Take sports as an exam­ple. For a bowling team, achieving the highest score depends on every person's doing his or her best. Cooperation, except perhaps in exchanging tips, is not the primary issue in successful bowling. But a basketball team courts failure if every player's pri­mary goal is simply to score the most possible per­sonal points. Playmakers and rebounders make es­sential contributions to team success. More often

1004 © 1998 American College of Physicians

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ by a Penn State University Hershey User on 09/15/2016

than not, a balanced team that passes well will beat an equally talented team full of players who hog the ball.

Health care has its "bowling events," to be sure, especially when the lens zooms in on the individual encounter. Alone in the examination room with a grieving patient, the physician does his or her best for the patient primarily through individual skill and compassion. But zoom out again, and the basketball analogy seems stronger.

A single physician managing patients with chronic asthma may have difficulty developing sys­tems that prevent exacerbations by reaching into patients' homes or training patients to monitor their own pulmonary function. But embed that physician in a group practice or a sound managed care orga­nization, and responsive, willing, cooperative oth­ers—such as managers, nurses, pharmacists, and health educators—may be able to configure sup­ports that help everyone, including the physician, the patients, their families—even payers—all at the same time.

Scientific Foundations for Successful Cooperation

A review of modern theories of the foundations, uses, and problems of cooperation is beyond the scope of this paper, but a few examples suggest the richness of the scientific terrain for potential stu­dents of the topic.

Ronald Coase, from the University of Chicago, won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991, largely for theoretical work on transaction costs closely re­lated to normative theories of cooperation. In one of his most influential papers (9), Coase relates the story of a railroad with a right-of-way through a farmer's fields. As trains crossed the field, they spewed sparks, damaging crops close to the tracks. Coase asserted that the usual social approach to the problem, a "rights-based" search involving lawyers; lawsuits; litigation; and, probably, an enforced rem­edy under which the railroad might have to install equipment to suppress the sparks would not pro­duce the solution with the lowest cost to society. Instead, if the railroad and the farmer could bargain easily, they would probably discover a far less costly solution; for example, the farmer might agree not to grow crops within reach of the sparks if the railroad would pay the farmer for profits thereby lost. Coase's vignette easily brings to mind any number of prob­lems in health care (such as neurosurgeons and orthopedists arguing for operating room time) that often lead to "fairness" solutions (equal time) or resource investments (building more operating rooms) instead of solutions that are optimal for the

system as a whole. We argue that this is evidence of a low level of cooperation between the specialties.

Coase asserts that leadership in organizations can provide a context for purpose-based conversation or bargaining instead of reliance on more costly, rights-based solutions. Reinertsen (10) describes the physician's role in providing this type of leadership and methods for executing those leadership respon­sibilities. However, it is difficult to identify someone who might provide that leadership. Hiatt (11) rec­ognizes that some aspects of health care lack obvi­ous leadership in fostering cooperation. In particu­lar, he refers to three kinds of conflict over the use of resources for medical practices: conflict between the interest of the individual and the interest of society, conflict over whether a medical procedure provides value, and conflict between preventive and curative practices. Coase shows that lack of leader­ship can be expensive.

If this leadership is missing, is cooperation im­possible? This question was addressed by Robert Axelrod, from the University of Michigan, who ex­tensively explored the famous game theory problem, the Prisoner's Dilemma, in The Evolution of Coop­eration (12). Axelrod was primarily concerned with cooperation as a self-initiated strategy for an indi­vidual person working in a system rather than with the leadership-initiated cooperation explored by Coase. His work gives hope that the health care system can be positively affected by physicians skilled in cooperative behaviors.

In the Prisoner's Dilemma (Table 1), two players each face a matrix defining the consequences of their independent, blinded choices to "cooperate" or to "defect." If one player cooperates while the other defects, the defector wins. If both defect, both lose. If both cooperate, both win, but not as much as a lone defector does.

In the short run, defection is the only rational choice, assuming that each person seeks only to maximize his or her gains independently. To see why, assume that you are player 2 and work out the consequences of your own actions in a one-cycle Prisoner's Dilemma game. No matter what player 1 does, you are better off defecting. The game gets interesting and the ideal strategy gets less obvious when the game is continual or has an uncertain future. If player 2 is shrewd or powerful enough to

Table 1. The Prisoner's Dilemma

Player 2 Cooperates Player 2 Defects

Player 1 cooperates

Player 1 defects

Player 1 gets 3 points Player 2 gets 3 points

Player 1 gets 5 points Player 2 gets 0 points

Player 1 gets 0 points Player 2 gets 5 points

Player 1 gets 1 point Player 2 gets 1 point

15 June 1998 • Annals of Internal Medicine • Volume 128 • Number 12 (Part 1) 1005

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ by a Penn State University Hershey User on 09/15/2016

maintain the result in the upper right-hand cell, only altruism would motivate player 2 to move to another cell. (Perhaps physicians and hospitals were in player 2's position in the past, when society was willing to pay double-digit annual percentage in­creases in health care costs.) However, continual refusal to cooperate usually leads to a system that equilibrates to the bottom right-hand cell, producing unsatisfactory results both for the two persons play­ing and for the system as a whole, like wasteful hospital construction in an over-bedded city.

Axelrod invited game theorists, economists, and mathematicians to write computer programs to play Prisoner's Dilemma, and when all entries played all other entries in a series of games, one strategy dominated. It did not win every match, but it came out ahead on the average across all matches. Axel-rod dubbed the winning strategy tit-for-tat, and its algorithm consisted of only two rules: cooperate on the first move and, thereafter, do what your oppo­nent did on the previous move.

In a similar vein, Fisher, Ury, and Patton (13), along with their colleagues in the Harvard Negoti­ation Project, have spent two decades developing and refining teachable approaches to what they term principled negotiation, strategies of conflict res­olution. They aim to provide methods that can help parties invent new solutions and move beyond the static, constrained payoffs of the Prisoner's Dilem­ma. Their work emphasizes the importance of rela­tionship in the quest for good solutions—best of all, "win-win" outcomes to disagreements initially thought to have only "win-lose" possibilities.

Applications of research findings on cooperation have resulted in improved safety, reliability, and effectiveness in many industries. Aviation safety ex­perts, for example, have long known that communi­cation failures account for more than three fourths of commercial airline accidents and that sociological barriers to communicating crucial information "against the authority gradient" (for example, from a navigator to a pilot) often lie at the root of these communication failures (14). Building on this knowl­edge, the aviation industry has invested heavily in training crews (and especially their highest-status members, pilots) to ensure highly cooperative norms and behaviors regarding mutual assistance and ex­change of information as mainstays of safety. This field is known as cockpit resource management (15). Although extrapolation of technical methods from one industry to another requires caution, research­ers in simulated operating rooms have found the same communication hazards found in aircraft cock­pits. They suggest that cockpit resource manage­ment techniques may have as much promise in health care as in aviation (16).

Other writers and researchers have made equally

important contributions to our understanding of the uses and methods of cooperation in health care and in other industries. We summarize these few here not to give them preeminence but rather to support our assertion that cooperation is a proper subject for study by physicians, a valuable topic for scientific investigation in health care research, and a proper arena for leadership actions toward improvement.

Methods for Fostering Cooperation

We suggest five scientifically grounded methods to foster cooperation: 1) develop a shared purpose; 2) create an open, safe environment; 3) include all those who share the common purpose and encour­age diverse viewpoints; 4) learn how to negotiate agreement; and 5) insist on fairness and equity in applying rules.

We discuss these methods at the organizational level and at the level of the individual physician. The system-level application of the methods is de­scribed with the aid of one especially successful example of system-level cooperation in a care deliv­ery site where interactions matter a great deal: the modern intensive care unit. At the individual level, we suggest actions that a physician can take to improve his or her cooperation skills even while he or she is working in an organization where cooper­ation is not the norm.

The Shock Trauma Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (STRICU) of the LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah, made a commitment in 1992 to trans­form practice and create an environment supportive of practice improvement. Physician staff in the 12-bed STRICU included four full-time critical care teaching attending physicians, four pulmonary-critical care specialists who consulted frequently, and more than 55 affiliated attending physicians who admitted patients under an open admissions policy. The open admissions policy made establishing a culture of coop­eration particularly important. In addition, about 45 nurses, 8 respiratory therapists, 8 technicians, and 5 clerks worked in the unit. No single person was in a position to dictate policy or procedures.

In the first 4 years of the cooperative effort, significant gains were documented in the use of sedation and paralysis; in the control of serum glu­cose (17) and potassium levels and the frequency of brain edema; and in the use and costs of antibiotics (18), enteral feeding, laboratory tests, and pharma­ceutical agents. During these 4 years, costs have decreased by as much as 30% in areas directly influenced by improvement teams, resulting in an overall 19% reduction in total hospital costs (19).

1006 15 June 1998 • Annals of Internal Medicine • Volume 128 • Number 12 (Part 1)

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ by a Penn State University Hershey User on 09/15/2016

Develop a Shared Purpose

A system needs a purpose to help persons man­age their interactions. In searching for the motive for cooperation, a stronger answer than "financial incentives" is "purpose." Systems, especially human systems, derive their identity from a shared, com­mon purpose. Take away purpose, and the system dissolves; the interactions no longer have meaning, and one has only isolated elements. Cooperation, like a system itself, begins with a common purpose based on that which is perceived to be of greatest importance to the participants. The statement of purpose for a practice, a hospital, or an integrated delivery system should address patient outcomes, service, and total cost.

In the STRICU, the unit medical director and the nurse manager led an effort by front-line work­ers from all disciplines to develop a statement of purpose. This statement emphasized the importance of focusing on improving outcomes and working efficiently. It also provided guidance for interactions among clinicians and staff and became the center­piece for a series of workshops designed to increase the abilities of all STRICU employees and thereby improve the performance of the unit and develop supportive working relationships.

An individual physician who is involved in a con­flict or a situation requiring mutual decision making can foster cooperation by beginning the dialogue with a question (Table 2): What are we trying to accomplish? This question will provide an opportu­nity for understanding common aims and moving beyond initial positions.

Create an Open, Safe Environment

Cooperation can feel unsafe, especially at first. Physicians may create fear within groups and orga­nizations. Nonphysician staff with good ideas or re­quests for change whisper those ideas and requests or withhold them entirely, fearing criticism or re­prisal from the higher-status physicians. Similarly, physicians may underestimate the power they could have as role models if they were to engage in new forms of cooperative activity and be willing to give up something of their own to improve the effective­ness of the team.

In the STRICU, the medical director and the nurse manager took responsibility for building an environment conducive to cooperation. Initially, they modeled cooperation in their interactions while running the unit. Simultaneously, they sent signals to colleagues that direct, open communication among disciplines was desired. For example, when either of them was approached by a physician com­plaining about a nurse or a nurse complaining about a physician, they encouraged the person with the

Table 2. A Checklist Physicians Can Use To Promote Cooperative Behaviors

1. Understand common aims by asking, What are we trying to accomplish? 2. Be the first person to model willingness to suggest and test a change. 3. When meeting with nonphysicians for the purpose of decision making,

increase the pool of ideas by asking each person individually for his or her concerns, ideas, and opinions.

4. Help to resolve conflict by offering two or three alternative solutions that are medically sound, that meet the common aim of the group, and that incorporate the viewpoints of other disciplines.

5. Once a course of action has been established, initiate a discussion of consequences and defaults (such as "nonresponse implies consent") for all involved, particularly physician-colleagues.

complaint to address the issue with the other person involved, and they taught them how to do so in productive, nonthreatening ways. The evolution of the cooperative environment was accelerated by multidisciplinary teams improving patient care (for example, by developing and using protocols). One of the first protocols, management of mechanical ventilation, was developed by a team of physicians. Later, nurses and respiratory therapists were in­cluded on the protocol team. Subsequently, all teams included representatives of multiple disci­plines and, when appropriate, were led by someone other than a physician. For example, nurses led the teams that developed the sedation and potassium replacement protocols.

A physician can help others engage in coopera­tive behavior by being the first to model willingness to suggest and test a change (Table 2). For example, if a primary care physician thinks that changing his schedule for rounds could increase the chance that he will encounter a specialist and thereby smooth communication or improve the flow of patients in the hospital, the primary care physician should try the change and report back. If the change worries the physician, he should scale down the test but should not avoid action.

Include Those Who Share the Common Purpose and Encourage Diverse Viewpoints

Convening those working in various roles in the system establishes the opportunity for cooperation. Enough persons should be included to permit pre­sentation and discussion of the aims, current per­formance, and boundaries of the relevant system. The physician's goal as leader of cooperation should be to seek, or to start to create, a shared sense of purpose to achieve some improvements. Persons are more likely to cooperate when they are involved in the process of change and when that process re­spects their differences in style and pace.

The STRICU process at LDS Hospital has sup­ported people in multiple roles, depending on their readiness for change. The respect for diversity of styles may be best seen in the approach to one

15 June 1998 • Annals of Internal Medicine • Volume 128 • Number 12 (Part 1) 1007

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ by a Penn State University Hershey User on 09/15/2016

crucial part of the STRICU's improvement efforts: the development, testing, and refinement of stan­dardized, evidenced-based protocols for clinical care (20). A physician can assume the role of energetic leader, active participant, or passive supporter and reviewer or can opt out of the effort entirely. This last option allows physicians to choose not to have their own patients treated by protocol, on the con­dition that they do not obstruct the efforts of others. All roles are respected; even the opinions of those who do not support the process are found to be of value as instructive criticism and in reevaluating the effort's process and direction. All attending physi­cians receive copies of the developing protocols with a letter encouraging them to submit their opinions freely. By encouraging feedback and respecting and negotiating diverse viewpoints, the protocol is im­proved and cooperation is facilitated during the im­plementation phase.

In the presence of physicians, other professionals do not always express their opinions. Silence does not necessarily mean agreement or lack of a better idea. When meeting with nonphysicians for the pur­pose of decision making, an individual physician can increase the pool of ideas by asking each person individually for his or her concerns, ideas, and opin­ions (Table 2).

Learn How To Negotiate Agreement

Students of cooperation have described useful negotiating techniques for achieving otherwise elu­sive agreements. Strong leaders master the arts of dialogue, group communication, and negotiation, as taught by experts, and they both model and teach these approaches in the work setting.

In the STRICU, formal sessions on communica­tion and interpersonal dynamics have been taught over the years. Many of the staff have completed the Seven Habits educational series (21) and the Human Dynamics Course (22). Negotiations stay focused on the issues and not on individuals. Ob­jective criteria for outcomes and cost are used whenever possible, and the opinions of respected peers are used to gain acceptance. An honest at­tempt to find a win-win solution is always made. One of the fundamental negotiated agreements common to all protocols is that the care team is responsible for the performance of the protocol. When the protocol is not performing correctly, the team can override it. They then communicate the reasons why the protocol was overridden. This in­formation is used to improve the protocol and widen its application. With this process, the STRICU is able to obtain consensus for the protocols.

A physician in conflict with others about what change to make to improve a system can help re­solve the conflict by offering two or three alternative

solutions. These solutions should be medically sound, should meet the shared aim of the group, and should incorporate in various ways the view­points of other disciplines (Table 2).

Insist on Fairness and Equity in Applying the Rules

The rules for the tit-for-tat strategy in the Pris­oner's Dilemma are simple; defection is punished in the next round. Clearly defined rules are an impor­tant attribute of a cooperative environment.

In the STRICU, those who decide not to coop­erate in the development of protocols are not "pun­ished" because punishment could hinder acceptance of the protocols in the future. However, those who opt out are allowed to change their minds and join the process later as circumstances change. Other rules for participation are defined, and the rules for participation are applied equitably. Everyone knows the time limit for commenting on the protocols and knows that nonresponse implies consent. They also know that their critique will modify the protocol directly or through negotiation. Fair application of the rules across all disciplines establishes the integ­rity of the system and strengthens cooperation. If the rules become difficult to follow, they will be renegotiated but will not be waived for individuals.

Physicians, by virtue of their status in the health care system, can further a spirit of fairness. Once a course of action has been established, physicians are in a position to initiate discussion of consequences and defaults (such as "nonresponse implies consent") for all involved, particularly physician-colleagues (Table 2).

Conclusions

Cooperation does not mean that physicians must give up leadership roles. On the contrary, shifting the meaning of leadership should strengthen it. The physician who wishes to help improve the systems of care must understand that he or she is a central participant in a larger whole that, when correctly led, serves the same ends that the medical profes­sion does. For decades—even centuries—the pro­fession of medicine has been tutored toward excel­lence in understanding what its elements are, what it is made of, and how it gets better at what it does. Now, in a time of both promising and fearful trans­formation of health care, the profession of medicine must learn equally well to ask how we will get better at what we must accomplish together if we are to accomplish it at all.

1008 15 June 1998 • Annals of Internal Medicine • Volume 128 • Number 12 (Part 1)

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ by a Penn State University Hershey User on 09/15/2016

Requests for Reprints: Terry P. Clcmmer, MD, Critical Care Med­icine, LDS Hcqpttal. 8th Avenue and C Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84143; e-mail: tclcmmc@ihc.efim.

Current Author Addirsstt: Dr. Clcmmer: Critical Care Medicine, LDS Hospital. 8th Avenue and C Sired, Sail Lake City. UT 84J43. Ms. Spuhlcr; Shuck-Trauma Intensive Care Unit, LDS Hnspital. Slh Avenue and C Street, SaJt Lake City. UT £4143. Dr. Berwick (Series Editor): Institute fur Healthcare Improve­ment, 135 Francis Street. Boston, MA 02215. Dr. Nolan (Scries Editor}: Associates in Process Impnsvcnicnl, II10 Bonifaru Street. Suite 420, Silver Spring. MD 20910,

References

1. Argyrts C. On Organizational Learning Cambridge, MA: Blxtwr* Fufckshers, 1944.

2. Darrtin* R, The S*l1ish Gene, flew York: Oxford Unm Fr, 19?6j. a, Wlben tO. Sooobiology The Hew Synihcvt Cambridge, MA. Harvard Un.v

ft. I97S 4. Miffa H. JJecision Analysis. *ea*ng, MA Addison-Wesley, 1966 5. Oban M. The Logic ei C OHWln* Actcm Cambridge, MA harvard Unw Pr,

l%5. 4, Hardin fi. The tragedy or (he coninwns The population problem has no

iwhmtjl solution, it lequires a fundamental extension m natality Science 1968; 162 1143-6.

7. Deming w . The New Economics. Cambridge, MA: MlT ft, 1994.

t. Nolan TW. Understanding medKal system) Ann intern Med. 1998:128 I93-B

9. Coase R. The problem of social cost Journal of U w and Economics I960, III M S

15. Remertsen JL Physicians as leaders in the improvement oi health c*i* syi-(en« Ann Intern Med 1996,128:833-8

11. Hl t l t HM. Projecting U * medic*! comment who rs responsible? N Engl J Med l97S.2M:Z3S-ai

12. Axetrod R. The E^u i^n o' Coop+tJUOn New York Basic Hooks, 1994 13. hsher R, Ury W, Patton B, Getting to Yes Negotiating Agreement without

Giving m New York Pengun. l W l 14. Foushe* HC, Helmreidi At. Group interaction and (light crew performance

In Wiener EL, Naoel DC, eds Human factors « Aviation San Diego: Aca­demic ft, 1988

15. Welnef EL. Kankl BG, Hefmrefch RL. eds Cockpit Resource Management San Diego Academe Pr, 1993

16. Hehnrckh RL, Schaefer Hfi. Team performance in bhe operalmg room m Bogner MS. ed Human Error A Medicine Hilhide. NJ Lawrence Erlbaufn, 199fl

IT- Onifci TA, Clrmmtr TP, Arthur LH. Lin ford LH, Using Statistical quality coniroi techniques to monitor blood glucose lewh Pioceedmgs of the I9ch Annual Symposium on Computer Amplications in Medical Care 1495,536-9(1

18 Evans RS, Pvflomlk SL C l t jHn DC Clemmer TP, W * * v * r U t rjmn* JF Jr. et aJ. A compuler-assated management program for antibiotics and other anlnnreCl** agents N Engl) Med 199B;3J8'232-9

19. Clemmer TP, Spuhler VJ, Onlki TA, Ham SO. Effectiveness oi implement* mg a cctfaboraint quality improvement program on costs m r.Mical care medicine [Abslracll Crit Care Med l997;2S(5iuppl 1} A43.

20. ClcninSM TF, Spuhler VJ. Developing and gaming acceptance for patient care prolotoh New Horn 1998,6 12 '9

21 . Covey i Sewn Habits oil Highly Effective People. New Tort:: fireside, 1990 22. Seagal S, Hotnt D, Human Dynamics A New Framework lor Undefsianotng

People and Realizing the Potential in Our Organization Cambridge, MA Pegasul Communication!. 1997

15 June 1998 • Annals of Internal Medicine • Volume 128 • Number 12 (Pan I) 1009

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ by a Penn State University Hershey User on 09/15/2016