A Foolish Consistency: Policy, Practice, and Rationality in Medical Decision Making

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

As I was making coffee this morning, I grabbed a filter and realized that two may be stuck together. I faced a common dilemma: do I bother to separate them so as to not waste a filter? A trivial example, I will use it as an analogy for decisions we face every day in life and medicine.

Folks approach this kind of decision (or the decision to brush one's teeth, or wear a seatbelt) in various ways. Paul may have a "Paulicy" of never wasting anything, and separates them; doesn't-give-a-damn Sam would never bother; Sometimes Suzie separates them when she has time, and doesn't when she's in a hurry.

The decision hinges on the value of a filter in terms of cost, waste, etc. The value of a single filter is a rounding error, but clearly a lifetime of wasting filters can add up to a lot of filters magnified by the number of people wasting them. Why not go to great lengths to save every filter possible?

In this kind of situation, a rational agent may decide to institute a policy of doing things in a certain way, but accept deviation from that policy under special circumstances. My favorite example of this situation is in medicine with central lines. A left-sided line is not supposed to come at a 45-degree angle to the wall of the SVC; rare cases are reported where, over time, it can erode through the great veins and cause fatal hemorrhagic mediastinum. But what is the probability of that? Something on the order of one instance per 10,000 lines. Supposing you have just placed a left internal jugular hemodialysis catheter and the tip is at the proscribed 45-degree angle. You can't retract that catheter, and you can't advance it either. Do you replace it with a longer one? What if your right internal jugular 20 cm catheter is "too deep" into the right atrium; do you retract it and use the little clamp, knowing that often the line slides in it, increasing risk for infection? What if the upper great veins are suboptimal targets, but you've read the Parienti paper in NEJM and know that the risk of infectious and thrombotic complications doubles (but increases only a percent or so, absolute) with femoral vein catheters? Should the femoral vein be verboten?

In cases such as this and many more analogous ones, a rational agent may employ a general policy of always trying a priori to avoid the 45-degree angle; select the appropriate length catheter; and favor the upper access sites, but to allow exceptions whenever the probability of an untoward outcome in an individual case is low, and the costs of avoiding it are higher. In the case of the 45-degree dialysis catheter, the risks of infectious and mechanical complications of repositioning or replacing it exceed the benefits, especially if it is going to be in place for a short period of time. Reluctance to use the femoral site which has but a 1% increase in adverse events compared to the jugular can lead to far greater complications from forcing patients to lie flat for prolonged periods, or from failed attempts under more difficult operating conditions with non-collaborator patients (delirious, thrashing). The policy to default to a preferred standard becomes irrational when, in a specific case the preferred standard doesn't deserve its status.

The same situation is true with many policies. Studies have shown that a policy of routine use of right heart catheters in sepsis or ARDS does not benefit patients (it also does little harm). So, we have policy of NOT doing routine Swan-Ganz catheters. But that hardly means that in specific circumstances we should not do them. The same holds true for so much of what we do in medicine. Part of the problem is that physicians memorize the policy and the direction of harm/benefit ("there's an increased risk of DVT with femoral lines!"), but they don't know the magnitude of the effect.

So, to be a rational agent, you should establish a policy of what is best, under optimal conditions, for all-comers. But when you have more information a posteriori (because the line went into the wrong place; or you forgot your helmet; or your kid fell asleep in the car seat), default to the policy only if a cost-benefit analysis justifies it. Also, be on the lookout for situations where the all-comer policy does not apply. Like the 90-year-old patient with a small (250cc) complicated parapneumonic effusion. Policy says drain. Rational practice says hold tight; it's a small target, risk of complication or failed drainage higher, benefits of avoiding a small fibrothorax (losing 250cc of vital capacity) in someone with reduced life expectancy and limited mobility are small.

I was not in a hurry, so I separated the filters. Had I been running late or the kids were screaming, I may not have.

Edit to add later in the day: it occurred to me that I do a lot of anal-retentive things in my home, many concerned for the environment or recycling. Example: we don't use paper towels, or disposable plates/silverware. 

The consequence is when we have a get-together, guests can be out of sorts with my "environmental policies." Even though our family, as a routine policy, is (I hope) happy to adapt to these well-intentioned standards, the social costs of this routine policy are off-putting to my guests. So, I keep things in perspective: this is just one gathering, a roll of paper towels here and there is no big deal to avoid the off-putting social costs. So we use disposable stuff on occasion when the convenience in a specific instance overrides the general routine policy goals. Same would be true if you had a general policy of "no shoes in the house" that you let lapse when you invited guests into your home.

Many doctors would do well to make such exceptions to their general policies, in the name of building (or not spending) "social capital."

"I'm Not Comfortable With"....Analyzing Decisions Involving Risk

A woman with upper gastrointestinal bleeding is admitted to the ICU with significant hemoglobin drop from baseline several months before.  The INR was >10 on admission, presumably reflecting sphlanchnic hypoperfusion during the bleeding episode (decreasing clearance or increasing effect of warfarin) in addition to consumption of clotting factors during bleeding.  The INR is reversed with vitamin K, and an EGD is performed showing a nonbleeding vessel which was clipped.  The following day, the patient is up and walking around and eating a full liquid diet with no further evidence of bleeding.  MAPs are in the mid to low 60s, and she is "called out" for a transfer to the regular medical ward.  The resident is reportedly "not comfortable with" having the patient on the floor with the low mean arterial pressures.  How best to analyze the situation?

(I will only briefly note that the expression of discomfort describes an emotional reaction that may or may not be concordant with a logical and factual analysis of the situation at hand.  In this case I suspect it has something to do with the availability heuristic, where dramatic events [gushing blood] are estimated to have higher probabilities than they warrant.)

The discomfort seems to stem from a concern that the patient will deteriorate on the regular medical ward and require interventions that are not available there, prompting readmission to the ICU and incurring the risk of a missed opportunity to provide necessary care during any delays in executing the transfer.  Factors that may raise that concern are marginal hemoglobin values (7-8) especially considering a baseline of almost twice that several months before, the size of the GIB and the resulting hemodynamic instability, the marginal MAPs at the time of transfer.  Mitigating factors are the absence of ongoing bleeding, the inference that any marginal MAPs must be from a residual volume deficit (she does not have coincident sepsis), that the vessel was successfully clipped, and the patient is up and walking about in spite of the measured MAPs.  But how are we to integrate this into an estimate of the risk that may be incurred from transfer?

Root Cause Analysis: Dig Deeper, or the Weed Will Keep Growing Back

In a recent JAMA Performance Improvement piece, the authors describe the case of a man who presented to the emergency department with dizziness.  He was sedated for an MRI, his history of OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) may have been glossed over, and he arrested in the radiology department.  The subsequent "root cause analysis" traced the untoward outcome to a failure to recognize the OSA and the adverse effects that may follow sedation of a patient with this diagnosis.

The problem with this "root cause analysis" is that it assumed that the MRI, requested by a neurologist on-call, via telephone, was necessary.  It was not.  The root cause analysis got it wrong because it did not trace the roots to their deepest source:  glossing over the patient's chief complaint and considering it and its evaluation carefully and rationally.  Stroke is an uncommon cause of dizziness and the MRI was probably not indicated, especially in light of the other information provided in the case.

Here is the letter that I sent to JAMA which was not accepted/published.  It is a case of the distinction between rationality and intelligence.  Very intelligent people traced the "cause" or the "root" of the complication to a missed piece of information (OSA) and corollary ideas (he may have complications from sedation), but they failed to consider underlying assumptions:  namely that the MRI was necessary or would yield net benefit in the first place. 

Medicine is best played like chess, not like checkers.  "Intelligent people have superior performance when you tell them what to do."  A failure of a "root cause analysis" such as this will foment the regrowth of the weed.

Here is the letter:

I enjoyed the Performance Improvement case describing oversedation of a patient with obstructive sleep apnea¹.  I posit that the most proximate possible root cause of the complications described was ordering an MRI with low clinical yield², without pre-specifying what abnormality was being sought as well as its probability, and without delineating, a priori, how any resulting findings would change management³.  Presumably, the neurology consultant was looking for stroke.  What was its pre-test probability in a patient with dizziness?  Would management have changed if stroke were detected with imaging?  Were there contraindications to therapies for stroke?  Was the patient already receiving the indicated therapy for stroke?  What is the probability of a false positive finding (i.e., one that doesn’t explain the patients’ symptoms; an “incidentaloma”), and how might that finding lead to interventions which may yield net harm if stroke is not present?  What was the response to meclizine and odansetron, and how did this incremental information alter the prior probability of stroke?  Because decisions necessarily precede actions, they must always be considered as possible proximate causes of downstream complications.  Even if the other errors identified in the reported root cause analysis can be avoided in the future, injudicious testing may lead to other complications, including cascades of additional potentially harmful testing and intervention unguided by careful, rational, clinical decision making.

1. Blay E, Jr, Barnard C, et al. Oversedation of a patient with obstructive sleep apnea prior to imaging. JAMA 2018;319(5):495-96. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.22004

2. Fakhran S, Alhilali L, Branstetter BFt. Yield of CT angiography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with dizziness. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2013;34(5):1077-81. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3325 [published Online First: 2012/10/27]

3. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. The New England journal of medicine 1980;302(20):1109-17. doi: 10.1056/nejm198005153022003 [published Online First: 1980/05/15]

Book Smarts and Common Sense in Medicine - Why Highly Intelligent People Make Bad Decisions

In the presentation on Epistemic Problems in Medicine on the Medical Evidence Blog, I begin by highlighting the difference between intelligence (book smarts) and rationality (common sense).  Oftentimes thought to be one and the same, they are distinctly different, and understanding failures of common sense among very intelligent people can illuminate many problems that we see in medicine, several of which have been highlighted on this blog.

Intelligence is the ability of the mind to function algorithmically, like a computer.  Intelligent people are good at learning, through rote memorization, rules that can be applied to solve well defined problems.  They are also good at pattern recognition which allows them to recognize a problem type to know which rule applies to it.  This kind of intelligence is very precisely measured by IQ tests.  It is correlated with scores on college entrance exams like the ACT and SAT and with other entrance tests such as MCAT.  Of course, intelligent people need to devote the time to learn the rules to answer the questions on these tests which measure both aptitude and achievement.

Rationality, I think, is more closely aligned to the notion of common sense and it shows very little significant correlation to IQ in any domain in which it has been investigated.  Cognitive psychologists talk about two kinds of rationality.  The first is how well a person's beliefs map onto reality (the actual structure of the world), and it has been termed epistemic rationality (sometimes also called theoretical or evidential rationality).  Persons with epistemic rationality have beliefs that are congruent with the world around them and which are strong in proportion to the strength of the evidence supporting them.  Thus a physician who believes that bloodletting or mercury therapy cures disease in the 21st century would be considered to have suboptimal epistemic rationality, as would a person whose fear of Hantavirus while hiking in New Mexico is grossly disproportionate to the actual statistical risk.