Wednesday, November 4, 2009

What the World Needs Now…

PACSman: …isn’t love, sweet love. Sorry to disappoint you, Dionne, but what we really need is fewer ego-centric individuals and companies who are looking out for themselves rather than the good of the industry or the individuals who actually have to use the systems. There, I’ve said it- sue me.

I’ve been in this industry for way too long and each day I wonder when “pro bono” actually will be “for the good of the people” and not for someone’s own good. It has always been my opinion that companies put representatives on committees not to help develop industry-wide standards like DICOM, HL-7, IHE, etc. but instead to protect their own interests. That is one reason why DICOM is the most non-standard standard that ever existed and you need a Ph.D. in reading conformance statements to understand what a company does and doesn’t adhere to relative to this “standard”.

IHE is another example. The concept of improving the way computer systems in healthcare share information is commendable, but do we really need 253 member organizations providing input, of which 177 (70%) are Healthcare IT and consulting companies? No. And how many of those 177 have adopted all or at least most if the IHE initiatives to date? Fewer than a handful. It’s all about the companies ego, being able to say “our company participates in…” .even if in reality they don’t do squat..

Now before you go off on me, yes I do have an ego although you mostly see my alter ego in print and not who I really am. The same can be said for Ms. PACS, many of my fellow editors, and even my good friend the Dalai. In print we can be anything and often are, but it’s all done in good fun. I am incredible outward and beyond bold in print but in reality I’m closer to 180 degrees from that. The same could be said for most people I know. The Dalai is one of the quietest most unassuming guys I’ve ever met yet when you read his stuff its like- “Whoa, wait a minute!! Are we talking about the same guy?” Yes I am. Opinionated? Of course. Correct? Most times. We are both Clark Kent in real life and Superman in print - individuals in search of truth, justice and the American way… trying to help out as we can even if we do resort to a bit of sarcasm now and then…And Ms. PACS - she can be like Rilke’s panther one minute and a pussycat the next…Yes it’s all a game…but a game about helping. All of the 350+ articles I’ve written on PACS have been done with the single intent to help, even if I do tend to inject a degree of sarcasm into them now and then. Most importantly, at least to me, all were also written without cost to the journals - pro bono, for the good of the people.

So what then about egos? I’ve noticed more and more that certain individuals in our industry have adopted God complexes about themselves of late, and it’s not good at all. There seems to be no place for bantering or discussion anymore, and every day I see more of the “I am the great and mighty Oz!!” syndrome showing up. Why then is this happening? The answer is ugly too. We have looked up to these certain individuals for answers and called them Gods for so long that they now they believe that they are…Pull back the curtain as Toto did and you’ll see that academia produces some of the worse cases followed closely by executives at the large companies and lastly people connected with the smaller companies and individuals. Like everything there are exceptions though. I know some individuals in academia who will do anything to help others and be perfectly content to stand in the shadows while there are others where the spotlight can never be bright enough…

To understand ego we need to get a big technical so we need to go back to Herr Sigmund Freud. According to Wikipedia, the “id” acts as according to the “pleasure principle” seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure aroused by increases in instinctual tension. OK, that explains a lot.

The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world. The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces [Freud, The Ego and the Id (1923)]

The Super-ego aims for perfection. It comprises that organized part of the personality structure, mainly but not entirely unconscious, that includes the individual’s ego ideals, spiritual goals, and the psychic agency (commonly called 'conscience') that criticizes and prohibits his or her drives, fantasies, feelings, and actions. The Super-ego can be thought of as a type of conscience that punishes misbehavior with feelings of guilt (example: having extra-marital affairs).

The Super-ego works in contradiction to the id. The Super-ego strives to act in a socially appropriate manner, whereas the id just wants instant self-gratification. The Super-ego controls our sense of right and wrong and guilt. It helps us fit into society by getting us to act in socially acceptable ways.

So is it the ego’s fault or the id’s? Where does the Super-ego come in too? Socially acceptable ways? Where? Here? Guilt? Honey, I was raised in a Roman Catholic Italian house, while the Dalai was raised a good Jewish boy. We have enough guilty for any 10 of you - on a good day…

So what’s the bottom line? Let’s go back almost 15 years ago when Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross, Bob Dylan, Billy Joel, Stevie Wonder and over three dozen other rock and pop superstars showed up to cut a record called “We Are The World.” The song was written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie to help starving kids in Africa. The great producer and Motown director Quincy Jones, coordinated the entire effort. All through the night the artists recorded and worked together for the benefit of others, with the net result being a record that hit the #1 position a mere four weeks after it was released. The recording stayed in the number one spot for a month raising almost $14M in the first four months alone and has raised $63M in humanitarian aid to date.

How did he get everyone to cooperate? “Q”, as he is known in the industry, put a sign out over the entrance because he had all these huge international stars there—and with them lots of egos too. The sign said simply. “Check your ego at the door”. They listened, worked together and collaborated and raised a lot of money to do good things.

At RSNA, SIIM, HIMSS the DICOM, HL-7 and IHE meetings, and everywhere that individuals can congregate we need to make a sign that say the same - Check your ego at the door. Maybe then we’ll finally achieve the goals with PACS that we have been desperately seeking for years.

Ms. PACS: “Q” is brilliant and while the whole world acknowledges that fact, he has the insight to know people – especially celebrities - need have have some humility to work well as a team.

The funny thing is, every time I have heard the instruction: “Check your ego at the door” - it’s coming from the one’s with the biggest egos…the one’s who are telling you to check YOUR ego at the door because there’s only room for their ego.

These are the Super-ego dictators – they’re going to dictate to you in their unchecked self-righteousness what’s socially and professionally acceptable and how you should act. It’s the people in power who slide under the radar of checks and balances who are most severe with their subordinates. That’s why it’s good to be a doctor – there are few people above you to kick you around. And fear of getting kicked is what drives and reinforces the “id” – which seeks to avoid pain. So remember that the next time you are dolling out instructions.

What I like better than “Check your ego at the door” is “Let go of the ‘e’ in ego and go!” A little cheesy, but the message is the Super-ego often holds you back from learning. It blinds you from recognizing your own shortcomings and prevents you from improving. It actually operates as a shield to avoid pain – the pain of the reality that you are, to a large extent, powerless – the realization of which unearths that underlying, trembling emotion – fear. And lord knows fear is what drives countries to war and places dictators in power. As Dr. Paul Chang explained to me once, in the context of improving healthcare IT, there is the dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance.

These Super-egos plague healthcare IT and PACS. It is hard for the IT-savvy radiologist or other doctors to recognize they don’t know everything – even about how best to run their own departments. The realization that healthcare IT is 10 years behind other industries, such as banking and finance, is an embarrassment to the erudite. The id cranks up the engine to high-gear to avoid the painful realization that we weren’t born knowing everything, and the Super-ego further buffers the id by denying the truth. Again, ignorance and arrogance.

So what if the IT guy knows more about hospital IT networks than you - isn’t that his job? I know your response - but they don’t know Radiology workflow. So tell them how it works, but listen when they tell you how it might work better.

It’s simple, if you want to improve in life - don’t let your Super-ego blind you, and ignore that wimpy little ‘id’ when it tells you to stick your head in the sand. Why? Because it’s o.k. and even satisfying sometimes to have a slice of humble pie. So maybe a better motto would be – no pain, no gain.

3 comments:

  1. PACS politics, like our violently un-civil civil politics, exemplifies the adage, "evil reigns when good people do nothing."
    If more clinical folk would push aside the corporate folk who dominate by default, we'd all be better off.
    I'd been clinical for decades before I went into the industry (now in it for decades). Too many of us tend to leave things "to the experts" failing to understand just who is supposed to be the expert in your business.
    It makes no more sense to leave PACS development to engineers alone than it does to delegate healthcare decisions to politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I understand what you're against, but what are you for?

    Freud's concepts aren't all that useful here. There is work on altruism that shows that it is a natural part of being human, and that it promotes what might be called enlightened self-interest. Personally, I have no problem with self-interest as long as it looks beyond "me, mine, right now".

    There is also work on the what's called the free-rider problem, which is that if most people contribute to the common good (enlightened self-interest) and some don't, the noncontributors still benefit. As long as there aren't too many of them. Punishing free-riders in some way is one way of dealing with the problem. This carries a cost for everyone else, so the reality is that it might be best to tolerate a low level of free riding as long as it remains low.

    What you describe sounds like politics in the absence of leadership.

    Leadership starts with identifying a common goal that enough people will rally around.

    Re companies that say they support an IHE profile or a specific standard but don't... It's important to hold their feet to the fire, to call them on this. Holding people accountable for behaving in accordance with beliefs they espouse is essentially a strategy for combating the free rider problem. It has its costs, but as you've indicated, the free rider problem in the context of IHE standards is big enough to make this cost worth bearing, in the (enlightened) self-interest of fewer headaches down the road.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I resemble that remark. www.imagingunderbelly.com

    ReplyDelete