I loved this article about physicians who got so sick of devices that didn’t function well that they created their own—and got artistic enough about it that their work is landing in galleries as well as ERs.

Sure, we all like to talk about the new trend toward transparency in the corporate world, but when a company messes up, the old watch-your-back, cover-your-tush, and shift-the-blame-to-someone-else mindset tends to kick in. The bigger the mistake, the more the spinners spin, desperately looking for a way to turn a negative into a positive, or at least a neutral.

The corporate world in general could learn a lot from what some healthcare systems are doing. Like how Harvard Medical School’s major teaching hospitals are considering teaching their staff to immediately disclose and openly apologize for mistakes, and offer compensation for expenses related to the mistake.

But isn’t that just inviting trouble?

Not really–in fact, the results tend to be pretty good. For example, Colorado’s largest malpractice insurer, COPIC, started a disclosure-and-apology program in 2000. For doctors participating in the program, malpractice claims have dropped 50 percent, and settlement costs have gone down 23 percent over the past five years. Other healthcare systems have noted similar results when they instituted a disclosure policy.

Instead of living in a John Wayne’s world of “never apologize and never explain,” we now live more in a Dr. Phil, “How’s that working for you?” society, and hiding behind a legal and PR firewall hasn’t worked too well for companies on the hot seat recently. So why not consider apologizing from the heart and making amends–and getting it right the next time. If doctors—who by tradition, fear, and training are loath to fess up—can do it, anyone can. And everyone can benefit.

(I also posted a version of this over at the Fast Company BlogJam 2005, where there are some pretty interesting conversations going on.)

According to recently released reports from the National Hispanic Congress (2000), President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2002) and Surgeon General (1999), Latinos are one of the most under-served populations in terms of behavioral health services.

Now the Latino Behavioral Health Institute is looking to pick up the slack with its >11th annual international conference. According to a press release: “the event will address contemporary issues of policy, training, research, clinical practice and education related to Latino mental health, substance abuse, health and human services. Approximately 1,000 behavioral health professionals from the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico and South American countries are expected to attend.”

This makes me wonder what’s going on with the New Jersey law mandating cultural competency CME. Last time I check in about it, it was still undefined and unfunded. I wonder if going to something like this would count?

I received the following in response to my “bad apples” editorial in the July/August issue of Medical Meetings about the potential impact of clinical trial data suppression and manipulation on CME. I have his OK to print it here:

Take heart. The media does amplify anomalies and the politicians love to jump on the opportunity to create more laws that make clinical research more costly for everyone (including the consumer in the form of increased drug costs). I believe most companies do their best in research and clinical investigations and report the finding truthfully. For a small company to be caught doing otherwise is a fatal mistake.

Unfortunately, the aggressive marketing departments of some companies take early data and run with it, the company releases the product, and then 2-3 years later, the data no longer supports the initial claims (Vioxx, Celebrex, etc.). It is also true that some studies are poorly designed/conducted and have to be repeated to obtain data that are truly significant in supporting claims. Conflicts of interest is always a

potential problem, but clinical investigators that are recognized leaders in their field are usually suspicious of early data and insist on more data and longer trial periods, and sponsors seek out such investigators to get the best bang for their test dollar (center known for treatment of the particular disease and large patient population to obtain statistically significant data).

Tom L. Kelly, PE

Director of Engineering

EndoVascular Instruments, Inc.

Vancouver, WA