On the fly prioritization is already happening. So what and what do we do?
If there was one thing I took away from the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) conference, it was the inevitable need for prioritization amid the sea of best practice guidelines, quality metrics, screenings and assessments… (In fact, one speaker found research that suggested that following all of these expectations would take 27 hours… each day…).
🔅 If we prioritize the needs of one patient, is there a risk to the needs of many? For example, would taking an extra 10 minutes with one patient negatively impact the health of the overall population?
🔅 If we prioritize the needs of many over the needs of few, does this utilitarian perspective conflict with our equity goals? For example, how do we decide between a screening tool that will support chronically at risk populations versus a screening tool that will support the majority without historical risk?
🔅 If we prioritize the needs of many of the needs of few, is this compatible with the consequences when something goes wrong? For example, if we learn of a delayed diagnosis of a rare disease due to a bespoke blood test not being ordered in a primary care visit 6 months earlier, who bears the consequences and is it just?
🔅 If we prioritize more proactive risk thresholds, do we inadvertently put others at risk? For example, if the threshold for risk of cardiovascular disease is lowered, and more people are then deemed at risk, where are these resources for their care coming from?
Overarchingly, prioritization is already happening on a provider to provider basis but there’s no coordinated strategy behind it. To steal the words of the speakers, “there is a need for a collective, conscious prioritization system”.
Though these questions still remain, some first steps forward were pitched:
🔅 Put data in the guidelines, policies and procedures to support collective decision making.
🔅 Specify how to collectively adjust based on risk in guidelines, policies and procedures.
🔅 Make the impact of our actions (e.g., unnecessary MRIs, antibiotic use, etc) visible other teams for a mutual social contract.
🔅 Expand safety investigations to consider all other factors that were being prioritized by the teams at the time of the safety event.
The questions still remain but what great food for thought from EGPRN! What would you add?
Here’s what I’m listening to: New Slang- The Shins
Research Software Engineer @ UML | Optimal control and system administration of CHO biomanufacturing
4moIf you're goal is just to look at the free offerings of both, then this comparison is reasonable (but it says more about their business decisions than their technical achievements). GPT4 has been able to generate and execute code for plotting from supplied data files for several months now, which would be a more interesting comparison. But maybe you're making a statement more about ingrained knowledge, and were hoping that "SPC chart" would generate an industry-specific format.