The Art of Setting Up Success

What makes a great surgeon? Do they have long fingers? Or steady hands? Or the heart of a lion?

I think it is the preparation they do right before they make the incision.

In VMH, I would be assisting various surgeons, especially Dr MR Seetharam in orthopedic surgeries. MRS is very methodical in preparation for a surgery. Every surgery is different. One might require an expensive equipment, or a team of skilled surgeons. The patient might have severe comorbidities that make post-surgical management difficult. The economics might not work out. Functional recovery maybe more important. There are many factors that go into choosing the right kind of surgery for the right kind of patient. MRS will be thinking of all these as soon as becoming aware of someone who has an issue. But that's not the preparation I'm talking about.

Inside the operation theater, with the patient and others eagerly waiting, there's a final and crucial step of preparation that MRS does. The X-rays are put on the viewer where it can be seen from the operating table. Another look is given at the X-ray to review the approach and the location of the fracture fragments. The fractured part is positioned with great attention to allow the views and manipulations that would be required later during the surgery. Extra tables are brought in if so required. The position of each assistant is decided. All the props are set up exactly where they have to be. The C-arm (A C-shaped X-ray machine that can be rotated around the patient during the surgery to see the bones and the implants near real-time) is brought in and out of the field to ensure there are no hurdles. A shoot is made in each position that the part would be during the surgery to be sure there is no obstruction in the C-arm's view. All the implants and instruments are reviewed to make sure they're right. The assistants are warmed up on the procedure and the tools that'll be used. The success of a surgery is decided before the incision is put.

That last sentence might sound like this speech by Harsha Bhogle. Or the saying "The more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in battle". But I am not talking about the years of dedication one puts in before one becomes a fine surgeon.

I am specifically talking about the setup. Take this example of a setup for arterial blood draw.

Depends I think. If you're crammed between the wall and the ICU bed on an obese hypovolemic patient whose diaper you cannot remove completely and you're drawing the femoral artery with a plastic syringe not meant for it, should be sufficiently difficult.

— Akshay S Dinesh (@asdofindia) December 31, 2020

That is a setup for failure. If one compromises on the setup, they would often have to compromise on the result as well.

* * *

What I realized as I was writing this is that I tend to compromise a lot. I don't know whether I do it as a way to challenge myself so that I feel good about myself if I luckily succeed. Or because I've not learned how to negotiate better. Or maybe I don't know what I need. Or maybe I don't think. Or maybe I think being accommodating is a virtue.

Perhaps accommodation isn't a virtue. Perhaps if you don't ask for the right working conditions, you're going to end up being ineffective and lowering the standard all over.

But you're never going to have all that you need. "You're going to have to compromise" is the folk wisdom. It's difficult to imagine having everything I need. That's a contradiction.

Perhaps then my core premise is wrong. It is probably not about the setup. Or maybe it's a bit of everything. Maybe I'm partly right.

Maybe you can compromise on the setup if you can compensate with your skill (or luck). Or maybe that's too much strain on you.

I don't know. Maybe I'll have clarity later.

PS: I was wondering whether to make the latter section "PS". But maybe that's the script. It's a blog, after all.

Science is Broken Because Scientists Can't Think Rationally

Scihub is being sued in Indian courts by the journal industry. There are some people worried about it. But it is funny how our knowledge system works. Take this tweet for example:

Scientific publishing sure is rigged & broken. But hoping that the very bandicoots that are getting fat from the status quo will take hints and improve the system is beyond naive. The telling lack of collective resistance from scientists too enables this perverse model to thrive. https://t.co/ye9SuxlYQM

— M D Madhusudan (@mdmadhusudan) December 24, 2020

The reason why journals charge exorbitantly and still get away with it is because almost all academicians publish only in those journals. And why do academicians publish in those journals? Here comes the greatest hypocrisy/logical fallacy of academicians.

They think that publishing in "prestigious" journals bring "prestige". They even have a way of measuring prestige without making it sound like it's an emotional thing - impact factor. It is all part of the same logical fallacy - argument from authority. A cognitive bias that makes humans think that "authority" is right.

The only purpose of journals in the internet age is to exude authority.

The same purpose of universities.

If scientists step down from their pedestals and start looking at the world without bringing in their cognitive biases (like every scientist should be doing), there can be a world where knowledge is produced and consumed with lesser hurdles.

Lumbar Puncture and HIV

Lumbar puncture is a fascinating procedure. It is cheap, it can be done in relatively remote places, and it can be learnt easily given access to enough people who need it.

LP has an incredible role in the management of many complications related to HIV. I've heard stories about how there used to be 5 LPs done every day in VMH during the time when HIV was causing rampant destruction in Karnataka and India. When I was there, we would do about 5 in two weeks. Nevertheless, when a colleague asked on Twitter about CSF analysis, I thought I should write down some of the things I believe to know about Lumbar Puncture itself, especially in relation to its use in management of complications of HIV.

The first many LPs I saw were all done for spinal anesthesia in KR Hospital. Till then all I knew about spinal anaesthesia was a friend's description of the back ache he had post a "cool" hernia surgery because they had "poked many times for anaesthesia". I think I hadn't really thought about it till I was doing my anaesthesia rotation during internship. The first LP I did was also done during the same time - the "pop" and being in the space that you can learn only by doing. (If anyone thinks that all knowledge is codifiable like I do, here is what it feels like. Imagine there is a thick plastic layer laid around a piece of rusk. Imagine your needle piercing through the rusk and then splitting open the plastic layer. Now you are in the space.)

The first time I saw an LP done for diagnostic reasons was in the medical emergency ward of KR Hospital where a young patient with some sort of neurological condition was being pinned down to the bed by 4 people and the postgraduate resident was dancing with the needle along with the squirming patient. Despite the grotesqueness of the picture, I found it incredible that 20-40 drops of a particular fluid can be so valuable in diagnosis.

I learned the reasons when I was in VMH. There were many "spot" diagnoses we made using LP:

1) Perceived high opening pressure in an HIV infected patient with neurologic symptoms - we send for cryptococcal antigen and it is almost certainly positive. (Always use Cryptococcal antigen test. Indian ink looks fancy under the microscope when it is positive, but is not as sensitive)

2) High lymphocytes and proteins - you can keep your various tuberculosis diagnoses active. But even otherwise, you can't rule out TB ever.

3) RBCs and you can suspect sub-arachno... Just admit that you did a traumatic tap.

But LP was mainly used for ruling out the infections. It is very simple to miss CNS infections in HIV infected patients. For example they will come with vomiting and you will examine their mouth and see oral (and possibly oesophageal) candidiasis written all over it. But rather unknown to you, they might also be having cryptococcal meningitis.

It might be difficult to treat cryptococcal meningitis because Flucytosine is not something you find easily in India and therefore you are stuck with Fluconazole and Amphotericin B and good luck to you if you plan to give the latter in peripheral venous lines. (I'm not sure if the liposomal variety of Amphotericin B doesn't cause as much phlebitis). But cryptococcal meningitis is a diagnosis you do not have to miss, if you are doing LP.

It is a messy thing, but it is a life saving diagnosis. I've seen one patient die during the treatment, even though we were doing regular therapeutic lumbar punctures to reduce the intracranial pressure. But I've seen almost everyone else survive (including the case where I had to take PEP). I've also heard a very inspiring story from Dr Ramakrishna Prasad about a patient whom everyone else had given up on, coming back to life after switching over to the liposomal variety.

A (thankfully) much rarer thing is HIV CSF escape syndrome. Hearing about this for the first time is when I realized which peak of the Dunning-Kruger effect I was on. You see, the blood brain barrier is a real thing. And not all of the HIV drugs cross this barrier the same way (paradoxic?). And therefore there are patients who can have no virus in their plasma, but if you do a CSF viral load test you will have a real surprise waiting.

A not so uncommon thing which can be diagnosed through CSF is neurosyphilis. I always have to read the guidelines three times about when to use a VDRL test and how much to rely on it, but this is a test that we used to do as a protocol while doing an LP in HIV infected.

Things like gadolinium enhanced MRI are becoming more useful than CSF analysis in diagnosis of things like tubercular meningitis. But from what Dr Rahul Abraham once told a group of us about his experience with MSF in Bihar, lumbar puncture will remain with us till the end of the HIV pandemic.

Public Lives of Doctors?

Social media has made our private life public. Facebook, Instagram, even WhatsApp (through stories) thrive on users generating engaging content. Often this content is snaps from daily life. A picture is worth a thousand words, yet can be generated in a second. Image centered social media platforms rely on this to keep themselves going.

What about doctors (and other professionals) on social media? Is it any different for them? Should it be any different?

This post has been triggered by the #MedBikini hashtag. Here's one tweet that reveals what happened:

This journal article considers social media posts where MDs hold alcohol, wear inappropriate attire, and give opinion on controversial social topics as “potentially unprofessional.” How would any of these adversely affect the care we give to patients? 😳 #MedBikini pic.twitter.com/G1iBuqtX8n

— Ronnie Baticulon (@ronibats) July 24, 2020

I will not spend a lot of time discussing this particular paper or the twitter response to it. But I will discuss sections from two of the references in this paper.

A council set up by American Medical Association to address the subject of Professionalism in the Use of Social Media, included this paragraph in their report:

Though there are some clear-cut lapses in professionalism that can and have been made online by physicians (such as violations of patient privacy or confidentiality, or photos of illegal drug use), there are many more situations that fall into a grey area.  Examples include photographs posted online of an inebriated physician, or sexually suggestive material, or the use of offensive language in a blog.  Any of these actions or behaviors would be considered inappropriate in the hospital, clinic, office, or other setting in which a physician is interacting with patients or other health care professionals in a professional manner.  However, whether physicians must maintain the same standards of conduct in how they present themselves outside the work environment is a more open question.  Physicians certainly have the right to have private lives and relationships in which they can express themselves freely, but they must also be mindful that their patients and the public see them first and foremost as professionals rather than private individuals and view physician conduct through the lens of their expectations about how an esteemed member of the community should behave.  Thus physicians must weigh the potential harms that may arise from presenting anything other than a professional presence on the Internet against the benefits of social interactions online.

It is this particular paragraph that have been used when creating criteria for "potentially unprofessional" things in papers that followed. One of them has a section like this:

Within the clearly unprofessional group, binge drinking, sexually suggestive photos, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act violations were the most commonly found variables. Examples of binge drinking included pictures of residents lining up 5 pints of beer in front of 1 dinner plate, doing “keg stands,”and making comments about being drunk or hungover. Examples of sexually suggestive photos included simulated oral sex, female residents in bikinis with hands pointing to their breasts, and a female resident simulating intercourse with a large cannon. Profanity was also encountered, as was a link to a racist cartoon.

Within the “potentially unprofessional” group, pictures of residents with alcoholic drinks in their hands were the most frequently encountered. There were also several polarizing political and religious comments made by residents, and 2 instances of residents holding a gun while hunting

We get a better picture (pun intended) here of what these papers are trying to hint. With that in the background let me talk about a couple of things from my professional life that I've thought quite a bit about.

Alcohol

Alcohol is a controversial topic among doctors (because many doctors consume alcohol). I do not consume alcohol. I actively dissuade people from consuming alcohol. You could call me anti-alcohol. I have certainly been influenced by Dr Dharav Shah's campaign against alcohol and his argument for why we should create a negative attitude towards alcohol (the way we have towards smoking) is convincing. And I consider it hypocritical for doctors to be consuming alcohol.

There are plenty of doctors who disagree. Some of them are of the opinion that social drinking is not a problem at all. They want to draw a line between alcoholism and social drinking and want to allow social drinking without it progressing to alcohol dependence.

There are some doctors who agree that alcohol is indeed dangerous, but do not agree with the idea that it is hypocritical for doctors to be consuming alcohol while asking their patients to abstain. This is a very important argument.

One part of the argument is that what doctors, as professionals, give out as advice in a professional setting is not applicable to doctors themselves. That I can talk to my patient about the importance of not eating rice excessively while still eating two full biriyanis a day. That professionals need not hold themselves to the standard that they're prescribing for their clients.

The other part of the argument is that what doctors do in their private lives should not be dictated by their profession. Superficially it makes sense. But does it stand scrutiny?

Firstly, does private life stay private? As we noted in the case of social media above, the notion of a private life that is wholly disconnected from public life is Utopian. What happens when something a doctor does in their private life becomes public?

Secondly, would you apply that logic when what the doctor does in their private life is something that you find morally reprehensible? Say the doctor in their private life engages in adultery, directing pornography, or working for BJP's IT cell (not that I find all of these morally reprehensible). Would you be comfortable saying "it is their private life?"

This leads to the other thing that I am constantly thinking about.

The impression that a doctor "should" make

How should a doctor appear in front of their patients?

The trouble starts from the first day of medical school. There is a certain way you're expected to be dressing. There is a "smart" appearance dictated by the higher-ups in the hierarchy which usually included (for me) shaved face, short hair well combed, clean new aprons, polished shoes, and so on.

It goes deeper. In "Be the Doctor Each Patient Needs", Hans Duvefelt tells this:

"Doctors are performers, not only when we perform procedures, but also when we deliver a diagnosis or some guidance."

The point Dr Duvefelt makes is about the therapeutic effect of a doctor-patient relationship. As a doctor, you need your patient to believe in you and in turn your advice. I talked about how this complicates everything about the doctor-patient relationship in my post about consultation fees.

The gist of the matter is that doctors might have to do things (like shaving their naturally growing beard) to appeal to the completely irrational gut-sense of their patients. Weird argument, right? I don't like it either.

I don't like it that I have to feign confidence in what I'm saying even when the field of medicine is not 100% sure about anything. I don't like it that the biases that patients make up based on the impression I leave influence their adherence to the treatment regimen I prescribe. But these are how humans think and act.

This is exactly why people dress well for an interview. Why politicians are careful about how they're being photographed. Why celebrities have a link with fashion. And why people put their degrees on their Twitter and LinkedIn handle.

I hate this world.

Unprofessional

Last day a patient messaged me. On SMS and on Telegram. My telegram bio includes pictures of me from a long time back and also a link to my telegram channel where I post links to my own blog posts. For some reason I responded to the patient on SMS although it was easier to talk on Telegram. I am not sure what to think about it. But at that moment I was not feeling comfortable with using Telegram to talk to a patient. The reason is that I blog mostly about technology. And multiple times in the past have people assumed I know very little medicine when they find out how much I know about technology. I don't want my patients to read my blogs.

That brings us back to professionalism. Professionalism is defined by society's sense of morality. And that is where bikini pictures appear potentially unprofessional and sexually suggestive images appear clearly unprofessional to some. The #MedBikini hashtag is either about stating that private lives of doctors should not matter to patients or about the idea that bikinis are not immoral, or both.

I think the entire post has been devoted to the point about whether we should worry about what patients think about us or not.

The morality of underwear pictures is something that deserves a detailed debate. I end with the following question. Are sexually suggestive images unprofessional? Why?

What to Make of Itolizumab?

It is the worst of times. Science is suffering an identity crisis. The world is in dire need of science. Science isn't used to being rushed. "It is a giant and slow churn", said a friend once, "and spews a breakthrough once in a while". Is it possible to make the process faster? That's what everyone is wondering. And praying. And waiting, eagerly. Science isn't used to getting this attention.

"Coronil is 100% effective", said Patanjali folks. "Favipiravir is 88% effective", said Glenmark folks. How to know the truth? Seeking truth has never been easy. Never has it been easy for journalists, scientists, or the common person. In some sciences there are multiple truths. Is medicine one of those sciences? Can there be a single truth in medicine?

I won't use words like epistemology and ontology in this post. (Because I still can't remember which is which). But the question is essentially two:

1. Is there a single truth?

2. Is there a way to know the truth?

I believe medicine is a dangerous subject because of these two questions. Biology is extremely contextual. A drug's effect on a person with any particular infection can be influenced by a thousand factors including - that person's biology, the day, where that person is, what that person is eating, what other medicines that person is taking, the virus that infected them, all the infections they've had in past, other diseases they currently have, the health of their body organs, and so on.

When there are so many things that keep changing, how do we know whether a drug is going to be useful for a person or not? Most of medicine today is an approximation. Many drugs are used because when given to n random people it worked better than it not being given. A gross measurement, if you allow me to call it. Put something in a balance and see which side is hanging lower.

Not that medicine is all guess work. He he. There are some theories. There are some "well-known" pathways. There are some molecules which we understand. There are some we don't. There are some drugs we know act on some molecules in some of these pathways. Sometimes we don't understand some parts of how a drug acts, but we fill in those gaps with the "random" trials as described above.

For example, let us take Paracetamol which is a drug commonly prescribed for fever. And the only drug that many people need during COVID (and Dengue, and many other viral fevers). We don't know how exactly it works. But we have a rough idea on the pathways that it affects. We also have very rich clinical experience in using the drug successfully for fever.

The reason why we don't rely a lot on theory in medicine is that we don't have a lot of theoretical understanding about the biology of our body. We do know a lot. But there are still so many known unknowns. And who knows how much unknown unknowns.

We know a bit about molecules called "interleukins". We seem to know about a molecule we call Interleukin 6. It seems to have a role in acute immune responses. It may very well make sense to somehow block IL-6 to decrease the damage that could be caused by what is called a cytokine storm (which, as it sounds, is a storm that wrecks havoc inside the body) in sick COVID patients.

We seem to know about a class of drugs called monoclonal antibodies. These are molecules (which can be natural or artificial) that target specific kind of molecules. There are some mAbs which seem to be able to target a type of cell called CD6 cells, including Itolizumab.

There seems to be some data that mAbs that act on CD6 can decrease the amount of IL-6.

Now, here is the deal. If Itolizumab can act on CD6 and decrease IL-6 and if IL-6 has a role to play in cytokine storm in COVID, then the inference could be drawn that Itolizumab can help sick COVID patients not die. That's the theory.

But the problem with medicine is that theory doesn't always work. And sometimes what presents as reasonable with our current understanding of the body sometimes becomes dangerous when we actually try it.

As for Itolizumab, Biocon seems to have given it to 20 patients with COVID and moderate to severe respiratory difficulty. And they all seem to have survived. Of the 10 they didn't give it to, three people apparently died. I'm sure they're doing this study on more people at the moment.

According to them this is "statistically significant". I don't have a very deep understanding of statistics. Here, let me do the math.

The way I read it is that based on that data we can be 95% sure that if someone with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS takes the drug their chance odds of survival is somewhere between 0.8802 fold to 415.9060 fold the chance odds of their survival without taking the drug.

Didn't I tell you this is the worst of times?

Update: Don't look at my math. That was not the point of this post. Also, my math sucks. Here is why:

At a sample size of 30, the power of this study is like 30% which means it is completely unreliable. I think. I don't know.

Update 2: As per this article, and as per my understanding of beta, if p-value is already acceptable, then it doesn't matter whether beta is high as all that power makes sure is that we don't miss the effect when there is an effect.

But then, am I confusing myself because in this study the effect of the drug is protective? I am 70% sure that the power of this study is not to be worried about.

Update 3: Maybe the contradiction is resolved if we consider this as a type S error.